.. But answer came there none...
I was reminded of the case of "Breaker" Morant:
"While the trial was underway, Boer commandos launched a surprise attack on Pietersburg. Morant and his co-accused were released from their cells and given arms in order to participate in the defence. It is reported that they fought bravely, in the direct line of fire, and assisted in the defeat of the attackers. Although Major Thomas filed a "plea of condonation", which should have earned them clemency because of their roles in the defence, his request was dismissed by the court."
The past is not dead. In fact, it's not even past.
No they would not, but, WO97 is quite clear on this particular character, he appears not to have liked Foreign Service and actual Campaign Service even less.
The battalion arrived in Ladysmith upon the 11th of October 1899 after leaving Dargle Road in the small hours of that day, George Day having only returned to duty upon the 4th of August for an earlier conviction, he was placed in confinement again (this now being the third time) for breaking out of camp on the 23rd of December, tried upon the 29th of December and sentenced before his return the duty upon the 26th of January in the new year.
He deserted upon the 6th of February, still he could read and write and I would suggest he knew exactly what he was doing as well as the likely result of his actions.
BereniceUK wrote: I heard back from Tameside Local Studies - "the Manchester Regiment archive does not hold individual service records unless deposited by the family."
Interestingly, his Military History sheet simply his the word "forfeited" written in bold script and red ink across at a forty five degree angle!
LinneyI wrote: Berenice
Here we have an unambiguous medal roll entry for "5052 Pte. G. Day" of the Manchesters. WO100/198 p.21 has him marked as "NO MEDAL", "Deserted, forfeit medal". "Defence of Ladysmith" the only clasp marked.