Lt. Francis Misson Leader
Julian Putkowski
Family Background
From 1901 Census
Leader lived with his grandmother Frances B. Leader (59) born St. Clements, Cambridge, a widow, residing at 31 St Clements Hill, Norwich. The household also contains his two (both unmarried) uncles: Alan E. Leader (38) a land agent’s clerk, born Winterton, Lincs) and Frank H. Leader (34) a solicitor’s clerk ,born Birkenhead, Cheshire, and his (unmarried) aunt Amy Ethel Leader (29), born in Norwich. Francis Misson Leader is entered as grandson, aged 7, born in Norwich.
Francis’ father, Frederick Leader , born circa 1865 in Stamford, Lincolnshire and Frances Phillis Leader (nee Rotherham,) (30),a school teacher who had been born in 1872 in the village of Hethersett, Norfolk. . residing at the (Chemical) Manure Works, where Frederick is employed as a Clerk. Their other two children are: Phyllis Margaret. Leader (b. 1896) and Charles Frederick. Leader (b. 1898).
Candian Expitionary Force Attestation documents (online): Resident in Saskatoon, Law Student, unmarried, born 6.1.1891, New Catton, Norwich, UK. Next of Kin: Frances Phyllis Leader (mother), resident: Haddiscoe, Gt. Yarmouth, England. Previous military service: x3 years King’s Own Norfolk Regiment. Enlists Saskatoon Regt., 26.10.1914. Medical notes indicate: 23 years & 9 months, 36 inch chest & 2 ½ expansion; fair complexion; grey eyes; light hair; mole on right shoulder, Church of England
Re-enlists 20.7.15 as a Lieutenant, 65 Overseas Bn. [endorsed by Acting O.C.,105 Regt. (Saskatoon Fusiliers)]. Occupation altered to Accountant, still resident: Saskatoon. Married: Wife: Mrs Sarah Leader (Frances Phyllis Leader is crossed out – died circa early 1915?). Previous service: x2 years Norfolk Yeomanry
Age: Discrepancy between birth date and attestation, poss. Due to age of majority (21) – useful for the purposes of employment as a professional? Signing legal documents, let alone better pay – and for getting married?
--------------
From comments in Proceedings:
3 years experience with Officers’ Training Corps Schools in UK
3 years with Norfolk Imperial Yeomanry
4 years Canadian Militia (105 Regt. Saskatoon Fusiliers)
Joins 28 Bn Winnipeg but after 2 months Leader is medically discharged.
Went back to Saskatoon & gained a commission in 105 Regt.
Leader is designated 65 Bn CEF Signalling Officer
End of June 1916 arrives in UK ex Canada. Posted to 72 Bn. CEF
August 1916 returns to 72 Bn. from leave. Fails to attend battalion parades – Leader tells Adjutant that he’s unwell and has been staying with his wife. OC 12 Brigade The 12 Brigade commander (Brigadier General L.G.F.M. Lord Brooke – MacBrien takes over on 20 September 1916) is told by Leader his Canadian militia experience was confined to signalling and that he was suffering from an (unspecified) disability. Noted by Bn. M.O. that Leader was ‘not robust or strong’.
Circa 1 October 1916 Leader sent overseas to join 72 Bn. at Warloy.
After arriving at Tara Hill, Lt. Leader as assigned command of a working party but subsequently rejoins battalion.
O.C. Bn. : “On or about October 10th, he came to me and asked me not to send him on working parties as he could not stand shell fire and was afraid of disgracing himself and the Battalion. I then told him to see the Medical Officer. He later reported to me that he had applied for a Medical Board, and was placing the accused on Light Duty.”
When Leader ‘wifully disobeys’, the battalion is at Tara Hill trenches, near Bouzincourt.
Death Sentence commuted to 10 years Penal Servitude by F-M Haig.
PCOM 6: Released from Portland Jail: Sentence Suspended 14.12.18
Lieutenant Francis Misson LEADER 72 Infantry Battalion CEF 332-122-50 / No. 311
GCM: Lealvillers, 29 November 1916
Francis Misson Leader
By War Office letter No. 121/L/1288 (A.G.3.). dated 14th December 1918, the Army Council remitted as from the 18th December 1918 the portion of the term of penal servitude then unexpired.
(signature: A.M. Henderson-Scott) Lieut-Colonel
Assistant Adjutant General
War Office
London S.W.1
23rd December 1918
---------
Confidential / A.G. 2d 8-L-150 [c]
MEMORANDUM
Ex-Lieut. F.M. Leader, 72nd Bn.
