IC. lG,
-Pr \.;,,LJ 1..,::, _.,,
Judge Advocate General's Department
BOARD OF REVIE'i/
Holdings, Opinions and Reviews
Volume IV
including
CM 199315 to CM 200704
(1932-1933)
Office of The Judge Advocate General
Washington: 1944
0 945
CONI'ENTS OF VOUJME rJ
. ....... --..~: ..-.'f.; ' ....... CU No. Accused Date Page
199315 I.zynch 22 Oct 1932 1 199337 Hunt 29 Sep 1932 31 199369 Davis 15 Nov 1932 37 199391 Klima 6 Oct 1932 45 199440 Campbell 24 Oct 1932 47 199463 furris 25 Oct 1932 77 199465 Lichtenl:erger 21 Jan 1933 81 199641 Davis 2 Dec 1932 145 199672 Southern 2 tee 1932 153 199690 Lee 5 Dec 1932 157
199737 Taft 16 Dec 1932 163 199811 Madison 9 Feb 1933 167 199838 Fried.man 14 Feb 1933 171
199858 Richards 13 Jan 1933 179 199918 Safford 27 Mar 1933 183 199969 Harris 4 Feb 1933 205 199970 Thompson 6 Feb 1933 209 200025 Johnston 18 Apr 1933 211
200161 Irving, Morris 5 Sep 1933 239 20020'7 Freeborn 26 Apr 1933 253
200248 Briggs 7 Jun 1933 277 200289 Pitkoff 5 Jun 1933 293
200419 Hanes 24 Jul 1933 313 200436 Presnell 26 Jun 1933 321 200472 Hoebeke 26 Jun 1933 333 200498 Clayborne 15 Jul 1933 339
199786 Kingston 22 rec 1932 161
199841 Miotke 13 I:ar 1933 173
200047 Plants, Giceaut 10 Uar 1933 233
200231 Ross 26 tray 1933 263
200320 Schoenoorger 5 !lay 1933 301 200375 Davis 29 !.!ay 1933 303 20040'7 Boozer 29 1!ay 1933 309
200499 W'illmett 30 J,m 1933 341
I C11 No. Accused
200520 Tompkins 200589 Reed 200601 Rowland 200627 Uurray 200633 ~hittington 20Q671 Cook 200681 Keefe 20C!704 Townsend
Date Page-7 Jul 1933 345
29 Jul 1933 347 29 Jul 1933 351 29 Jul 1933 355 24 Jul 1933 365 17 Aug 1933 ')67 17 Aug 1933 371 25 Aug 1933 375
(1)
WAR DEP.A.R'l'ME:NT In the Off'ice of The Judge Advocate General.
Washington, D.C.
OCT 2 2 1!132
UNITED STATES ) PHILIPPINE DEPAR'l'Mtm ) .... ) Trial by G.C.M., convened at Fort
Second Lieutenant CHA.RL:ES ) )
Santiago, Manila, P.I., July 20-21. 1932. Dismissal.
A. LYNCH (0-17773), Coast ) Artillery Corps. )
OPmION of the BOARD OF REVIEW McNEIL, BIIBNruN end GUERIN, J\ldge Advocates
ORIGINAL. EXAMINATION by WOOLWORTH, Judge Advocate.
l. The Board ofReview has examined the record of trial in the case of the officer named above end submits this, its opinion, to The Judge Advocate General.
2. The accused was tried upon the following charges and specifications:
CHARGE Is Violation of' the 95th Article of' War.
Specitica.tion 1: In that Second Lieutenant Charles A. Lynch, Coast Artillery Corps, did, at Lbnila, P. I., on or about June 18, 1932, assault Mrs. Frederick A. Ward, by unlawtully throwing the contents of a glass containing liquor upon her, the said Mrs. Frederick A. Ward.
Specification 2: In that second Lieutenant Charles A. Lynch, Coast Artillery Corps, did, at Manila, P. I., on or about June 18, 19321 treacherously and without provoca~ion, strike with bis fist and knock down, Major William B. Duty, Philippine Scouts.
Specification 3: In that Second Lieutenant Charl-es A. Lynch, Coast Artillery Corps, did, at Manila, P. I., on or about J\Ule 18, 1932, treacherously
(2)
and without provocation, strike with his fist and knock down, Second Lieutenant Frederick L. Anderson, Air Corps.
CHARGE II: Violation of the 96th Article of War.
Specification l: In that Second Lieutenant Charles A. Lynch, Coast Artillery Corps, was, at Manila, P. I., on or about June 18, 1932, drunk and disorderly.
Specification 2, (Finding of not guilty.)
Upon arraignment the accused entered a special plea as to Specification 2, Charge I, his counsel stating it as follows:
"It is clear they intended to charge a simple assault in the second specification as in the first one. It was all right in the first specification and they used the words that should go with a simple assault charge. They make a departure tram the regular fo:rm in the second specification, putting in words that make his act very vague. He is entitled to know the form of the charge against him. If it is simple assault, why not charge it as such? The accused suggests that the specification be amended."
