MEIKLE COMMISSION.

Otago Witness, Issue 2722, 16 May 1906, Page 27

MEIKLE COMMISSION.

DB FISDLAY OPESS THE CASE FOU THE CROWN.

Sixth Dat— Tuesday.

(Before their Honors Mr Justice Edwards and Mr Justice Cooper.)

The Royal Commission to inquire into the guilt or otherwise of John James Meikle for sheep-stealing in Southland in 1887 and other matters resumed its sitting on Tuesday morning. Mr A. R. Atkinson (Wellington) appeared for Mr ileik'e, and Dr Findlay (Wellington) for the Crown.

The hearing of evidence on behalf of the suppliant was continued. Neil Sutherland said he had volunteeed to give evidence. Some years ago he had a con\ersation with Mr Cameron, who was at one time manager for the company, about a statement in a provincial paper bearing on his leputation. Mr Cameron mentioned to witness that he had employed a man to lay a trap for Meikle He said, " I instructed him to place sheepskins in Meikle's place." Witness said, " Did you give the instructions in •writing or were they verbal?" and Mr Cameron said they were verbal. Witness said, "Was anybody present at the lime?" and Mr Cameron said there was not, adding that he took care it was not in writing. Witness said, " Surely you were very foolish in doing that." Later on, witness saw in the newspapers that Mr Solomon was going to Invercargill in connection with the case, and called at his omc* but was informed that he had left. His intention was to tell Mr Solomon of the conversation with Mr Cameron.

In reply to Mr Justice Edward9>v.Dr Findlay said that Mr Cameron had been residing in England for the last two years. Cross-examined by Dr Findlay : It was about a year after the conversation with Mr Cameron that he went to Mr Solomon's office. Witness knew at the time that Mr Solomon was going to Invercargill to prosecute the man who had been the instrument in getting Meikle into gaol. He did not remember that in the provincial newspaper to which he had referred there were charges made against Mr M'Cullough i,the magistrate) Mr Macdonald, and Mr Denniston (now Judge Denniston), as veil as against Mr Cameron. He had no interest iv these other people.

Dt Findlay . In 1894 you were told by a man that he had been the instrument in having skins put on Meikle's land in order to obtain Meikle's conviction, an-d you believed it? — Witness: I could not but believe it.

Do you claim to have any sense of justice in you 9 — Yes. Then why did you not write to Mr Solomon or to Mr Meikle and tell them of the statement? — I thought I had done sufficient when I went to see Mr Solomon, and found him gone.

Do you mean to say that, with any instincts of humanity in your breast, you did not tell tbe innocent man about it? — I tried to tell Mr Solomon.

Cross-examination continued : Witness heard Meikle addressing a meeting in Dunedin, but did not tell him about the conversation with Mr Cameron. He did not think it -would do him any good. He also called on Mr Solomon a few days befoi'e the commission sat in Duneclin, but learned from him that be was not in the case. Two or three months ago witness learned that Mr Cameron was residing in England.

Dr Findlay Why didn't you give this information to Meik'e some time ago, when Mr Cameron was here to confront you? — I could not. I gave it to Mr Meikle when I had the opportunity — whsn I was introduced to him.

Mr Justice Edwards . "When you found iliat Mr Solomon had gone to Invercargill, why didn't you write to him '—Witness : It never occurred to me.

Cross-examination continued He had bad some difficulty in using a pen in the last five or six years. Twe've years ago bis hand was not so bad. He did not ask Mr Solomon's clerk to write a letter for him. Witness wrote frequently to tbe newspapers at one time, but had not written during the last few months.

Dr Findlay said this matter came to him as a complete surprise, and if it was to be taken s-eriously it was obvious that Mr Cameron's evidence must be obtained.

Mr Justice Edwards said the court could not find that Mr Cameron had committed any offence without hearing him. Dr Findlay said that if necessary he would iv due time move for a commission to examine Mr Cameron in England to see whether tie witness's story was correct or not. Mr Atkinson said that the last witness fee intended to call — Mrs Meikle — was ill. H« produced a medical certificate to show that she was suffering from heart trouble, and her medical adviser suggested that heT evidence should be taken privately or at a later -date. Dr Findlay said be would not object to Mrs Meikle being called later on. In the meantime he would assume that the evidence she had. pTevious'y given •was correct. Mr Atkinson said he would arrange with Dr Findlay about putting in the evidence of witnesses who had died since the previous trials. This closed the susDliant's case, subject tg

calling Mrs Meikle and a few witnesses in Wellington.

