Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Researching Courts marshalls


Paul Gibson

Recommended Posts

A quick look at the war diary for 9th Norfolks has him joining on 1 November 1915 from a cadet school and joined A Company.

 

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C14053218 free if you register.

 

R H Mottram, who wrote a number of books on the war, was serving with 9th Norfolks around this time; there might be a lucky mention of Read but this is a long shot.

 

I can't see an obvious diary entry stating when he was wounded in either the Brigade or Battalion diary; the battalion seemed to be out of the line on 3 August 1916. No diary for 71st TMB survives.

 

 

Edited by Colin W Taylor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have copies of some of the Court Martial ledgers for the UK and overseas. The following might be relevant from the UK registers:

 

A 2Lt O Read of the Eastern Command Labour Centre was tried by GCM at Sutton on 29 December 1917.

He was charged with cheque fraud, three counts of scandalous conduct (if I read it correctly) and crimes under Section 40. Sentence - cashiered

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Colin W Taylor said:

I have copies of some of the Court Martial ledgers for the UK and overseas. The following might be relevant from the UK registers:

 

A 2Lt O Read of the Eastern Command Labour Centre was tried by GCM at Sutton on 29 December 1917.

He was charged with cheque fraud, three counts of scandalous conduct (if I read it correctly) and crimes under Section 40. Sentence - cashiered

For the Army I wonder which charge was considered the most heinous.

Cheque/Financial fraud being right up there  for them.

[though not sure what Section 40 was]

???

:-) M

Edited by Matlock1418
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

For the Army I wonder which charge was considered the most heinous.

Cheque/Financial fraud being right up there  for them.

[though not sure what Section 40 was]

???

:-) M

 

19 minutes ago, Colin W Taylor said:

I have copies of some of the Court Martial ledgers for the UK and overseas. The following might be relevant from the UK registers:

 

A 2Lt O Read of the Eastern Command Labour Centre was tried by GCM at Sutton on 29 December 1917.

He was charged with cheque fraud, three counts of scandalous conduct (if I read it correctly) and crimes under Section 40. Sentence - cashiered

Many thanks for that Colin. The ref I have for O H Read is NW/7/4556 Cashiered by sentence of GCM 23.1.18  could this be the same guy ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

[though not sure what Section 40 was]

A quick trawl of GWF and pal @Ron Clifton previously gave this answer in another thread on Courts Martial

https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/245696-courts-martial-records/?tab=comments#comment-2472703

"conduct prejudicial to good order and military discipline", which is the catch-all section where no other specific offence is defined in the Act. ....  ... .... Section 40 applied only to other ranks: for officers, the equivalent was Section 16, "conduct unbecoming the character of an officer and a gentleman"

:-) M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul,

 

I'm not sure. There are no other Reads around this time in the ledgers. His officer file will confirm if it has not been weeded. Where is the reference from?

 

C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Paul Gibson said:

Further to my research the 1939 census put our man living on his own (unmarried) 

Odden H READ - certainly appears an interesting character

There appear to be two 1939 Register entries for him - both at 13 Gilbert Rd, Lambeth, and both have him as a Bookkeeper (Ledger Clerk) and Constable Police Reserve

[one of the entries has been struck through and annotated "See page 11" - which matches the other entry]

Whatever his past, it appears he still seemed to want to 'do his bit' for the nation.

:-) M

Edited by Matlock1418
addit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sadbrewer said:

He was apparently Chaiman of Mildenhall Football Club in the 1920's.

 

43 minutes ago, Paul Gibson said:

His Father was called Odden and lived in Mildenhall could it have been him ?

Father = Odden Frederic READ (62), Solicitor, of Mildenhall, according to the Mildenhall 1911 Census

:-) M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Matlock1418 said:

Odden H READ - certainly appears an interesting character

There appear to be two 1939 Register entries for him - both at 13 Gilbert Rd, Lambeth, and both have him as a Bookkeeper (Ledger Clerk) and Constable Police Reserve

[one of the entries has been struck through and annotated "See page 11" - which matches the other entry]

Whatever his past, it appears he still seemed to want to 'do his bit' for the nation.

:-) M

As a special police constable he would have worn his WW! ribbons on his uniform. It would have been easier for him to say he had been in the 71ST Trench mortar brigade (no records to be checked) than say he had been cashiered from the Norfolks and no medals issued or am I thinking too deep ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Paul Gibson said:

As a special police constable he would have worn his WW! ribbons on his uniform. It would have been easier for him to say he had been in the 71ST Trench mortar brigade (no records to be checked) than say he had been cashiered from the Norfolks and no medals issued or am I thinking too deep ? 