The following facts appear from a perusal of the attached documents:
1. This ex-officer was tried by a General Court Martial at Lealvillers, France on the 24th November 1916.
2. The court was convened by Major General Sir David Watson, C.B., G.O.C., 4th Canadian Div.
3. The following officers, all Canadians, composed the court:
President:
Br. Gen. V.W. Odlum D.S.O., Commanding 11th Can. Inf. Bde.
Members:
Lt. Col. A.H.G. Kemball CB. Commanding 54th Can. Battalion
Lt. Col. C.M. Edwards Commanding 38th Can. Battalion
Lt. Col. Jas Kirkcaldy Commanding 78th Can. Battalion
Major C.C. Harbottle 67th Can. Battalion (Pioneers)
Major T.C. Irving, D.S.O., C.E. A/C.R.E., 4th Can. Div.
4. The accused was defended by Counsel.
5. He was charged under section 9, (1) of the Army Act, with “disobeying, in such a manner as to show wilful defiance of authority, a lawful command given personally by his superior officer in the execution of his office”. He was also charged with the alternative under section 9, (2) of the Army Act with “while on active service, disobeying a lawful command given by his superior officer.” The accused was found guilty of the first charge, but not guilty of the second, and sentenced to suffer death by being shot.
6. The offence was committed on 11th November 1916.
7. The prosecution proved beyond any doubt that the accused had been ordered on the 11th November 1916, both by his Company commander, and the officer commanding his battalion, to parade with his company for the trenches, but, having stated that he understood the consequences of the disobedience of such an order did not parade. There is no doubt from the evidence that he deliberately disobeyed the order. Nor did he give any reasons or excuses for refusing to obey the order.
8. The accused did not give evidence himself, nor did he call witnesses on his own behalf but made a verbal statement not under oath (see proceedings, page 37)
9. From this statement and by the cross-examination of the witnesses for the prosecution, it would appear that his defence was that he was not physically fit, having been put on light duty by the medical officer on the 19th October previously. The Medical Officer states that when he saw the accused on the 19th October he was “then unfit for continued active service in the line”. The medical officer made an application for a board, which, however, was not held. The medical officer did not see the accused professionally again from the 19th October to the 11th November, but although he saw him several times on the morning of the 11th November, the accused did not consult him. (see Proceedings, page 29)
10. On the other hand, Col. H.A. Chisholm, the A.D.M.S., 4th Division, examined the accused on the 12th November – the day after the offence was committed – and in his opinion “the accused was fit for duty in the trenches. (See Proceedings, Page 33)
11. Sir David Watson, the convening officer, in forwarding the Proceedings of the court to te G.O.C., Second Corps, stated: “It is my opinion that the verdict rendered is in accordance with the evidence given. Further I am of the opinion that the Medical Officer of the 72nd Battalion should have taken proper steps that the Medical Board application should have been forwarded to the ADMS, who does not state having received same. This point, however, does not warrant the accused to deliberately disregard and order given personally by his commanding officer. I recommend that the sentence of ‘Extreme Penalty’ be carried out”. (Flag A).
12. The G.O.C. Canadian Corps, in forwarding the proceedings to the Army stated: “I recommend that sentence of the court be carried out.” (Flag B).
13. The G.O.C., 1st Army, in forwarding to the A.G., at General Headquarters stated: “I recommend that the sentence of the court be put into execution for the reason that the defiance of the order was wilful and deliberate and no attempt was made by the officer to explain to his commanding officer that he considered himself to be still on ‘Light Duty’ as a reason for objecting to comply with the order”. (Flag C).
14. The A.G., General Headquarters, required further information (see latter flagged D), This information is furnished by the G.O.C., 4th Canadian Division (see latter flagged E).
15. The GOC, First Army, in returning the Proceedings to the A.G. General Headquarters, stated: “After a very careful study” of the evidence, I form the following conclusions:
(a) Lieut. Leader understood what he was doing and the probable consequences of his action:
(b) There is justification for the assumption that the refusal was due to cowardice:
(c) There are grounds for some slight doubt regarding his mental balance.
In my opinion, this doubt, slight as it is, turns the scale, and I do not recommend the extreme penalty The offence, however, more especially in the case of an officer, is very serious and calls for exemplary punishment. I consider that a long term of Penal Servitude should be imposed”. (Flag G).
16. The Field Marshal in Chief, Sir Douglas Haig, confirmed the finding and sentence, but commuted the sentence of death to that of being cashiered and to suffer penal servitude for ten years.