DR FIXDLAY'S^OPENIiSrO. Dr Findlay, in opening the ctse for the Crown, said that much might be done by a person by daily protestation, added to a brazen effrontery that never felt a qusulm. In this instance, Mr Meikle might be guilty or he might not, but the hubbub, the pubhc agitation, and the interest he had created were in themselves no guarantee that he was not an impudent imposter. What were the few broad facts that had led to the appointment of the commission? The owners of two adjoining farms in Southland were in 1887 at loggerheads — Meikle and the New Zealand Mortgage and Investment Company. Both owned sheep. Assault and battery, litigation, perjury trials, parliamentary petitions, and what not were the outcome of this bitterness, which, he would show, was entirely confined to Mr Meikle. In the yeaT preceding Mr Meikle's arrest the company had lost 1200 or 1400- sheep. Most of them were obviously being stolen, but who was the thief? He long defied detection. The company appealed to the police, who admitted themselves incapable of discovering the culprit, and suggested that the company should itself engage a private detective to discover the stealer. The company employed a man who was recommended by the police — Lambert, — and later on laid an information for theft against Meikle. A conviction was obtained, and Meikle was sent to prison for five years. Then Meikle jprosecuted Lambert for perjury, and Lambart was sent to goal for four years. Meikle appealed to Parliament, and got £291 on account of the prosecution of iiatnbert, giving a receipt in tull for that sum. Subsequently, he obtained a further sum of JESOO, and gave a receipt in full and final discharge of all claims he had, or thought he had, against the Crown. Before he signed that re- i ceipt Mr J. W. KeLly pointedly called his attention to the fact that he couid not coin* : again-^o the colony for compensation. In the face of that warning Meikle signed the receipt and went away. Immediately afterwards he ignored his undertaking, and again knocked at the door ' of Parliament, demanding (1) a formal declaration of his innocence and (2) the sum of £15,000 for the wrong he and his family had suffered. Not getting any money he demanded a Royal Commission to settle all questions of innocence and of money. The Government, in order to facilitate the claim, not only paid Mr Meikle's personal expenses, but his counsel's fees and his expenses, and the expenses of every witness Mr M.eikls liked to call. All this immense expense was incurred, and then on Friday last Mr Meikle told the commission he would not undertake to accept its findings as final. Such a position was on a par with the attitude he had adopted in returning to the Government for more after he had been paid the £500. That was a brief epitome of the whole case. On the threshhold of the inquiry there were two questions — Was Meikle innocent, and, if innocerit, was he entitled to more compensation from the colony, or, was he entitled to compensation at all? It had been assumed that if Meikle was innocent th.s colony was under an obligation to compensate him — an assumption that, in the circumstances of the case, waß not justified. What wrong, moral or legs-1, had the colony done Mr Meikle? It had done him no wrong. No one- in a public capacity had been guilty of auy misconduct or injustice towards him. What the colony did in 1887 to Meikle, and for the five years following it, it must in the same circumstances do again to-morrow, and for ever, if society was to exist. What did the colony do to Meikle in 1887? He had an impartial trial. He was ably defended by ' Mr John MacGregor, of Dunedin, and 12 of lus fellow colonists found him guilty. The judge had to sentence him and the State to imprison him. What wrong, then, hgd the colony been guilty of, None. The colony had throughout acted towards Meikle fairly, properly, and inevitably. If so, on what was the claim of £15,000 based— £lo,ooo for Meikle himself — so Meikle said — and £5000 for his children — all his children, counsel supposed. The Slate was not liable. The prosecution was not a police prosecution. It was not a ""public prosecution. It was laid by the company. The prosecution was started by the company, and it was owing to that prosecution and to the company's witnesses that Meikle was convicted. That was Meikle's whole case. iLis whole complaint was against the company, and his claim, if any, was against the company and its servants. It might be said that the State had imprisoned Meikle. A good many people held that view. But the imprisonment by the State followed the conviction secured by the company. If Meikle established his innocence he did not establish a claim on the colony. The State, by its imprisonment, was not the wrongdoer, and had not done him any injury. The question he asked now was whether Meikle had established his innocence. It was for Mr Atkinson to show that the conviction was wrong beyond all reasonable doubt. It seemed to be commonly assumed that because Lambert was convicted of perjury M«ikle was innocent. He (learned counsel) disputed that proposition at once. It did not follow at all that Meikle was innocent because Lambert was convicted. Apart altogether from Lambert's evidence at Meikle's trial there was ample evidence on j ■which a jury could convict Meikle. Lambert's ; conviction did not remove two very strong proofs of guilt — that 27 of the company's sheep were found on Meikle's land at the time of the police search, and that two skins, plainly marked with the company's brand, were found in Meikle's smithy. It was not on these statements that Lambert was convicted of perjury. He was convicted of perjury because of his statements on other matters — puch as the statement that he had seen young Meikle driving sheep one night. It was not at all essential to show that Lambert was wrongfully convicted. He believed he would establish to their Honors' satisfaction that Lambert was indead innocent, but that was not his main purpose. He was not there a.s fhe advocate for Lambert. He was there to establish the proposition that the commission could not find that Meikle was wrongfully convicted in 1887, aud if incidentally to that purpoE* he proved Lambert innocent then, he took it. he was discharging a good service. Apart from Lambert's evidence Meikle had to show how the 27 sheep

