Majority
Headnote
1. National guard—Court martial—Jurisdiction.The relator is an enlisted private in Company K, Fourteenth regiment, N. Y. State National Guards. He was returned as delinquent at drill and for company dues. A court was appointed to try him for the offense, and he was fined both for delinquency at drill and for non-payment of company dues. The court got no jurisdiction of the person of the relator. Courts for the trial of military offenses were provided for by chap. 299, Laws of 1883. There is some confusion by reason of the different designations of the military courts. There were three of them termed in the act courts of inquiry, general courts martial and delinquency courts.
Delinquency courts were again divided, and courts for the trial of delinquency of officers are differently constituted from courts for the trial of privates. Section 104 of the act of 1883 required a copy of the charges to be served on the alleged delinquent five days before trial. This was not done. Chap. 412, Laws of 1886, amended this section by leaving out the clause requiring notice of the charges to be served, so that under this section the proceedings would be regular if no other similar provision has been substituted. By § 114 of the act of 1883 no one could be tried before general courts martial unless a copy of the charges were served, and a copy of the order from the court at least ten days before the court met. By chap. 332, Laws of 1888, the legislature amended this section by striking out the word general, and thus providing that no one could be tried before a court martial unless a copy of the charges were served in advance of the hearing. Hnless the legislature intended this section as amended to reach all courts under the Military Code, enlisted men have no notice of the charges against them. Section 113 of the law of 1883 requires a summons, but nothing else, and no time was given.
The summons might be forthwith. It is in accordance with the rules of justice and the uniform course of legislation to afford every facility to an accused person to prepare for his defense if he has one. If this section applies to all courts as the preceding § 113 did in time, the case is defective. The service of the sum
Judgment should be reversed, with fifty dollars costs.
Dykman, J., conculs.
The return shows that upon default of appearance and answer, Soer was sentenced to pay a fine; but it does not appear that any proof was offered of the delinquencies of which he was found guilty.
The return is also defective in not containing the order of the commanding officer approving the sentence. The by-laws are not shown to provide a penalty for their violation.
For these defects the proceedings must be reversed, but without costs.