17. These Proceedings have been carefully examined by the officers above mentioned and their legality passed upon by the Deputy Judge Advocate General, London, and the sentence as commuted was confirmed by His Majesty the King.
Argyll House, W.1.
11th June 1918
ENA/HRP
----------
Proceedings of a General Court Martial held at LEALVILLERS, FRANCE on the 29th day of November 1916 by order of Major General D.WATSON, C.B., commanding 4th Canadian Division dated 24th day of November 1916
PRESIDENT
Brigadier General V.W. ODLUM, D.S.O., Commanding 11th Canadian Infantry Brigade is appointed President.
MEMBERS
Lieut-Colonel A.H.G. KEMBALL, C.B. Commanding 54th Canadian Battalion
Lieut-Colonel C.M. EDWARDS Commanding 38th Canadian Battalion
Lieut-Colonel James KIRKCALDY Commanding 78th Canadian Battalion
Major O.C. HARBOTTLE 67th Canadian Battalion (Pioneers)
Major T.C. IRVING, D.S.O., C.E. A, C.R.E., 4th Canadian Division
Lieut. J.S. GRIFFITH-JONES, Judge Advocate
10th Bn. South Wales Borderers
Trial of Lieutenant F.M. LEADER, 72nd Canadian Battalion
At 10 a.m. the Trial commences:
(1) The order convening the Court is read, and is marked, signed by the president, and attached to the proceedings. The charge sheet and the summary of evidence are laid before the Court. The courts satisfy themselves as provided by the Rules of Procedure 22 & 23.
(2) Lieut. A.P. FOSTER, 72nd Canadian Battalion appears as prosecutor and takes his place. The above
Named, the accused is brought before the Court. Captain A. Leighton, 12 Canadian T.M. Battery appears as counsel for the accused.
The names of the prersident and members of the Court are read over in the hearing of the accused, and they severally answer to their names.
1 Q: Do you object to being tried by me as president, or by any of the officers whose names you have heard read over?
1 A: No.
--------
Page 1
The president, members, and judge advocate are duly sworn
The charge sheet is signed by the president, marked B2 and annexed to the proceedings
The accused is arraigned on each charge in the above-mentioned charge sheet.
2 Q: Are you guilty or not guilty of the [first] charge against you, which you have heard read?
2 A: Not Guilty
3 Q: Are you guilty or not guilty of the second (alternative) charge against you, which you have heard read?
3 A: Not Guilty
--------
Page 2
CHARGE SHEET
The ACCUSED, Lieutenant FRANCIS MISSON LEADER, 72nd CANADIAN INFANTRY BATTALION, CANADIAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCE, an Officer of the REGULAR FORCES and doing duty in the Field, is charged with –
SECTION 9 (1) Army Act DISOBEYING IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO SHOW WILFUL DEFIANCE OF AUTHORITY, A LAWFUL COMMAND GIVEN PERSONALLY BY HIS SUPERIOR OFFICER IN THE EXECUTION OF HIS OFFICE,
In that he,
In the Field on the 11th day of November, 1916, when ordered personally by Lieut-Colonel J.A. CLARK, Commanding 72nd. Canadian Infantry Battalion, to parade with his company at 2.30 p.m. on the 11th day of November, 1916, for the trenches, having stated that he understood the consequences of the disobedience of such an order, but that he did not think that he would be on parade, did not parade.
Alternative Charge: SECTION 9 (2) Army Act WHEN ON ACTIVE SERVICE – DISOBEYING A LAWFUL COMMAND GIVEN BY HIS SUPERIOR OFFICER,
In that he,
In the Field on the 11th November, 1916, did not parade with his company for the trenches at 2.30 p.m., when ordered to do so by Lieut-Colonel J.A. CLARK, Commanding 72nd CANADIAN INFANTRY BATTALION.
(signature: J.A. Clark) Lieut-Colonel,
Commanding 72nd. Battalion, Canadian Infantry.
--------
Page 3
Proceedings on a Plea of Not Guilty
First Witness for the Prosecution: Captain R.K. Johnston 72nd Battn. Canadian Infantry being duly sworn is examined by the prosecutor:
I am in command of ‘B’ Company 72nd Battalion, Canadian Infantry. The accused is a member of my company
*Note of objection by * About 10 o’c a.m. on the 11th November 1916 I instructed the accused to accused’s counsel to get ready for parade for the trenches that afternoon. The company was
this was made and then stationed in Bivouacs at POZIERES. The accused replied that he did
recorded at the foot not intend to parade for the trenches.
of this witness’s
evidence on page I repeated the order & the accused replied, ‘You can put me under arrest.
