prisoner with regard to a portion of Private Meara's evidence on Corporal Chambers's trial, relative to the alleged meeting. Meara did not mention the prisoner as having been present at the alleged meeting, when giving evidence at Chambers's trial: but on the present one he swore that he was present.
In reply to the Prosecutor:
Deputy Judge Advocate said he could not state whether the meeting of which Meara had deposed at Chambers's trial was the same mentioned on this.
Prisoner. I would wish to ask the Deputy Judge Advocate a question which arises out of his answer: Did you not hear Private Meara asked on my trial to name the persons he had met at the meeting which he deposed to at Corporal Chambers's trial, and did he not do so?
Deputy Judge Advocate. I did hear that evidence given; I did hear him state the names.
Adjutant Russell, Tenth Hussars, in answer to prisoner, said: He (prisoner) was put under arrest on the 14th of February. The prisoner was in hospital for several days in February, from 19th to 26th.
President. I do not wish to interrupt the prisoner, but I wish to point out that these dates are all subsequent to the charge.
At this point court adjourned to eleven o'clock Monday morning.
At the reopening of the court, Capt. Whelan (the prosecutor) proceeded to answer the defense of the prisoner. His reply entered elaborately into the whole evidence that had been given, and commented on the various points raised for the defense. Capt. Whelan defended strongly the various witnesses from the charge brought against them by the prisoner, of being informers, and insisted that they were all trustworthy and credible, and that the discrepancies pointed out in the defense were such as would naturally arise.
The Deputy Judge Advocate then proceeded to sum up the whole evidence. In doing so, he said:
The court should bear in mind that the existence of an intended mutiny should be proved before the prisoner should be found guilty of the charges upon which he was arraigned. The court should also bear in mind that it was for it to prove charges and not for the prisoner to disprove them. To experienced officers, like those composing the court, it was not necessary for him (the Judge-Advocate) to state what the law was, bearing on those charges. He might say, however, that if the prisoner did come to the knowledge of an intended mutiny, it would be for them to say whether the prisoner had given notice of any such intended mutiny to his commanding officer. This, his commanding officers state, he did not do; so that it became the subject of inquiry whether any such mutiny was intended. They had the evidence of