The same plea was entered in regard to Specification 3 of Charge I. The court overruled the plea as to each specification. The accused then pleaded not guilty to all specifications and Charges. He was found not guilty of Specification 2, Charge II (false sworn statement to an Inspector General.), but guilty or all other Sl)eoifi cations and charges. No evidence of previous convictions was introduced. He 1'8.a sentenced to be dismissed the service. The reviewing authority approved the sentence, and forwarded the record of trial for acticn under the 48th Article of War.
3. The special pleas entered by the accused were properly overruled. The specifications clearly and precisely state military offenses, the~e is no apparent error in names, dates, places, etc., nor other obvious error, and the court, therefore, would not hav~
-2-
(3)
been justified in amending the specifications.
4. Such evidence as relates only to Specification 2 of Charge II, of which the accused was found not guilty, will not be considered in this opinion.
5. In order to obtain a picture of the situation which brought about the trial of the accused, it should be stated that the undisputed eVidence discloses that the accused arrived at Manila, Philippine Islands, on the 17th of June, 1932, on the transport from Hawaii; that the later hours or that day constituted what was known as "Transport Night" at the A:rmy and Navy Club in Manila; and that the o!fenses are alleged to have taken place there in the early hours of the morning or June 18, 1932.
Evidence as to Specification 1, Charge I.
Major William B. Duty, Philippine Scouts (Air Corps), testified that about 1':00 or 1:30 o'clock on the morning of June 18, 1932, he and Captain Doherty, Air Corps, Captain Ward, Philippine Scouts, Mrs. Ward, and Mrs. Witman were sitting around a "chow bench" in a corridor of the Army and Navy Club at Manila, occupying a settee and chairs around the bench (R. 8). Witness and Captain Doherty had joined the others about twenty minutes before accused appeared (R. 12). Captain Ward, Mrs. \71 tman and Mrs. V:ard were seated on the settee (R. 9) and witness and Captain Doherty in chairs on the other side of the chow bench. The accused entered the room and came up to the party and then eat down on the arm of the settee for a minute or so, finally taking a seat on the settee to the left of Captain .Ward. Almost immediately thereafter Captain Ward brushed some cigarette ashes from his clothing, but witness did not know Whether the ashes were from Captain Ward's cigarette or from a cigarette of the accused, although he did not remember seeing accused with a cigarette (R. 9). About this time accused nudged Captain Ward With his elbow, whereupon Captain Ward stood up and made a remark to the effect that "there isn't room enough for both of us here. I will move over to another seat", which he did, passing to the rear of Captain Doherty and witness and occupying a chair at the opposite end of the chow bench from accused. Almost immediately after Captain Ward had seated himself, accused picked up a glass
-3-
(4)
halt tull ot "Captain Ward's drink" and threw it in the direction ot Captain and Mrs. Ward, most of the contents falling on Iv.i.rs. Ward (R. 10) .All the m~bers of the party were sober, but, in the opinion ot witness, the accused was drunk, as he staggered and had all the appearances ot being drunk. Witneas thought accused was probably so intoxicated that he did not know what he was doing {R. 11,18). Witness and Captain Doherty at the time of the occurrence had ordered one drink and consumed about halt of it when accused came up {R. 12). Witness did not know at the time that relations between Captain Ward and accused were strained when the to:cner left the settee, as witness and Captain Doherty were discussing the recent arrivals on the transport and were not paying particular attention to what was going on (R. 9,13-15). He did not know at whom accused threw the drink but stated it could have been either at Captain Jl'ard or Mrs. Ward. Most of the liquid tell on Mrs. Ward (R. 15). Witness did not hear any profanity or cv.rsing, nor did he hear Captain Ward use the expression God damn" toward the accused or call him a "bastard", but he did notice that accused appeared to be angry after Captain Ward moved trom his position on the settee and occupied the vacant chair at the end ot the bench. Accused s attitude changed and he looked toward Captain Ward 111.th a sort ot a scowl on his face {R. 15,17). All ot the officers present were in civilian clothing (R. 18).
Captain Frederick A. Ward, Philippine Scouts (Q.uartermaster Corps), testified that he was a member of the party described by Major Duty, that between 1:00 and 1:30 the accused came in and stood in front of the party and then sat down on the a:cn of the couch next to witness, and that in sitting down accused fell against witness and ISl)illed some cigarette ashes on his coat. Witness thereupon said to accused: "Look what you are doing", or something to that effect, whereupon accused arose and then sat down again and pushed against w1 tness w1 th his elbow. Witness moved slightly over on the couch and accused crowded in beside him and continued to push him, whereupon witness said: ".A.pparently there isn't room for both of us on this couch" and arose and moved around the chow bench and sat in a chair some distance away. Within a few seconds
