NAVY TRIALS

Wairarapa Age, 7 April 1928, Page 7

NAVY TRIALS

HEARING OF CAPT. DEWAR’S CASE. ADMIRAL COLLARD IN THE BOX. PROTEST BY ACCUSED. LONDON, April 4. At the opening of tlte trial of Captain Dewar, the Prosecutor, Rear-Admiral Boyle, objected to the inclusion in the Court’s personnel of Rear-Admiral Meade, who participated in the preliminary inquiry, and also Rear-Admiral Tomkinson, who had seen the preliminary papers. The Court upheld the objection, and replaced them by Captains Monroe and Bedford. The Court also upheld the Prosecutor’s objection to Admiral Collard’s presence, because he was a witness. Captain Dewar often smiled while the famops letter was being read. He pleaded not guilty to the charge in connection with accepting and forwarding Commander Daniel’s letter to a senior officer. The accused is conducting his own defence, with Mr. Kimbell as his advisory “friend.” The first witness was Paymaster-Lieutenant-Commander Crichton, the captain’s secretary on the Royal Oak. Cross-examining the witness, accused asked: “Did you think me the sort of person to lose my temper with the admiral ? ’ ’ Witness: “Never.” “Did you see evidence of indignation in the wardroom as the result of the incidents described in my letter?” “Yes, certainly.” The Prosecutor: “It was apparent to you that Admiral Collard and the captain were at loggerheads?”—“Yes.” THE: ADMIRAL’S EVIDENCE. The next witness was Admiral Collard. He said that his relations with Captain Dewar were perfectly correct from the service viewpoint, but not intimate. He found it impossible to make friends with Captain Dewar, although he attempted it. The Prosectuor: “Did you place implicit confidence in Captain Dewar?” Witness: “I can’t say that I did.” When the Prosecutor objected to Captain Dewar quoting from Commander Daniel’s letter, Captain Dewar produced a letter from the Admiralty stating that they were sending Admiral Collard to Gibraltar to enable the defence to elicit the necessary facts. The Court considered the Admiralty letter privately, and announced that it would admit the evidence, provided that references to third parties were kept out. “FED UP WITH DEWAR.” Admiral Collard said that the Admiralty proposed Captain Dewar as flagcaptpin. He did not know Captain Dewar previously, but. raised no objection He admitted saying that he was fed up with Dewar,” because he did not reach his idea of what a flag-cap-tain should be. He should be the admiral s Tight-hand man on every occasion.

The only serious complaints, he said, were the dance and ladder incidents, but he was often forbearing, hoping to complete the year’s appointment without a breach. Despite the evidence at the previous trial, Admiral Collard insisted that ho aid not call the bandmaster a . He stud he would be surprised to learn that live bandsmen were prepared to swear that they heard the word used. Captain Dewar said: “Imagine yourself a bandmaster— would you not bo discoura/d?” Admiral Collard: “I really cannot imagine myself a bandsmastcr. ” Witness denied threatening the chaplain with court-martial for accusing him-on that point, but said he had pointed out to the chaplain that it was a most serious thing to accuse him falsely. He did not remember tcllinothe chaplain that a severe term of imprisonment was given to people falsely Reusing a flag officer. He had congratulated Commander Daniel on his i aet , f .“, lncs ? se , ttliD 8 incident, but out d nf thank , him for getting him out ot a “damned nasty hole.” CAPTAIN DEWAR’S PROTEST Captain Dewar: “If you had been captain, trying to make the ship efficia°ed?” Uld y ° U DOt haVC been discour ’ toW d rt« al A?”“ r i d: 7‘ No - 1 Should ha ™ to!d the Admiral that I wished to. go to another ship.’’ ° “Would i|t the omission to return' the captam s salute affect discipline?” j. Witness: Emphatically not. The discipline of a good ship does not de pend on such trivial rubbish ” plinrf” at U y ° Ur defin!tion «f disciWitness; “My present interpretation laid d’own.” aS the Court has Captain Dewar: “I respectfully submit that my protest be entered in tho minutes against the limitations placed on my cross-examination.” P The Prosecutor objected to Captain Dewar referring to the interview with Admiral Collard, because the conversation was privileged. The President said that he had given Kde h e ,: a h the greatest P'S latitude, but he was not nrenared +n let this go further. Prepared to Captain Dewar again asked that his protest should be recorded. Admiral Collard agreed that the Cantain was justified in reporting incidents prejudicial to discipline, but ho should nl»° r t thCm y Tball y- A written commotT t a was ° nly -l ustifl ed when all other methods were exhausted nearly a collision. -tie denied telling the Court of Tn quiry at Malta that Captafn DeJaj had been disloyal from the moment he joined the Royal Oak . i L , tat he *0 the C ° Urt of Captain Dewar nearly caused 7oniv, had the utmost diffienltv . 0 the Ramillies in time / Opp,n S tain would have t"ld mg in the ships in the wrong order I ™ l SaUl hc felt he " ad "een Co?Sd ai “ic?nZt r e aSke , ,J - Why Admiral « , • ? not com plained before fi' r v Coll - ar - d: " T th °’W further fault finding injudicious ” Wo

he considered an Admiral could take charge anywhere he thought fit. lhe case for the prosecution then The Mastor-at-Arms gave evidence ot a rumour m the mess decks that Admiral Collard told Captain Dewar ho was no more use than a blanky midshipman —(Australian Press Association.—United Service.)