THE PUNISHMENT OF FALSE WITNESS.
[To THE EDITOR or THE " sprcraT01i."1 Sin,—In your article on "False Witness" in the Spec- tator of March 18th, you urge the advantage of giving a Judge the power of summarily punishing a false witness as a check on perjury. You may not be aware that such power is possessed, and frequently exercised, by Naval Courts-Martial, and I forward you an extract from the "Return of Naval Courts-Martial" for December, 1892, giving a case in point. The prisoner was a private in the Royal Marines.
"Charge.—Striking his superior officer, being in the execution of his office.
Bentence.—Charge proved. Prisoner adjudged to be imprisoned with hard labour for fifteen calendar months, and at the expire,- tion thereof to be dismissed her Majesty's Service. Witnesses George H. Davies, ordinary seaman, and William Flannigan, able seaman, were each awarded throe months' im- prisonment with hard labour for prevaricating in their evidence."
There is much talk of reforming Courts-Martial, but it is well to point out that there are practical points in which Court-Martial procedure is in advance of that of the Civil
Previous page