Always worth thinking.  Seems fairly plausible - But the hunt probably should go on.

We await you getting the Star and providing the photos - I'm not sure who is likely to be the more excited now!

;-) M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Paul Gibson said:

As a special police constable he would have worn his WW! ribbons on his uniform. It would have been easier for him to say he had been in the 71ST Trench mortar brigade (no records to be checked) than say he had been cashiered from the Norfolks and no medals issued or am I thinking too deep ? 

 

As an officer he had to apply for his medals so he had an out straight away as to why he didn't have any - without even having to mention being cashiered. Additionally he would have worn the ribbons on his uniform, (other than on formal parades), so didn't need the medals as well. It would have been simpler to say they were lost or stolen. Wearing a medal with a unit on it ran the risk of being caught out in a lie. Medal ribbons could legitimately be purchased from many tailors. so low risk by comparison to buying fake medals or altering medals issued to others.

 

Additionally if he joined the Special Constabularly he must have glossed over the previous cheque \financial fraud that he was drummed out of the army for in 1918 and which presumably would have led to criminal charges, wherever the event took place. Ditto potentially the "scandalous" behaviour.

 

So those medals will definately be interesting to see:)

 

Cheers,

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many thanks for your thoughts Peter which make perfect sense. One thing I've always been unsure about is when the WW1 medals were issued were regiments named on the back the ones the recipient was in at the end of the war or at the time they were won.  ie lots of guys were in the RFC but their War and Victory medals state RAF which obviously they transferred to in April 1918.  

 

Many thanks once again to everyone who has helped me tremendously with Mr Read.

 

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Paul Gibson said:

One thing I've always been unsure about is when the WW1 medals were issued were regiments named on the back the ones the recipient was in at the end of the war or at the time they were won.  ie lots of guys were in the RFC but their War and Victory medals state RAF which obviously they transferred to in April 1918.  

 

My understanding, (and happy to be corrected by those who take a keener interest or have a more succinct answer!), is that for the 1914 Star and the 1914/15 Star, rank and unit are those relating to the individual when they first entered a Theatre of War in the relevant qualifying periods. For the Victory Medal and British War Medal it is the unit they were serving with when their part in the hostilities ended, and the highest rank reached in a Theatre of War. You therefore, particularly with the earlier medals, get instances where a man's medals will be on the service medal roll of one regiment \ corps but they actually qualified for them with another unit and those are the unit details shown on the medals. You will also get instances where a man achieved a higher rank during the period of the hostilities, but did so on home service and so this is not reflected in the rank shown on the medals.

 

RAF is a slightly different issue - their medals were issued by the Air Ministry. The Royal Flying Corps had ceased to exist and the relevant records offices in the UK were transferred to the new organisation. However, and I could be wrong about this, I think you'll find those men serving with the Royal Flying Corps who died before the Royal Air Force was created have the unit shown on their Victory Medal and British War medals as the Royal Flying Corps - the last unit they served with, (sadly), before their part in the hostilities came to an end.

 

Hope that helps,

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully clearer now why I say the 1914/15 Star shouldn't show the 71st Trench Mortar Battery as that unit didn't exist until April 1916 and was formed in France of men and officers seconded from infantry battalions - units that would take precedence on the medal rolls. Of course we are taking about millions of men potentialy qualifying for medals and so errors and weird variations creep in. But to me it sounds unlikely.

 

Cheers,

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The medal is actually a 1914 Star, that's what first attracted me to it and I was intrigued by the 71st TMB inscription on it. Thanks to you gentleman the research into O D Read has been very interesting.

 

Cheers Paul 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/05/2021 at 09:36, Paul Gibson said:

The medal has arrived and it looks original and not renamed.

I'm not so sure.

Looks engraved to me.  Is it?

Should be impressed (stamped) if genuine I believe.

And that 71st T.M.B. unit is decidedly very odd for 1914.

:-/ M

Edited by Matlock1418
correction
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are correct Matlock on closer inspection looks engraved not stamped.  Everything about the medal looks decidedly dodgy. The year (1914) the unit, and the fact that the medal documents clearly state he was turned down for his medals.  Its been extremely interesting though researching him and chatting with you guys.

 

Thank you Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...