got on his land, and how the skins found their way into his smithy. The fact that 27 sheep were found on another man's land might mean nothing at all under some circumstances, but in this case he submitted that the presence of those 27 sheep on Meikle's land, and the attempt be made to explain it in 1887, amounted to so grave a suspicion against him as in itself to entitle a jury to find him guilty. It waa significant that in 1887 the company's case was that it had rich pasture from which these sheep must have strayed on to pastures which could offer no inducement whatever to sheep. It was not likely that sheep would do this, and therefore the finding of the 27 sheep on Meikle's land waa a grave circumstance. Learned counsel referred to the story alleged to have been told by Lambert to bring about the conviction of Meikle, and ridiculed the whole thing. If such a tale "meant anything at all it meant that Lambert would lose the £50 he was to receive and get a long term of imprisonment. The whole story was so absurd as to be almost unworthy of serious examination. It was a rigmarole that waa palpably absurd. The fact that since hia trial Meikle had got a number of people to support him only showed what an expert ho was either in making honest people believa what never happened or in inducing dishonest people to perjure themselves. How did Meikle act when the skins were found? If hts. story was correct be must have "known* when, the police discovered the skins that the man who put them there was Lambert .and nobody else. Lambert, according to IHeikle, had told everybody he was going to put them there. Could anyone have had the faintest doubt as tojwho the culprit was? When the. I skins were "found, why dia not Harvey or . Arthur Meikle say, "That -jb the work cf Lambert." But Arthur Meikle said. '" They nust Tiave ieert taken off tho fence by mis-~ take," and Harvey, who heard that explanation, kept silence. Why did they not clear themselves by saying that Lambert had put the skin 8 there, and that they would prova it? And how d.id Meikle himself aot when he found the police had reached his place and discovered two auspicious, skins? Did he go at once and tell them about the plot? He saw Lambert on the Bth November— the day after he had been arrested— in the Star Hotel. He said to Lambert. "-Speak truthfully, whatever way it is." The witness M'Donald. who was al«o in the hotel, heard- Meikla aek Lam-" bsrt to speak truthfully, and Lambert said,g *' Yes, but I want £10 of Vood money iront Stewart." That statement, which was creditedto Lambert, was" mamf39tly absurd. On the 14th .Meikle, ->wlio had had .six- days, moreto think it over and to recognise that no man but' Lambert had* put the sfchSs there,' wrote" to Lambert asking him to come and shear for him, adding, "You keep your mouth shut and you have nothing to fear, : and listen to no reports." That letter was inconsistent with the story Meikle now asked the court to believe. There was a previoas letter, which, counsel submitted, would give an ■entirely different meaning from the one that Meikla now wished to put on it. In the earlier letter, which woulfi be produced. Meikle asked Lambert to " keep his mouth shut." and it waa on the assumption that he did so that he had

" nothing to fear." That waa the reasonable interpretation of the letter of the 14th. Learned coxinsel asked their Honors to look at the obviously invented elements which Meikle had introduced since his trial in 1887 At Wyndham.' when Meikle was first tried, j his sbn and Harvey went into the box, and "" might have been asked about »he bag that, it was said" Lambert had with him ■when. he went to Meikle's. one night to sharpen his knife. Yet not a word was said about the bag at that trial. That evidence, counsel submitted with confidence, was deliberately manufactured, and if Meikle^ would deliberately manufacture evidence in this respect, they were entitled to assume that he hitd done it in other respects where necessary. At 1 the trial in 1887 there was not a word either about instructions being given to Harvey to lock up. Meikla said be had written many questions and handed them to ITx MacGregor. who tore them up. Learned ccarasel did not believe such a story. He did not believe that a careful counsel like Mr MacGregor would hnve done such a thing. Even in the court below when Meikle was conducting his own defence he did not say a word about this matter.

