It was a sad day! Lieutenant Wells was a favorite with both officers and men of his command. He always had been mild as a female, kind and benevolent—sacrificing his own comfort for the good of the privates in his battalion. True, some said that Wells would not fight bravely—that he ought to have been created a _woman_; but everybody gave him credit for being the kindest of the kind. When first accused, there arose a very bitter feeling against him. Captain Hayward also was a great favorite with the men. He was a stern but kind soldier. When the news of his brutal murder came to the knowledge of his “boys,” their first cry was “revenge,” and they naturally sought some one on whom to wreak their vengeance. At first Lieutenant Wells narrowly escaped a summary fate, more especially as it was whispered about camp that Wells had become a suitor for the hand of the fair Mamie Hayward, had been _rejected_ by her, and spurned by the captain. But in a short time it was given out that Mamie had confessed her affection for Wells, and that Captain Hayward had remarked in the presence of others, that he deemed Wells an honorable man, and would gladly favor his suit. This turned the tide of feeling in favor of the lieutenant, and when the court-martial was convened, nothing but a consciousness of a soldier’s duty prevented an open revolt, or at least a most decided and forcible expression of feeling. But, trusting to the judgment of the officers forming the court, the soldiers decided to await the result. Have our readers ever witnessed a trial by court-martial? It is not like the ordinary court of justice. First, the charge is read, as thus: “Lieutenant Edward Wells, of Company H, Battalion of B—— C——, is charged with the willful murder of Harry Hayward, a captain in the U. S. army. “2d.—Specification.—1st. In this, that said Lieutenant Edward Wells, did, on the night of the seventh day of November, 1861, assassinate and murder said,” etc. Following this, in any case of the kind, would be found a list of “specifications,” setting forth in detail, all the chief events connected with the crime. The prisoner was brought to the tent of Major D—— to answer to the charge. He was very pale, yet perfectly composed; and when the question was asked, the ready and firm response was: “NOT GUILTY!” The Judge-Advocate, a noble-hearted but just man, informed the prisoner that he was to act, not only as “prosecuting counsel,” but as “counsel” for the prisoner, and that he (the Judge-Advocate) must give the prisoner the benefit of any doubt that might arise in his favor. To those of our readers not familiar with the _modus operandi_ of a court-martial, we would give the following information for their benefit: