Accidental shooting of an officer

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

I have only just joined this forum, having discovered it a couple of years ago while editing my grandfather’s WW1 diary, which I am hoping to publish later this year, with all profits to go to SSAFA, and also the book to be offered at cost to the Lancashire Fusiliers' Museum in Bury; appropriate acknowledgments to this amazing site and also The Long Long Trail will be included.

Anyway, I have taken the plunge to become a signed up member, and would like to raise one or two specific queries that other members may be able to help with.

While they were in the Somme area in August 1916 one of the men in my grandfather’s Company accidentally shot one of my grandfather’s fellow officers. The wounded officer was taken away on a stretcher fully conscious, but unfortunately died of his injury later that day. My grandfather has written in his diary: His last words to me were, “I say Skipper – don’t let anything happen to “X”, it was quite an accident.”

My grandfather never refers to the Private other than as “X”, and I wouldn’t dream of publishing his name, or posting anything in this Forum that would make him identifiable, but I would like if possible to report in the published book what ultimately happened to “X”.

My grandfather writes about attending an FGCM for “Private “X”, which I assume was the same “X”, but he doesn’t say what happened. I have looked up the records online for the day of that FGCM, and see that there were three men from my grandfather’s unit court martialled in the Field that day. The offences of two of them are recorded as S 40, and that of the third S 18 2a (I think – the record is rather difficult to read). I have read in another post that S 40 was “Conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline”, which doesn’t really seem to fit the bill, but I understand that it may have been used if nothing else covered it. I don’t know what S 18 2a is, but looking at the various pages of entries that I have seen it is more unusual. The penalty of the two S 40s was 56 days and 90 days Field Punishment No.1, the penalty of the 3^rd man was 90 days Field Punishment No 1.

Do you think any of these three entries would relate to Private “X”?

[IPT]

I believe that Section 18 dealt with malingering. S 18(2) dealt with self-inflicted wounds.  As you say, Section 40 seems to have been used as a bit of a 'catch-all' offence.

 

I assume that you've checked to see if any of the three men have service papers?

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

I am quite new to this area of researching individuals. I understand that the service papers to which you refer can be found on Ancestry, but I am not a member. I have a friend who has agreed to look up the three men for me, but am I right in thinking that this will not necessarily reveal any additional information?

I am interested in what you say about S 18(2), and I am now wondering whether this is a different Private "X" for whom my grandfather also felt sympathy if there were mitigating circumstances behind his self-harm, and/or maybe his family didn't know the full facts.

There is another reason why the FGCM in question may not have dealt with the shooting of the officer, which is that it took place over a year later. I have speculated that it might have been delayed if either Private "X" or my grandfather were not available for a long period after the incident - they were about to go into action on the Somme when it happened, and my grandfather was wounded shortly afterwards, returning to the Western Front only a relatively short period before the FGCM. But, thinking about it, would it really be possible for an FGCM to take place so long afterwards? I presume that the very fact that these court martials were held "in the Field" may signify that the authorities were anxious to get on with them as close to the offence as possible.

I am assuming that my grandfather was a witness or went for character reference purposes in the case of the FGCM referred to, as he does talk elsewhere about being a member of the tribunal presiding over the FGCM, but here he simply says that he went to an FGCM "for Private "X", which would be a bit odd if there were three offenders being dealt with on that day, and that is why I have assumed he was a witness. Did they actually call witnesses at these FGCMs? Is it possible that they would have delayed an FGCM for over a year while waiting for a witness to be available?

Maybe Private "X" was also wounded, and therefore was not himself available for a speedy FGCM, but, if he was wounded and spent a period recovering in Britain, is it more likely that his offence would have been dealt with before he was sent back?,..

Apologies for so many questions, but what is the Act which set out the offences? Is there one that more nearly fits the offence? Discharging a firearm accidentally? Wounding/killing a fellow soldier?

Many thanks for your help with this.

[IPT]

If the soldier concerned has surviving service records, there's a good chance that the incident would be recorded if his regimental conduct sheet survived, or there are transcript or minutes of the enquiry.  Some luck required!  The officer's service file should be at the National Archives, which would require a visit or a researcher after the current situation has eased.

 

I don't pretend to have sufficient knowledge to comment on courts martial. Procedures changed throughout the war, and a 1914 court martial could be completely different to 1918 court martial. It may be worth checking the divisional war diary which may record the date of the court martial, who was presiding etc.. 

 

I thought I had identified the officer concerned, but this man was accidentally wounded 5/8/1916 and did not die the same day.  Have you confirmed that CWGC have the same date of death as in the diary, and that he definitely did die?

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

Thank you, a trip to the National Archives would be quite an undertaking for me, as I live in the north, but not impossible once the restrictions have eased. Am I right in thinking that my friend will find the same information on Ancestry?

Meanwhile, your post caused me to visit the National Archives website, where I discovered the War Diaries of the 2/5th Lancashire Fusiliers available for download for free during this lockdown. I wonder if that is where you found the reference that led you to believe that you might have identified the officer in question, as I can see that there is a mention of 2nd Lieutenant E.Y Saxby being accidentally wounded on 5 August 1916. However, a few days earlier, on 1st August 1916, there is reference to 2nd Lieutenant C.H. Moffatt being accidentally wounded, and subsequently dying in Corbie hospital. It is Cecil Moffatt who is the subject of my post. I see that the War Diary does not help with the name of the unfortunate man who was responsible for the accident.    

I have found the task of looking for the appropriate Divisional War Diary a bit more daunting, and may leave it to another day. Do you think that it is likely to contain any additional information?

And are you able to help with the name of the Act which sets out the offences?  

Many thanks for your help so far.                             

[RaySearching]

This website records that Moffatt was accidently killed by the discharge of a rifle which a soldier was cleaning 

 

2nd Lieutenant Cecil Henry Moffatt

 

 

 

 

[IPT]

Yes, I was looking at Saxby, I completely missed Moffatt.  How sad that his brother, Stanley Leslie Moffatt, was killed with the 2nd LF within two weeks of Cecil!

 

Had you seen their photographs?

Cecil - https://ourheroes.southdublin.ie/Serviceman/Show/16935

Leslie - https://ourheroes.southdublin.ie/Serviceman/Show/16937

 

Your friend will find the soldiers' service papers, should they survive, but the Moffatt's file will only be at Kew - https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C1094019  

One option, when things are back to normal, is to post a request in the "Documents - Requests and Offers" thread, in case any kind forum member will have a look for you, if they're going to Kew.

 

Hopefully, someone with a knowledge of military law will be able to answer your other query.  I expect there would have been a court of enquiry into the circumstances of the incident, and it's possible that the soldier could have been found to completely blameless, or else suspected of murder (unlikely), manslaughter or some lesser charge.  I suspect there would have been hundreds of accidental shootings during the conflict, with a wide variety of outcomes.

[RaySearching]

2nd Lieutenant Cecil Henry Moffatt discharge papers are on Ancestry 

He enlisted on the 31/8/1914 Pte 6531 Manchester Regiment 

discharged from the Manchesters  on the 2/4/1915 as he was granted a commision with the Lancashire Fusiliers

[IPT]

I've had a quick skim through the 164th Brigade war diary (The dates are not quite as advertised - WO-95-2920-1 deals with Jan 1916 to July 1917)

 

The brigade diaries seem to be mainly concerned with operations. Moffatt gets a brief mention in a casualty list, and someone has underlined "died of wounds".

 

Possibly, we need the 55th (West Lancashire) Division war diary which I haven't found yet. (Edit - Found it at WO 95/2900/2_1). Again, I had a skim through, but didn't find anything.  Might be worth double-checking the above diaries, and also looking at the date you suspect the court martial was conducted.

Edited 4 May , 2020 by IPT

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

Quote

Thank you both Ray Searching and IPT.

My friend - she of the Ancestry membership - had given me some background information about the Moffatts, notably that they had been born in Ireland, and also that Leslie had previously been a private with a Manchester Regiment, but I had not realised that that also applied to Cecil.

My grandfather included photographs of both men in his diary, as well as a touching "obituary" to Cecil, who was one of his closest friends, all of which I will include in the published version of the diary.

They had only just arrived at the Somme front when the accident happened, and my grandfather describes quite graphically the shambles that they found there. You get the sense that they were trying to distract the men by keeping them busy when they ordered them to clean their weapons, and one can't help but think that the state of the men's nerves may have had something to do with the accidental discharge.

My grandfather says that the accident happened on Cecil's 21st birthday but, as my friend says that Ancestry's records show his birth as being registered in the 3 months to September 1896, it must have been his 20th as recorded in the Leicester City Council piece, and also on the CWGC's website.

The brothers were obviously very close, as my grandfather mentions speaking to Leslie a few days later, and Leslie saying that he expected to follow his brother within a few days as they had never been separated for very long. This closeness makes it the more extraordinary that, while Cecil's headstone has an inscription chosen by the family, and the CWGC records have his full names and details of his parents, Leslie's headstone has no inscription, and the CWGC records have only his rank, surname, initials, and date of death, and give his Battalion as "2nd Bn. Lancashire Fusiliers".

The invitation to the families to choose an inscription would obviously have been some time after the war, so it can't have been that the family was too overcome by the second death following so swiftly to choose an inscription; I can't help thinking there may have been some mix-up on the part of the CWGC, perhaps because the family tried to use a single form for both of them?

 

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

Thank you IPT for the further post about the Divisional War Diary and reference, which I may have a look at tomorrow. If you do happen to find a name before me, please can we avoid mentioning the name or putting a link to it on this site? If you do find one is there a way of contacting each other direct without going through the site?

[IPT]

Yes, no problem. I think you now have sufficient posts to use the message system (the envelope icon top right).

 

I'm beginning to suspect it will come down to Cecil's service file at Kew, but you never know.

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

Quote

I have had a look at the Divisional War Diary for the relevant period, but no joy. Thank you for pointing me in the direction of the War Diaries though. I shall wait and see what Ancestry discloses about the three individuals who were dealt with at an FGCM about a year later, though, the more I think about it, the more I think it is unlikely that they would have waited that long to deal with the matter. Of course, it's not impossible that the unfortunate man who shot the officer might have died shortly afterwards in one of the two Somme battles the Battalion was involved in, so he might never have been formally dealt with at all

 

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

I have now learned that the Act setting out the offences was the Army Act 1881. There doesn't seem to be a specific section that would cover accidental wounding or killing of a fellow soldier or officer. s.8 is "Striking or threatening a superior officer", but clearly applies only to a deliberate act. That being so, it may well be that s.40, namely being "guilty of any act, conduct, or neglect, to the prejudice of good order and military discipline", was the only option available for the careless discharge of a weapon, however serious the consequences.

 

Having now looked through the Battalion diaries it is quite alarming how many "accidental woundings" there were, and I wonder whether this was a common theme  throughout the army?

 

Anyway, with regard to the outcome for the unfortunate Private "X", finding out whether dealing with his offence could possibly have been  delayed for about a year would help with whether I should definitely rule out the possibility that this Private "X" was one of the three individuals mentioned above (now really only two possibles, if I have read s 18 2 correctly, as that definitely related only to self inflicted wounds).

 

Incidentally, while Ancestry has been free, I have looked up the three individuals, but so far not found the service records of any of them..

[regimentalrogue]

You may be interested in the story of Private John Shook of The Royal Canadian Regiment. He was court martialed in 1918 for a negligent discharge which wounded another soldier. The charge read as follows:

 

"The charge sheet for Shook's FGCM, which was signed on 21 Sep 1918 by Capt F.D. MacCrae, Commanding The RCR, read:

 

"The accused No 214215 Private John Leonard SHOOK, The Royal Canadian Regiment, a soldier of the Regular Forces, is charged with:- "When on active service, Conduct to the Prejudice of Good Order and Military Discipline, in that he, at ARRAS on the 29th August 1918 did negligently discharge a rifle thereby causing a wound to one Private SPENCER, The Royal Canadian Regiment."

 

Here is his story on my website: http://regimentalrogue.com/rcr_great_war_soldiers/rcr_soldier_shook_214215.html

 

 

Edited 10 May , 2020 by regimentalrogue

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

Thank you,Regimentalrogue.

 

I was very interested in your post for several reasons.

 

First, it seems to confirm that S..40 would be the section used for disciplinary action in the case of an accidental shooting.

 

Secondly,I see that Private Shook was identified as the person responsible for the shooting of Private Spencer in the latter's service record, which makes me slightly more optimistic that I may be able to find the answer to my query if I ever make it down to Kew to look at Cecil Moffatt's papers. I have also recalled that, as well as the full version of my grandfather's diary, (which he started writing in 1919) there are also a couple of pocket diaries, which he would have kept while he was actually in the trenches, and used to refresh his memory when writing the longer version of the diary. These pocket diaries have not all survived, but I think that the one covering the period of the FGCM has, so he may have mentioned the actual name of Private "X" in there. Unfortunately both my grnadfather's finished diary and the surviving pocket diaries are in the IWM for safe-keeping, so that that bit of research will also have to wait till a trip to London is possible.

 

The third reason why I was onterested in your post was that my other grandfather was in the Canadian Expeditionary Force, having emigrated to Canada to seek his fortune shortly before the War, and joined up over there when war broke out. He was originally in the 15th Battalion, and later the 48th Highlanders. I was hugely impressed the other day that I was able easily i to find his 58 page service record in the National Archives within a few minutes of beginning the search, in contrast to my drawing a blank with the three UK soldiers.