9 hereof. S.G.J I do not intend to go into the trenches.
I warned the accused a third time, saying, ‘Get ready to go into the trenches this afternoon.’ I then left him.
About 12.00 noon I made a report to the adjutant concerning the accused’s action. The company paraded to go up to the trenches at 3.00 p.m. . I was on parade. The accused did not parade. The accused was absent.
--------
Page 4
Cross-examined by accused’s counsel:
I knew that prior to the time in question the accused had been placed on ‘Light Duty’ by the Medical Officer.
I understood that he was waiting for a Medical Board.
I knew that ‘Light Duty’ had been recommended by the Medical Officer on or about the 19th Oct. 1916. ‘B’ Company had been in the trenches for one tour in the interval between the 19th Oct. and the 11th Nov. 1916. Accused was left behind with the details & he did not go up to the trenches.
I cannot say on what grounds the accused was left behind on that occasion.
It was I who warned the accused, he did not come to me first or complain of going up to the trenches.
Prosecution declines to re-examine.
Examined by the Court:
When the accused refused to parade he merely said, ‘I decline to go up to the trenches.’ He gave no reasons or excuses for his declining & I asked him for no reasons. I did not ask for any reasons for I understood that accused was waiting for a Medical Board.
--------
Page 5
4 Q: Did you expect the accused to give a refusal to your order?
4 A: No. I though it an extraordinary thing for him to refuse to obey the order but I did not ask him ‘why?’ I expected him to onject but not refuse & that is why I repeated the order.
5 Q: Did the accused at any time on the 11th Nov. parade with his company for the Trenches & did he at any time on that date go up to the trenches?
5 A: No, to both questions.
6 Q: Between the time of being placed on ‘Light Duty’ on the 19th Oct. & the 11th Nov., had the accused done any duty other than what might be termed ‘Light Duty’?
6 A: No.
His evidence is read to the witness.
R.P. 83 (B) is complied with.
The witness then withdraws.
Objection to the above evidence. During the reading of this witnesses evidence the accused’s counsel objected to this witness giving evidence relating to any order given to the accused other than that specified in the Charge Sheet. The Court overruled the objection & proceeded with the hearing of the witness as recorded above
--------
Page 6
2nd Witness for the Prosecution: Lieut. Colonel J.A. Clark 72nd Battn. Canadian Infantry being duly sworn is examined by the Prosecutor:
I am in command of the 72nd Battalion Canadian Infantry, to which the accused belongs.
On the 10th Nov. 1916 I issued a list of names of the officers who were to proceed up to the trenches on the following day. Accused was one of the officers who was to go up.
On the 11th Nov. about 11.30 o’c. a.m. a report was made to me by the Adjutant concerning the accused. In consequence of this report I went to the accused’s quarters. I was accompanied by my second in command & the Adjutant
On arrival there I called the accused outside & said to him, ‘I understand Mr. Leader, that you have stated that you do not propose to go into the trenches. Is that correct?’
The accused replied, ‘Yes.’
I said, ‘It is my own personal order that you should go in. Do you understand that?’ Accused replied, ‘Yes.’
---------
Page 7
I said, ‘I want you to be perfectly clear on the subject & I propose to go over the matter with you fully so that there shall be no misunderstanding. Your company is parading at 2.30 p.m. this afternoon & you are to be on parade with it & you are to go into the trenches. Do you understand that?
Accused replied, ‘Yes.’
I then said, ‘You have considerable time now and you are perfectly free to go ahead & make the necessary arrangements. Do you understand that?’
Accused replied, ‘Yes.’
I next said, ‘Do you understand what the consequences will be if you disobey that order?’
Accused replied, ‘I understand. It is the extreme penalty’ or words to that effect.
I again impressed upon the accused that he was perfectly free to go ahead & make preparations for going up to the trenches.
The accused replied, ‘I appreciate the
---------
Page 8
consideration you have shown me but I do not think that I will be on parade.’ I then left the accused.
Cross-examined by accused’s counsel:
7 Q: Did you know that the accused had been placed on ‘Light Duty’ on the 19th Oct.?
7 A: I am not sure whether I knew at the time or not. I knew that I had sent him to the Doctor.
8 Q: Did you consider accused physically fit on the day in question to go into the Trenches?
8 A: I did not consider that question at the time. I would not have advised him to go up had I not considered the accused fit.
