I've got a reasonable idea of what fraud means in a civilian context but have no real idea of how military law differs. I have found an entry in a War Diary where an Acting Sergeant-Major at an Anti-Aircraft Section was convicted of fraud by a court martial. The Diary records Sentence promulgated - reduced to ranks. The following day, the Diary records Exchanged Gnr X (the convicted man) for Gnr Y.

I have several questions:

1. What consituted fraud in a military context in 1916?
2. Does the sentence indicate the severity of the offence?
3. Were soldiers given a non-custodial sentence often moved from their units this quickly?
4. Who would decide which men would be exchanged and between which units? Is it possible that Gnr Y is also a convictd man?

Keith

Most likely charged under Section 17 of the Army Act.

Being charged with or concerned in the care or distribution of any public or regimental money or goods, steals, fraudulently misapplies, or embezzles the same, or is concerned with or embezzles the same, or is concerned in or connives at the stealing, fraudulent misapplication, or embezzlement thereof, or wilfully damages any such goods, shall on conviction by court-martial be liable to suffer penal servitude, or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned.

Fraud in the Army had the same meaning as in English Criminal law.

This charge was classed far worse than theft as it was a person placed in a position of trust.

To be dropped from Sergeant Major to Private was a low punishment, it would normally have been prison.

Moving him would be normal.

Regards Charles

Thanks, Charles. I'll bet that a convicted soldier got a pretty rough ride at his new unit, especially for an offence like fraud. "I'm gonna be watchin' you like an 'awk!" sounds like the probably reception from his new Sergeant-Major.....

Keith

He doesn't have an MIC at Kew and isn't listed on the CWGC site as a casualty. I wonder if he was just too much the wide boy?

Keith

Keith,

His surname isn't Cook by any chance is it? Family legend has it that one of our ancestors was convicted of embezzlement at about this time. However, it also says that he was in India.

Regards,

Stephen Garnett

No. It's 51044 Delaney P.

Keith

Keith,

Cheers for that. Worth a try!!!

Regards,

Stephen Garnett

Hi Keith,
Could this be him? Service no. is VERY close.
Click to view attachment
Can't find any service/pension records, unfortunately.

Adrian

Adrian

I don't think it's the same man. AA Sections were Royal Garrison Artillery whereas the man on the card was Royal Horse Artillery. Some early AA Sections may have been manned by the RHA, though.

Don't forget that Patrick Delaney is probably a fairly common name among Irishmen!

Keith

NCOs reduced to the ranks, especially warrant officers, were normally moved pretty sharpish for disciplinary reasons. There isn't a law against striking a FORMER superior, and some of his new equals might have had grievances.

And, as Charles says, the question of breach of trust was a significant factor. Officers who did the same were likely to be cashiered.

Ron

I don't think it was clear cut at this time. 24th AAS lists itself explicitly as RHA up to July 1918, for example. 32nd lists itself as RHA, too, until it comes under 12th Corps Artillery in November 1916. 73rd, 74th, 90th, 91st, 94th, 95th, 153rd and 154th make no allegiance but their COs sign RFA or RGA. 97th's and 141st's COs don't give a branch of the RA in the signature and don't state an allegiance, either. 98th simplay says RA at the end and its CO again doesn't give his affiliation. 99th also says RA but their CO signs RGA.

Make of that what you will!

Thanks for the background on the disciplinary aspect, too, Ron. As I wrote earlier, you can't imagine someone in this chap's position had a particularly inviting future ahead of him. As you say, he was liable for a thumping from anyone he's upset as an NCO in his old unit but I doubt he'd be received with open arms at his new one, either.

Keith

One of the reasons for moving in these circumstances was to allow a fresh start. It was not unknown for men who had been reduced to the ranks to redeem themselves. Depending on his new unit, it may well have been that only a couple of officers, CO, Adjutant perhaps, would know the background. If he kept his mouth shut and soldiered well, chances are he would get a stripe or two given time. The army does not generally hold a grudge.

Here's a crop of the entry. I've zoomed it in on the original and it still looks mostly like 51044 but it could just be 51444 or 57444 if the tails of the five and seven have overlapped, making Adrian's chap a possibility.

Keith

Thanks, Tom. All good stuff to add colour to the picture.

Keith