NARRATIVE OF LAW AND CRIME.

THE Sentences of the Recent Courts-Martial on
Lieutenant Perry, and Lieutenant Greer, of the 46th
regiment, as revised by the Commander in Chief, have
now been published. The sentence on Lieutenant
Perry was as follows:—"First Charge.—For having in a
certain letter, dated Windsor barracks, July 24, 1854,
and addressed to Colonel the Hon. A. Upton, president
of the court-martial, then and there assembled for the
trial of Lieutenant T. F. Greer, which bore the
signature of the prisoner, and was then and there
delivered to the said Colonel Upton, made the following
slanderous statement respecting his commanding-officer,
Lieutenant-Colonel Garrett: viz., 'That after repeated
acts of violence against myself (meaning the prisoner)
by the officers of the 46th (while the regiment was in
Dublin) in my bedroom, I reported the circumstance to
Colonel Garrett, who reproached me, and called me a
fool for my pains'—he (the said prisoner) then well
knowing that so much of the said statement as related
to Lieutenant-Colonel Garrett—viz., the words 'who
reproached me and called me a fool for my pains'—was
false."—"Acquitted."  "Second.—For having in the
said letter made the following further statement: 'I
then patiently submitted to a series of indignities, when
I complained to Major Maxwell, who represented the
facts to Colonel Garrett, upon which he gave the
offenders a reprimand. So weak was the effect of the
reprimand or caution given by Colonel Garrett, that,
though the acts of aggression were discontinued, I was
persecuted in other ways until I threatened to appeal to
the General of the District, and sent a letter to that
effect to Colonel Garrett; on it being known that I was
determined upon such a course I was earnestly entreated
by several of my brother officers to forbear making any
complaint. I did forbear, and from that time I was
relieved from any repetition of the annoyances and
indignities under which I had formerly laboured;'
he (the prisoner) then well knowing that so much
of the said statement with reference to Colonel Garrett
was false, and that he (the prisoner) had never made
any threat to Colonel Garrett, either by word of mouth
or in writing, that he would appeal to the General
of the District."—"Guilty." "Third.—For having on
the 21st of July, 1854, at Windsor, when examined as a
witness before the court-martial which was then and
there being held for the trial of Lieutenant Thomas
Fergus Greer, in reply to the following question: 'Will
you swear positively that Captain Nicholas did not
reprimand officers against whom you had made a
complaint to the commanding officer?'—made the following
answer: 'I have taken an oath already; Captain
Nicholas never, to my knowledge, censured anybody,
he himself (meaning Captain Nicholas) having ill-treated
others in joining'—he (the prisoner) then well knowing
that so much of the said answer as is comprised in the
following words—'he himself having ill-treated others
in joining, is false."—"Guilty." "Fourth.—That having
on the day and year aforesaid, and at the place aforesaid,
in a certain letter addressed and delivered by him (the
prisoner) to the Deputy-Judge Advocate officiating
at the trial of Lieutenant Thomas Fergus Greer, made
the following statement: 'Major Maxwell has stated
on oath that Captain Nicholas never ill-treated young
officers;' I could put questions to prove that he did,
and that he (meaning Captain Nicholas) aids and abets
nearly everything of the kind that takes place, he
(the prisoner) then well knowing that so much of the
said statement as imputed to Captain Nicholas, 'that he
ill-treated young officers, or aided and abetted others in
so doing' was false."—"Guilty."  The court-martial
it therefore appears acquitted Lieutenant Perry on the
first charge, and found him guilty on the second, third,
and fourth charges, but recommended him to mercy on
account of his youth and inexperience, and his having
acted under the ill-advice of his legal adviser. In
consequence of which, and also on the ground of the long
and meritorious services of the father of the prisoner,
the Commander-in-Chief, under the sanction of her
Majesty, in dismissing Lieutenant Perry from the
service, allows him to sell his commission.——SENTENCE
ON LIEUTENANT GREER.—This officer was tried upon a
charge of having been guilty of conduct unbecoming an
officer and a gentleman to the prejudice of good order
and military discipline in the following instances:—
"1. For having on or about the night of the 28th
or morning of the 29th of June last, wilfully struck and
offered other personal violence to Lieutenant Edward
James Perry, of the 46th regiment. 2. For having, at
the same time and place, used provoking, insulting, and
disgusting language to the said Lieutenant Perry,
calling him 'swindler,' 'blackguard,' and using other
language of an offensive and insulting nature."  In
this case the court in the first instance acquitted the
prisoner of the first charge, but found him guilty of the
second, with the exception of making use of the term
"swindler;" they therefore sentenced him to be severely
reprimanded, and further to be reduced on the list
of lieutenants of the 46th regiment, and be placed next
below Lieutenant N. Dunscombe. This sentence, being
represented to her Majesty as against the evidence
adduced, the court was ordered to re-assemble with
a view to the revision of the proceedings. The court
accordingly sat again, and "having carefully
re-considered the evidence that was brought before them
at the trial," begged most respectfully to adhere to their
former decision, but her Majesty was pleased not to
confirm nor approve the finding and sentence of the
court, and the General Commanding-in-Chief accordingly
submitted to the Queen the sense he entertained of
Lieutenant Greer's conduct throughout the transactions.
It was as follows:—As a witness before the first court-
martial which tried Lieutenant Perry, he repeatedly
declined to answer the questions put to him by the
prisoner, Lieutenant Perry, which were necessary for
the discovery of the truth, on the plea that he would
thereby criminate himself. When on his own trial,
it is clearly established by evidence then taken, that
Lieutenant Greer had applied the most disgusting
expressions to Lieutenant Perry. The evidence on the
preceding trial of Lieutenant Perry is also confirmatory
of these facts, and they admit of no reasonable doubt.
Such ungentlemanlike conduct is calculated to degrade
an officer in the eyes of his men, and to destroy his
power of maintaining discipline. A person who does
not shrink from the utterance of such disgraceful
language is unfit to preserve his position of social
equality in a regiment amongst his brother officers.
He cannot exchange into another regiment, for the
officers would refuse to receive him; and they would be
entitled so to do under her Majesty's regulations. The