 

 

 

 

[JOVE23]

On 10/05/2020 at 13:19, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

I was hugely impressed the other day that I was able easily i to find his 58 page service record in the National Archives within a few minutes of beginning the search, in contrast to my drawing a blank with the three UK soldiers.

 

To be fair, the Canadian military record storage facility was never bombed by the Luftwaffe!  

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

Yes, although I'm new to this and am only just getting to grips with the vagaries of the "burnt" and "unburnt" records, I didn't mean to suggest that it was mere sloppiness on the part of the UK that meant that the Canadian records are more complete - merely that it was an unexpected delight to find such a complete record so easily.

I had not come across the list in Chris Baker's article before, and thank you for directing me to it.

I now understand why I can only find the briefest of details of the FGCMs of the three individuals referred to in my previous posts in this thread!

[JOVE23]

21 hours ago, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

Yes, although I'm new to this and am only just getting to grips with the vagaries of the "burnt" and "unburnt" records, I didn't mean to suggest that it was mere sloppiness on the part of the UK that meant that the Canadian records are more complete - merely that it was an unexpected delight to find such a complete record so easily.

I had not come across the list in Chris Baker's article before, and thank you for directing me to it.

I now understand why I can only find the briefest of details of the FGCMs of the three individuals referred to in my previous posts in this thread!

 

Our archives in the United States suffered a similarly devastating fire. Isn't it a shame?

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

An equally sad loss of a great resource - thanks for sharing

[themonsstar]

When you could get your hands on them for research (MH106) Medical sheets at Kew were very helpful,  the ones which would have possibly helped you MH106/2295-97 (A-C) Medical Sheets, Medical Board Reports, Self Inflicted Wounds. Had in most cases the full medical board & court martial documents in them.

There is more then one box of these. But and it's a big butt I believe the NA my have withdrawn them a year or two ago. You would have to check with them.

[DavidOwen]

Looks like they may still be there but not yet digitised

https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/c545848 A-C

https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/browse/r/h/c545849 D - G

https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/browse/r/h/c545850 H - L

https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/browse/r/h/c545851 M - T

https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/browse/r/h/c545852  S - Y

 

The M - T may be M - R but is as described on the site.

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

Thank you both Themonsstar and David Owen.for drawing my attention to the fact that there are some hospital records relating specifically to self-inflicted wounds, and that these often include details of court martials, a promising lead indeed. I have now looked at the description of the available documents on the National Archives site, and see that the hospital records that are described as "including self-inflicted wounds" extend in total from MH106/2295 to MH106/2377, covering the period 1917 to 1920 (which would include the date of the FGCM mentioned above). MH106/2295 to MH106/2299 (the records for which David Owen has given links) are for "Hospitals Operating in the United Kingdom", so unfortunately, as the FGCM took place in Belgium, probably don't include the man I am interested in. The others cover the 2nd, 7th, 18th and 19th Genral Hospitals. Alas, none of these were in Belgium either, so it looks as though we have drawn a blank for my purposes, but thank you anyway.

[themonsstar]

To my knowledge only three files MH106/2295, 2296 & 2297 cover Medical Sheets, Medical Board Reports, Self Inflicted Wounds, you may have look at the wrong information on MH106. The files cover all the theatres of war and all from 1915-1919, each hospital etc., sent a percentage for the history of the medical services during the war.

Edited 22 May , 2020 by themonsstar

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

Themonsstar, you could very well be right that I am misinterpreting the National Archives' website, as I find browsing on the site a bit of a minefield at times - no pun intended.

 

I attach a screenprint of a page from the site, which I found by clicking on the first link posted by David Owen, and then moving up a step to "subsubseries within MH106 - Hospitals operating within the United Kingdom: Medical Board Reports including self-inflicted wounds". The attached page lists, on the left, various files within MH106, and, on the right, subfiles comprised within the top file, breaking down the file alphabetically into 5 subfiles, MH106/2295 to MH106/2299.

 

If I clicked on any of the four next entries on the left, which refer to various different General Hospitals, all abroad, all including self inflicted wounds, a similar alphabetical breakdown appeared on the right, thus accounting for further subfiles from MH106/2300 to MH106/2377.

 

Have I misunderstood how the various files and subfiles are catalogued, and is it still possible that reports into self-inflicted wounds at a Belgium hospital may be lurking somewhere in the National Archives' collections?

 

Anyway, thanks very much for your help so far.

Screen print of discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk.browse.r.h.C93715 - pdf.pdf