9 Q: Did you know that a Medical Board had been applied for?
9 A: Yes. I had received a report from the M.O. to that effect.
10. Q: Was your order given with a view to forcing an issue as to the accused’s medical fitness for going up to the trenches.
10 A: No
11 Q: How long have you known the accused?
11 A: About 2 months. One month in England & one in France, with an interval of 3 months between
---------
Page 9
12 Q: Do you consider the accused to be in full possession of all his mental faculties?
12 A: I consider the accused to be weak. I do not consider him to be mentally normal.
Prosecutor declines to re-examine the witness.
Examined by the Court:
I cannot remember why the accused did not go to the trenches on the tour between the 19th Oct. & the 11th Nov..
I was not aware when I gave the order that the accused had only been doing ‘Light Duty’ from the 19th Oct. up to the time of my order.
When I gave my order on the 11th Nov. the accused did not give any reasons for his refusal or give any grounds for so refusing, He merely said, ‘I do not think I will be on parade.’
I had had 2 reports from the M.O. concerning the accused’s physical condition, one at BRAMSHOTT in August & one about 19th Oct..
I did not ask the accused for his reasons for refusing to comply with my order. I am not accustomed to asking reasons
---------
Page 10
for disobeying my order.
The witness on his evidence being read out to him makes the following explanation:
When I said just now, ‘I consider the accused to be weak.’ I did not understand the question to be confined to a question of his mentality.’ (This answer refers to Question & answer No.12 above.)
Neither the Accused’s Friend or the Prosecutor desire to ask any questions on this explanation.
His evidence is read to the witness.
R.P. 83 (B) is complied with.
The witness withdraws.
3rd Witness for the Prosecution: Major D.D. Young 72nd Bn. Canadian Infy. Being duly sworn is examined by the Prosecutor & states:
I am Adjutant of the 72nd Can. Infy. [Bn.]. About 12.00 noon on the 11th Nov. 1916 I received a report concerning the accused from Captain Johnston. In consequence of this report I went to the accused & said to him, ‘Are you going to parade with your company?’ Accused replied, ’No.’ I then told him to remain where he was & I reported the matter to Col Clark. On this Lt. Col. Clark, Major Wilson & I went to the accused at his quarters. The Colonel asked the accused, ‘If he fully realised what he was doing in refusing to parade with his company?’ The accused replied. ‘I quite realise.’ The
---------
Page 11
Colonel then asked the accused, ‘If he knew what the penalty was for disobeying might be?’ Accused replied, ‘I fully understand’ & at the same time, ‘He thanked the Colonel for the consideration shown & for explaining the full consequences to him.’
Colonel Clark then said, ‘You are free to make your own arrangements from now until the parade hour at 2.30 p.m.. I want you to be on parade,’ or words to that effect.
At 4.30 p.m. after the accused’s company had marched off from the parade ground I noticed that the accused had not gone with his company. I then went to his quarters & found accused there. I placed him under close arrest.
Cross-examined by accused’s counsel:
Captain Johnston did not tell me why the accused declined to go to the trenches.
The accused had been placed on ‘Light Duty’ sometime before. I had heard on the 19th Oct. ‘That the accused was waiting for a Medical Board, but I had heard nothing further of it.
---------
Page 12
I had not discussed either of these matters that day before Col. Clark had spoken to the accused.
I did not connect the accused’s refusal with the fact that he had been on Light Duty.
I knew that between the 19th Oct. & the 11th Nov. the accused had only been doing ‘Light Duty’ around the camp.
I did not ask the accused, as to why he refused to obey the C.O.’s order? I presumed he had some reason, but I did not enquire. I did not know the reason for his refusal . I presumed that he had been warned for parade that the accused was no longer on ‘Light Duty.’
Prosecutor declines to cross-examine.
Examined by the Court:
The accused had not been sent by me to the M.O., nor was any application sent in through me for a Medical Board. There was no official record with me that the accused was on ‘Light Duty.’
The accused did not request to see the M.O. on the 11th November, nor did he make any complaint about his health.
His evidence is read to the witness.
R.P. 83 (B) is complied with and the witness withdraws.
----------
Page 13
4th Witness for the Prosecution: Lieut. A.C. Lumsden, 72nd Battn. Canadian Infy. Is called by the Prosecutor & offered for cross-examination, but the accused’s counsel declines to ask him any questions.
The witness withdraws.
