Trial of No 10495 Pte A Ingham 18th Service Bn Manchester Regt attd. 90th Coy Machine Gun Corps
1st Witness:- No. 7300 CSM J.T Manterfield 90th Machine Gun Company sworn states. At Buire on 5th Oct 1916 about 8.30pm I called the roll of the Coy and the accused was present. At about 6.30am on the 6th Oct 1916 I again called the roll, the accused (before the court) was absent. The Coy was under orders to proceed into the line at the time. He was reported as an absentee on 7th Oct to 90th Bde and to the 18th Bn Manchester Regt.
Cross-examined:- I did not personally call the roll on 5th Oct. The system is the Section Sergeants call the roll & report present or otherwise. The accused was reported present. I called the roll personally about 6.30am on the 6th Oct and the accused was absent. The orders were given
out to the company that we were under two hours notice to proceed to the line about two days previously. The Company did not actually move into the line from Buire, it actually went into the line on 10th Oct.
Examined by the Court:- I was into my Unit from 6th Oct to 1st Nov, the accused did not return to it. When the company was ?issued? forward into the line, the company was on parade only for drill under Section Officers and NCOs. They had already been previously issued with the orders by Captain Stewart, 90th Machine Gun Company to the same effect. The accused was present when the Company was warned. Cross examined:- The orders were not actually read out but they were given out verbally.
Second witness:- No, 10484 Corpl. G. Delaney, 18th Bn Manchester Regt. Sworn states. At Dieppe about 9.30am on 5th Nov 1916 whilst on escort duty for my battn I took over the accused from the Military Police. I found the accused dressed in civilian clothes.
Examined by the court.
Not Cross Examined.
Third witness:- No 1717 Sergt, H Emment RAMC attd Intelligence Corps, Dieppe Base. About 9.30 am on 1st Nov 1916 I was on duty visiting shipping at the port and I visited the Swedish vessel Bellville. I there saw the accused and knowing that he was not one of the original crew I questioned
him as to his identity. He said I am an American. I left America about eleven months ago. He refused to answer any further questions. Not being satisfied I took him to the intelligence office & further questioned him, he said my name is Sam Bostock , I am an American citizen & I refuse to give you any particulars about myself. About 3.15 pm the same day I again saw the accused. I said to him I want to question you again, Ingham. He said Alright I’ll tell you all about it. My name is Ingham & belong to the Manchester Pals Battalion
being attached to a Machine Gun Corps. Having lost most of my comrades, I decided to clear out with Longshaw. Then at Buire about 10.30pm on 5th or 6th Oct we left our billets & struck for the coast. We hid by day & travelled by night. We purchased the clothes we bear at a village & arrived at Dieppe about a week ago. Since then we have been working on the ships. No one on board knew who we were (or words to that effect). He was then handed over to the military police. This statement was taken by me & signed by the accused. Further accused said “We found some old coats & caps on the ship, which we wore, throwing the uniforms into the dock” – or word to that effect. Examined by the court. Special observation was being kept ?on? this ship. Not cross examined.
Defence:- Accused does not want to call witnesses Accused states, not on oath:- I was worrying at the time through the loss of my chums. Also about my mother at home, being upset, through learning bad news of two of my comrades. I plead for leniency on account of my service in France of twelve months and previous good conduct. I beg for a chance to make atonement. I left with my chum firstly to see those at home and then to try and get into the Navy along with his other brother who is serving there. Proceeding Conviction 2 Lt H Sedgwick 18th Manchester Regiment prosecutor sworn states