Maltreatment of Prisoners of War

The claimant[1] was a Private in the 28th Battalion, Regimental No. 73761 He enlisted in October, 1914, at the age of 25 years. He was taken prisoner, June 6, 1916, at Hooge. In his Declaration he states that when captured he was wounded, though the military records state that he was not. He was repatriated in England December 26, 1918. He is not in receipt of pension. Since his return to Canada he has been more or less dependent upon his sister and brother-in-law. Such employment as he has been able to obtain has been inter­mittent, due to his health, and only averages from 3 to 4 months per annum. Prior to enlistment he was employed as a harness maker and took a course in vulcanizing after the war, for which his father paid, but was unable to carry on. He does not state his income prior to enlistment.

He alleges that while a prisoner of war he was subjected to maltreatment which has resulted in pecuniary damage to him. His statement of claim and brief prepared by his solicitors is very complete and shows that he was beaten repeatedly, stabbed through the arm with a bayonet, courtmartialled, served solitary confinement and starved. Affidavits as to his condition are made by his sister and brother-in-law. His medical history files, upon discharge, shows no disability but indicate scars on the head and limbs.

The record in this case is particularly voluminous and the facts brought to light are of a most distressing character. Claimant declares that he was wounded; when captured, and after some hospitalization was taken to Stendal camp, where he remained for the duration of his captivity. The statement of fact, contained in claim as filed, has been substantially proven. Briefly, the abuse in this case, as stated by counsel for claimant, consists in being beaten with a rifle and stabbed with a bayonet. On the first occasion, in April, 1917, claimant was sent to work on a farm. Following an altercation with a German officer, apparently home on leave, he was struck and knocked down, clubbed over the head and back with rifles. He was admitted to hospital, where he remained for several months. For an attempted escape, he received 14 days' solitary con­finement. In the fall of 1917, claimant was sent to a sugar factory at Walmirstedt, to work. He was apparently suspect by the guards because of the incident with the German officer. There is some confusion as to precisely what occurred at the sugar factory. At all events it is clear that claimant, in defending himself from an assault from a German sentry, closed with his assailant, who thereupon drew his bayonet and ran claimant through the arm. The main facts of this incident are borne out by copy and translation of German court martial which indicates insubordination on the part of the claimant and reasonable chastise­ment by the German guard. It is beyond question that the means adopted by the German guard to chastise claimant and quell the so-called mutiny, went beyond all reasonable bounds. It was certainly unnecessary to wound claimant; he should and could have been arrested, if the facts are as stated in the record of the court martial. As a result of this experience, claimant was left in a deplorable condition. There is an abundance of evidence to this effect furnished by the affidavits of fellow prisoners, and even by a French prisoner who was present at the time, and underwent, with claimant, trial by the German Court Martial, above referred to. Claimant, with this French prisoner, was condemned to 60 days' solitary confinement, which he served, under conditions which have been declared by witnesses to be beyond description. Claimant from this time forward was quite unable to work. He spent some weeks in hospital, and, when discharged, was in such a weakened condition that he could not attend to himself, but was looked after by his comrades as best they could. It is unnecessary to detail the various statements of witnesses who have spoken of the treatment accorded to claimant. It will be sufficient to say that, whatever may have been his attitude to his captors, he received punishment far in excess of his deserts.

The medical record indicates that claimant suffers from general nervous debility, headaches, insomnia, pain and numbness in left forearm; that he tires easily, and exhibits loss of mental acuity. His percentage of disability is stated (in certificate) at from 20 per cent to 30 per cent, but the detailed statements of the physicians who have filed statements would indicate it to be much higher. Dr. Pelle has furnished a very detailed summary of plaintiff's condition and placed the disability at from 80 per cent to 90 per cent, the main trouble being traumatic neurasthenia. Claimant's condition is becoming worse and there seems little hope of any improvement. He is dependent upon his relatives and has been unable to work or to hold any employment due to his nervous condition. These facts are clearly borne out by affidavits filed of record by employers and other persons familiar with the efforts made by claimant to support himself.

The record clearly establishes, in my opinion, that as a result of the treatment received by claimant his health has been seriously and permanently impaired. I have no hesitation whatever in finding that claimant was subjected to maltreatment at the hands of the enemy and is entitled to an award for the resultant disability. With the evidence made before this Commission it would seem to me that claimant should also submit his case to the Board of Pension Commissioners. The question of assessing the damage to claimant is difficult, but after very careful consideration, I consider, and it is my recommendation, that claimant receive a sum of $1,500 with interest thereon, at the rate of 5 per cent per annum, from January 10, 1920, to date of payment.

ERROL M. McDOUGALL,

Commissioner,

OTTAWA, November 30, 1931.

[1] Served as William Pettigrew Badenoch. Also listed as Badenoch in the index.

Originally printed on page 25 of the report