5th Witness for the Prosecution: Major A.D. Wilson 72nd Battn. Canadian Infantry being duly sworn is examined by the Prosecutor & states:
I am second in command of the 72nd Battn.. On the 11th November I was present at the interview between the commanding officer, Col. Clark and the accused. I heard Col. Clark say to the accused, ‘ I warn you to parade with your company this afternoon at 2.30 p.m. to go to the Trenches.’ Col Clark further said to the accused: ‘Do you realise what the consequences might be if you refuse to obey the order.?’ The accused replied, ‘I do.’
Col. Clark then said, ‘You are perfectly free to make any arrangements that are necessary.’
The accused then said, ‘I thank you for your consideration in warning me, but I do not expect to be on Parade.’
Cross-examined by the accused’s counsel:
----------
Page 14
I know that sometime prior to this that the accused had been on ‘Light Duty’ but it did not cross my mind at the time, & the accused did not mention it.
I have known the accused altogether in broken periods for about 2 months. The accused was left behind at BRAMSHOTT in August & placed on the Base Company. I understand this was because he was ‘medically unift.’ I cannot pass an opinion as to the accused’s mentality but he has always struck me as acting in an absurd manner. His manner was unusual for an officer. The accused had no idea of discipline.
His evidence is read to the witness. R.P. 83 (B) is complied with. The witness withdraws.
6th Witness for the Prosecution: Captain R.T. Wilson Herald, 72nd Bn. Canadian Infantry being duly sworn is examined by Prosecutor & states:
I am the Medical Officer to the 72nd Battalion Canadian Infantry. On the 19th Oct. 1916 I examined the accused Lieut. Leader, who is now present in Court. The accused was then unfit for
----------
Page 15
‘continued active service’ in the Line. He was anaemic, of bad colour, & of poor muscular development. He was generally below par. Accused had a blemish on one of his legs, which appeared to be an old injury to a tendon. I then wrote to the ‘A.D.M.S.’ & asked for a Medical Board, but the Board had never been ordered.
I also recommended that the accused should be placed on ‘Light Duty’, pending the Medical Board which I then expected to be held in the course of a few days. I did not see the accused professionally again from the 19th Oct. to the 11th Nov. & though I saw him several times on the morning after 11th November, he did not consult me.
When I saw accused on the 19th Oct. I told accused ‘that for the following few days, pending the verdict of the Medical Board, I would
----------
Page 16
Recommended him for Light Duty. I did not intend the accused to be on Light Duty indefinitely, but only for a few days.
I have not examined the accused since the 19th Oct., but I took it for granted that he was not on Light Duty the whole time.
Cross examined by accused’s counsel:
In the accused’s case his anaemic condition is probably a chronic one. I have had no opportunity of studying the accused’s mental condition & therefore offer no opinion.
I do not think his mental condition is such as to call for an enquiry. I should not have passed the accused as physically fit inVancouver, had I been examining him as a Recruiting Medical Officer.
R.P. 83 (B) is complied with
The witness withdraws
---------
Page 17
Colonel H.A. Chisholm, C.A.M.C. being duly sworn is examined by the Prosecutor & states:
I am ‘A.D.M.S.’ to the 4th Canadian Division. On the 12th November 1916 I examined the accused, Lieut. Leader, who is now in front of the Court.
The accused complained ‘of weakness & pain in his leg.’ I found a small varicose vain in one of his legs. I considered this to be a trivial matter & not sufficient to cause him any trouble.
The accused also complained ‘of serious debility.’ I examined him & did not consider his complaint had any foundation.
In my opinion the accused was fit for service in the trenches.
Cross-examined by accused’s counsel:
The accused may be a mild case of ‘anaemia’ but I would not classify him as anaemic. Had I been a Recruiting Medical Officer I would have passed the accused ‘as fit for service.’
On the 12th November I did not examine the accused very thoroughly as he was sent
----------
Page 18
to me only for an opinion, ‘as to the leg condition.’ I examined him at our Forward Dressing Station.
The Prosecution declines to cross-examine.
Examined by the Court:
After I had examined the accused’s leg & found him to be sound, the accused raised ‘the question’ of his general debility & did not consider there was any foundation for the complaint.
Had an application for a Medical Board accompanied the accused when I saw him on the 12th November, I should have sent him back to the Base, where all Medical Boards are held.
His evidence read to the witness. R.P. 83 (B) is complied with. The witness withdraws.
----------
Page 19
The prosecution is closed.
Question to the accused: Do you apply to give evidence yourself as a witness? Answer: No.
