Home Search Our Site! Sign Our Guest Book!


List of Regiments Regimental Histories Muster Rolls Orderly Books Courts Martial Loyalists in the Regular Army/Navy Civil Branches Spies & Intelligence Black Loyalists Clothing and Supplies Claims and Memorials Other Facts and Records



&c, &c, &c...
The On-Line Institute for Advanced Loyalist Studies

General Court Martial of John Arrensdt
Part 3 of 3

Tuesday the 29th Febry. 1780

The Court being met pursuant to Adjournment.

The Court Adjourned ‘till Thursday morning 11 o’Clock.

Thursday 2nd March 1780.

The Court being met pursuant to Adjournment.

Serjeant Lewis MILLER, of Captn. De DIEMAR’s Troop of Hussars being duly sworn was examined.

        Q:(by the Prisr.)— By whose order was he (the Prisoner) confined and where?

        A: Capt. De DEIMAR sent him the Witness with the Prisr. from Jerico to New York full Accoutred, with a letter to the Commandant, who ordered him Prisr. to the Provost.

        Q:(by the Court)— Does he (the Witness) know how long the Troop was stationed at Jerico, before he came with the Prisoner to New York?

        A: He cant say.

        Q: How long was he (the Witness) at Jerico, before he came to Town with the Prisoner?

        A: One day.

        Q: During that Interval of one day that he was at Jerico, does he know whether the prisoner was confined or whether he did his duty?

        A: He (the Prisoner) was Capt. DeDEIMAR’s Orderly Man, when he (the Witness) was ordered to come to Town with him.

        Q: Did he know when he was coming to Town with the Prisoner, that he was to be put in Confinement?

        A: Yes.

Henry HUGHTHOUSEN, private Soldier of Capt. De DIEMARs Troop of Hussars, being duly Sworn was examined.

        Q:(by the Prisr.)— Did not he (the Witness) carry an Order from Capt. De DEIMAR to have the Prisoner released after he had been confined by Capt. De DEIMAR at Kings Bridge; and was he released?

        A: Yes; Capt. De DEIMAR ordered him (the Witness) to go to the Guard, and tell the Prisoner to come to him.

        Q:(by the Court)— Did the Prisoner do duty with the Troop after he was released?

        A: Yes.

        Q: Was he (the Witness) with the Troop when the Prisoner was ordered to New York?

        A: Yes.

        Q:(by the Court)— Was the Prisoner in Confinement from the time that he was released at Kingsbridge, till sent from Jerico to the Provost at New York?

        A: No.

Capt. Frederick De DEIMAR of the Troop of Hussars, being duly sworn was examined.

        Q:(by the Prisoner)— Did not he (the prisoner) beg of him for Gods sake to send another man in his room when he was ordered upon Vidette the same day that he was confined at Kingsbridge?

        A: Yes; but it was after he (the Witness) read the Articles of Mutiny to him.

        Q: Did not he (the Prisoner) always behave as a good Soldier, and a brave Soldier, and always Obedient to his Orders, previous to his being confined at Kingsbridge?

        A: Yes; but particularly distinguished himself in action.

        Q: Did not the prisoner do duty as a good Soldier in the Troop after he was released at Kingsbridge, till he was sent Prisoner from Long Island to Town?

        A: Yes, the very next day, and behaved remarkably well.

        Q:(by the Court)— Why was the Prisoner released from his confinement for mutiny, and permitted to do duty in the Troop after the 13th Novr. last?

        A: Because most part of the mounted Hussars were Unanimous, and wanted to be put in Confinement also, as they thought themselves equally injured as the Prisoner to be Commanded by Lieut. ALBUS; and that on account of his (the Witness) only having twenty eight Hussars fit for duty, & thinking that by keeping the Prisr. confined would cause a greater irregularity on the outpost, he (the Witness) was resolved to defer sending him Prisoner to Town, untill they were recalled from the Outpost, where the small number of men was to be replaced by a Soldier like Countenance, which left the Witness no other choice.

The Court having considered the Evidence for and against the Prisoner John ARRENDSDT, together with what he had to offer in his Defence, Is of Opinion—that he is Guilty of having disobey’d the Orders of Lieut. ALBUS on the Outpost of Kingsbridge, in a breach of the fifth article of the Second Section of the Articles of War; and doth therefore Sentence him (the said John ARRENDST) to receive three hundred Lashes, on his bare back, with Cats of Nine Tails;

but as it appears to the Court that he (John ARRENDST) had on previous occasions distinguished himself in Action; & that immediately subsequent to his Confinement he was released by Capt. De DEIMAR, & very chearfully obey'd his Orders, and with alacrity did his Duty; these considerations added to his Long Confinement, Induce the Court to recommend him as an Object of Clemency.

                                       John SMALL Majr. Comdt. 2 Battn.
                                       84th (or Sir Henry CLINTONs) Regt. of
                                       Highlanders. President Genl.
                                       Court Martial

Mathw. WOODD
   D. Judge Advocate

                                   Wm. TRYON M. G:

Click here for ---> Arrensdt Court Martial, Part 1

                               Arrensdt Court Martial, Part 2

Great Britain, Public Record Office, War Office, Class 71, Volume 91, Pages 213–224.

Spacer Image

Click here for ---> More On-Line Courts Martial

                               Courts Martial Main Page

                               Top of Page

Spacer Image

The On-Line Institute for Advanced Loyalist Studies
For information please contact Todd Braisted

Copyright Restrictions    Document Formatting    Optimal Viewing