THE SEDDOH-TAYLOR SLANDER CASE.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLVIII, Issue 8144, 16 December 1904, Page 3

THE SEDDOH-TAYLOR SLANDER CASE.

COURT PROCEEDINGS CONTINUED. GENERAL BABINGTON'S EVIDENCE.

[PRS3B ASSOCIATION.] CHRISTCHURCH, December 15. In the dander case A. Cohen stated that Taylor used the words court martial in his speech in the House. Menn Houston, Watts, and Fordham, contingenters, denied there was any disSlay of cowardice on plaintiff s part, and escribed the engagement similarly to previous witnesses. The witnesses unanimously expressed the opinion that Captain Seddon had handled his men well, and that from &nt to last there had been no galloping away as alBeveral witnesses swore positively that such a thing could not have happened, or they would have seen it. The witnesses included three who had been among the captured, and they stated that their capture was entirely due to their crmx misconception of the position. Captain Seddon was in no way to blame for the captures or deaths. A large number of troopers has yet to Mr Taylor will probably call Colonel 1 Captain Seddon's evidence will be taken to-morrow or Saturday, when the plaintiff's evidence is expected to close. • CHRISTCHURCH, Dec. IS. (The most interesting evidence to-day was that of General Babington, who was' called as an expert to give an opinion on the position as stated in Quintal's evidence taken on commission in Wellington. Dr Findlay put the following question to witness: tf li one hundred men were sent out to support a small body of twenty-six j scouts, who were deputed to bring in cattle supposed to be in the enemy's country, and a captain was in charge of the main body *na a lieutenant of the scouts, who would be in command?" General Babington said this would depend upon orders. In South Africa there was a good deal of co-operation. There would be practically no commanding officer unless thj> senior officer chose to take charge, himself had always adopted that system and taken command over a junior. In answer to further questions, witness said it was impossible for Seddon to command Lieutenant Dillon as soon as he got into the field; assuming that one hundred men were under the command of Seddon, and that this hundred men in the circumstances detailed were distant from the main column 14 miles; that a party of scouts were a mile and a half away, or two miles further away from the main column in advance of Seddon's body; that the scouts engage a number of Boers at least ioX) strong; that Seddon's body is only 100 strong, with the main column 14 miles off moving furthfr away; then witness would have tokF the scouts to retire. The troop wasNraly 130 men at most, and there were 200 against them. The more men sent on the more difficult it would be to get back. Asked if it was proper to order the scouts to retreat on the main body, witness replied that it would only be sacrificing more men to send the others on. A rearguard .action would be 1 .tie approved method of retiring to the spruit. In fighting a rearguard action the men nearest the enemy must be first 1 strong enough to hold them. One would not put more men there than one could help. In South Africa the average distance between the parties of a rearguard action— the rearguard, the supports. «"» the reserves— would be from 1000 to 1200 yards in open country. Witness would not like to commit himself as to the proper distance in this particular case, as he did not know the country. Consistent with the necessary support to the rearKuard, the greater the distance the better. The whole of the fighting feU on the supports, the near party and the flanks. It these lots were knocked about they would have to draw on the reserve and the main body. On coining across the spruit, as in this case, to occupy it and not leave it for the support to occupy, as far as he read the evidence of Quintal and Saxby, if that were true he did not really see, taking the ordinary conditions of open country in South Africa, what else could be done than was done on that day by Captain Seddon. In reply to a further question, witness stated that tha officer commanding the force should be with his reserve. It was most certainly his duty to be there, and neither with his supports nor his rear party. If Seddon was with the main body he was in his right place. Under the circumstances Captain Seddon did everything that could be expected of him, and in further support of uiis witness mentioned the extraordinarily little loss plaintiff had suffered in retiring A rearguard action was the most difficult thing in the world to fight. In reply to Mr Taylor, witness said that if, instead of about 120 men being engaged, there were only 42 opposed to 300 Boers, the action would be more creditable. He. was, however, taking the evidence of the officers as correct, and they said 120 men. The defendant said he would prove that only 42 were engaged on the occasion. Witness supposed that if Captain Saxby's evidence was full of errors, his (witness*) evidence would be quite different. In reply to Mr Taylor, witness said that, supposing Dillon had sent back asking the «upports, Captain Seddon would have to consider the matter from his own point of view, and not from Dillon's. The general principle was to sacrifice the smaller number for the oreater. If an officer thought that it was his duty to go back, and thought it better not to »end out more men to the advance, he should retire. Much depended upon the country. Defendant asked what position Captain Seddon would have occupied in regard to the scouts, supposing tha€ a regular rearguard action had been fought over five miles of country. Witness replied that the scouts would never pass the supports. Captain Seddon had three bodies-;the rear party, the supports, and the main body. The scouts would be stopped in their retreat by the first formed body they met. His Honor said that, as he understood the evidence, the scouts were in advance, and were recalled. This advance guard was sent out and. behind was Saxby's reserves and the main body. The defendant said his case was that Saxby's force was never engaged. He asked tnat, supposing he proved that the scouts had to fight Dack for two or three miles before getting into touch with any of their supports, and then met only eighteen men, and, that the whole of the rest of the force were removed three or four miles, would that be a proper movement! Witness said it would be, in view of the surrounding facts. Asked if he knew anything of their position, witness replied that tney lost only one man and that was close to the spruit. It was a very small loss in the circumstances. The Court then adjourned till the following day. , CHRISTCHURCH, Dec. 16. Sergeant Keddell, of the Seventh Contingent, said the retirement at Blesbok Spruit was mostly at a walk, and the statement that Captain Seddon and the whole of the main body galloped away was a lie. Nearly the whole morning was occupied in examination and cross-examination of Captain Seddon, who denied the allegations of defendant. Witness detailed hia previous military experience before joining the 4th contingent.