Question to the accused: Have you anything to say in your defence? The accused in his defence says:
I have had 3 years’ experience in an Officers’ Training Corps in ENGLAND, also 3 years in the Norfolk Imperial Yeomanry. I have also had 4 years in the Canadian Militia in the 105th Battalion Saskatoon Fusiliers. After that I went into the 28th Overseas Battalion C.E.F. & was sent to WINNIPEG.After being there 2 months I was rejected by a Medical Board I then went back to SASKATOON to civil life and later obtained a commission in
----------
Page 20
the 105th Regiment & obtained the appointment of signalling officer in the 65th Overseas Battalion. I came overseas to England on the end of June 1916 & was immediately transferred to the 72nd Battalion. I was sent by the C.O. of the 72 Battn. to the Medical Officer & was left with the Base Company being ‘medically unfit.’ This was in August 1916 & I remained at the Base until about the 1st October when I was sent to France in charge of a draft expecting to return to England. I was however sent forward & told to report to 72nd Battn. which I did.
----------
Page 21
Accused’s Counsel addresses the Court. Note of the address is marked ‘M’, signed by the President & attached to the Proceedings.
The Prosecutor declines to make a reply.
The Judge Advocate sums up. Note of the Judge Advocate’s summing up is signed by the President, marked ‘N’ & attached to the Proceedings.
----------
Page 22
Finding:
The Court is closed for the consideration of the fining: GUILTY of the First Charge, NOT GUILTY of the Second Charge.
The Court find that the accused Lieutenant Francis Misson Leader 72nd Canadian Infantry Battalion, Canadian Expeditionary Force is ‘Guilty’ of the First Charge & ‘Not Guilty’ of the Second (alternative) Charge.
PROCEEDINGS ON CONVICTION before sentencing:
Evidence of character:
The Court being re-opened, the accused is again brought before it, Lieutenant Foster, Assistant Adjutant of 72nd Bn Canadian Infantry is duly sworn.
Question by president:
Have you any evidence to produce as to the character and particulars of service of the accused?
Answer by the Witness:
I produce a written statement which is handed in.
The above statement is read, marked ‘M’, signed by the President, and annexed to the proceedings.
Question by the president: Is the accused the person named in the statement which you have heard read?
Answer by the witness: Yes
Have you compared the contents of the above statement with the regimental books? Answer: No, the Regimental books were not available. The particulars contained in the statement are to the best of my memory and belief are the same having been supplied by Ac[cused?].
Accused’s Counsel declines to cross-examine witness.
His evidence is read to the witness.
R.P. 83(B) is complied with.
The witness withdraws.
Question to the accused: Do you wish to address the Court? Answer: No.
The Court is closed for the consideration of the sentence.
----------
Overleaf/Page 22
Sentence:
The Court sentence the accused, Lieutenant Francis Misson Leader 72nd Canadian Infantry Battalion, Canadian Expeditionary Force to suffer DEATH by being shot.
Signed at LEALVILLERS, FRANCE this twenty-ninth day of November 1916.
(signature: V.W. Odlum) Brig. Genl., President.
(signature: J. Stanley Griffith Jones) Judge Advocate
I confirm the finding & sentence but commute the sentence to that of ‘To be cashiered and to suffer penal servitude for ten years.’
(signature: D. Haig) Genl., 14 Dec: 16
Promulgated and extracts taken in the field this 18th day of December 1916.
(signature: J.H. MacBrien) Brig. Genl., Commanding 12th Canadian Inf. Bde.
----------
Page 23
Order by Major-General D. Watson, C.B., Commanding 4th Canadian Division, 24 November 1916:
GENERAL COURT MARTIAL: The detail of officers as mentioned below will assemble at Headquarters, 4th Canadian Division, LEALVILLERS, at 10 a.m. on Wednesday 29th inst., for the purpose of trying by
------------------------------------------------------------- General Court Martial the accused person named in the LIEUTENANT FRANCIS MISSON LEADER ) margin, and such other person or persons as may be 72nd. Canadian Battalion ) brought before them.
-------------------------------------------------------------
PRESIDENT
Brigadier General V.W. ODLUM, D.S.O., Commanding 11th Canadian Infantry Brigade is appointed President.
MEMBERS
Lieut-Colonel A.H.G. KEMBALL, C.B. Commanding 54th Canadian Battalion
Lieut-Colonel C.M. EDWARDS Commanding 38th Canadian Battalion
Lieut-Colonel James KIRKCALDY Commanding 78th Canadian Battalion
Major O.C. HARBOTTLE 67th Canadian Battalion (Pioneers)
Major T.C. IRVING, D.S.O., C.E. A, C.R.E., 4th Canadian Division
WAITING MEMBERS
Lieut-Colonel R.W. FROST Commanding 87th Canadian Battalion
Major C. FERGUSON 38th Canadian Battalion
PROSECUTOR
LIEUTENANT A.P.FOSTER, 72nd Canadian Battalion, will act as Prosecutor.
JUDGE ADVOCATE
Lieutenant J.S. GRIFFITH JONES, 10th Battalion, South Wales Borderers has been appointed Judge Advocate.
The Accused will be warned and all witnesses required to attend. The Proceedings will be forwarded to Headquarters, 4th Canadian Division.
Signed this twenty-fourth day of November, 1916.
(signature: E. de B. Panet) Lieutenant Colonel,
A.A. & Q.M.G., 4th Canadian Division.
-------------------------------
---------
Page 24
To the President & Members:
The charges differ in some important points, the first charge being considerably the more serious. The essence of the first charge is the defiance of authority – wilful defiance. The evidence shows that the accused had been placed on light duty by the M.O. of his battalion on the 19th of Oct. ‘for a few days, pending the verdict of a Medical Board.’ This Board has not yet sat & the accused apparently considered that the light duty continued & that he ought not to be required to go to the trenches. Possibly he even thought that he had the right to refuse to go to the trenches. In either case that would not show an attitude of ‘wilful defiance of authority.’ This is borne out by the accused’s behaviour & demeanour, which was respectful and deferential in every way, outside of the bare refusal to go to the trenches. I submit therefore that the accused should be acquitted on the first count.
With regard to the second count, I would point out to the Court, that he accused, on Capt. Herold’s evidence, is a weakling, and according to Col. Clark & Major Wilson, has something wrong with his mental make-up – something deficient. He has shown a strong anxiety to serve his country, as his former service shows; and if he has fallen down, I submit that he should be leniently dealt with. Whether he could have reached the
---------
Page 25
trenches is open to doubt. The accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, on my point where the evidence is not clear or where there is no evidence.
A. Leighton, Capt.
Counsel for the Accused
----------
Page 26
Note of the Judge Advocate General summing up:
J.A. reads the charges & the Sections of the Army Act, Sec. 9(1) & (2)
Directs the attention of the Court to the essential differences & ingredients of the charges, quoting M.M.L., pages 16 & 17.
Directs the Court that if they accept the evidence of the Prosecution there is sufficient evidence to support either of the charges.
Reviews the evidence to support either of the charges.
Reviews the evidence of Capt. Johnston, Lt. Col. Clare, Major Young & other witnesses.
Calls attention to the Accused not having denied the Command, or the Disobedience. Points out to the Court that the Defence contends ‘Justification’ on the grounds that:
(1) Accused was not fit physically, or mentally fit.
(2) That on the 19th Oct. 1916 Accused was Recommended Light Duty & continued ‘Light Duty’ up to the 11th November.
(3) That a Medical Board had been applied for.
-----------
Page 27
The Court is advised that if they think these grounds are sufficient justification they will acquit, but are reminded of the evidence of Doctors Wilson, Herold & Chisholm.
The J.A. advises them that the only justification in this case for refusing to obey the specific command would be physical or mental inability. If the Court thinks the physical or mental condition of the accused was such that he was unable, or that the accused was not in a fit condition to obey, the Court should acquit on both the charges.
The facts of ‘Light Duty’ having been recommended on the 19th Oct. for the folowing 4 or 5 days &, that a Medical Board having been applied for, would not of themselves be sufficient justification for disobedience. The Court should however take these matters into careful consideration in deciding whether the disobedience amounted to a ‘Wilful defiance of authority.’
J. Stanley Griffith Jones, Lt.
Judge Advocate
29.11.16
----------
“O”
In the case of Lieutenant Francis Misson Leader, 72nd Battalion – Canadian Infantry:
AGE: SERVICE: RANK
The accused has not been previously convicted. The accused is not under sentence at the present time. The accused has been in confinement awaiting trial on the present charges for 18 days in military custody.
The present age of the accused is 25. The accused is in possession of the King George V Coronation Medal. The accused holds in the army the ranks of Lieutenant, dated 20 July 1915 and in his Regiment the rank of Lieutenant dates 12th February 1915.
I hereby certify that the particulars contained in the above statement are true, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the same having been supplied to me by the Accused.
A.P. Foster, Lieutenant