On the court resuming after the luncheon adjournment. Dr Findlay, continuing, said ha had been reviewing the evidence given at th« trial to show that the story of Lambert having put these two skins in Meikle's smithy was absurd, and was not believed by Meikle himself at the time. It was not believed by him at all, and the whole story had been got up as a shield and a sword. One reason why the jury in 1895 believed the story was that MacGeorge rhen gave his evidence for the first time, and his evidence, in the hands of an advocate like Mr Solomon, had a great deal of weight with the jury that tried Lambert. The jury that tried Lambert heard from .MacGeorge a story he had been unable to Tepeat in the present case. The court would see Mac George had turned a complete somersault. Learned counsel compared the evidence given by Mac George upon the two occasions.

Dr Findlay at this stage intimated to the court that the witness Sutherland desired to withdraw something he had said in the morning, and, as it affected Mr Camei on's character, it had better be done at once.

Neil Sutherland said he had stated Cameron told him he had employed Lambert to put' sheepskins on Meikle's property He had not intended to say that, if be had said it. He had only intended to say he stated he had laid a trap for Meikle. His Honor Mr Justice Edwards You not only stated it. You reiterated it.

His Honor Mr Justice Cooper • You had better say now what Mr Cameron said.

Witness Baid Cameron told him he had laid a trap for Meikle, and that he had employed somebody to lay that trap. He eaid he had instructed him to do something or other. Witness inquired if he had given these instructions in writing or verbally, and he said lie had given them verbally, and in answer to witness's inquiry as to whether there was anyone present, he said no, no one but himself aud the man he had employed. "Witness ihen asked him if he had given instructions is

writing, and he said, " No fear, I took good fare of that." " __ j Dr Findlay, continuing -hi 3 address, said the evidence given by Mac George in 1895, upon | ■jhich Lambert was convicted, was evidence cf j > soft in » that the old, man's -naaind was domi- j jated by"thV,strong will, of Meijsle. . The. whole j tory- about having got skins. for Lambert was . fabrication impressed upon his mind by Aeikle. -The skins -were at 'the back of the ;ut, perfectly open to anyone.' Then why ihould Lambert go to him snd tell him he | ras going to put skins upon Meikle's land, and Vsk him to get two skins for him? He (Dt Findlay) submitted they could put aside Hac--j reorge's evidence as- absolutely unreliable, and i i Lambert had not put the skins there ' Ueikle's conviction must stand. This was i ipart from any evidence that Lambert had | jean young Meikle driving sheep from the com- j pany*a place to his father's place^'The presence pf 27 sheep on the land and the two skins in the smithy was absolutely apart from the story i told by Lambert about the theft committed by young Meikle. The next broad question was, -was Lambert guilty, «nd his first point was • that Meikle's conviction stood whether tmbert was guilty or not. He (Dr Findlay) w dealt with the question, was Lambert ilty. Both Meikle and Lambert had proted their innocence. Lambert had not the faculty for collecting people in various parts of the colony and addressing them as to his wrongs, but he had a wife and had suffered. It would be easier for Meikle to find assistance in the conflict as far as the evidence of neighbours was concerned than for the company, and.jt was infinitely easier for him to get evidence from his neighbours than it was for the informer, as ihe informer brought a man to -justice, and- had laid, upon -a great deal ofobliging. When Lambert turned to look for evidence be would Teceive th* cold shoulder

irom^many who might have assisted him. He stood alone and friendless, and the backs of the. men who should have» helped-. him had been- turned upon him, to help the man whose conviction he had obtained. He (Dr Findl»y) f had .. to admit that Lambert.- was actingas detective to secure the conviction of the man who was stealing the company's sheep. It would be proved by the police and others that Lambert's employment arose in this "way. The police were unable to find out who were stea'ing large numbers of these ■beep, and Constable Leece had declared he could Ao no more, and that the company roust emp'oy a detective of its own, _ and Lambert was recommended. There was norecord against Lambert so far as he (Dr Findlay) had been able to ascertain. There had been a trial of Lambert for perjury in 1887, and in preparing his defence at that date Meikle must have .«otight for every scrap of evidence, as both he and his solicitor had informed the court that every particle of evidence had been collected, and it was a fair inference that the case of perjury he made out in 1887 was the strongest he could make. The only new witness of any importance at all he got in 1595 was Hacgeorge, and he (Dr Findlay) as*ked, could an} - one have reasonably convicted Lambert of perjury on the evidence given in 1887? It had apparently required a lapse of seven or eight years to strengthen the case against him sufficiently to get a verdict. Meikle came out of epol jn October, 1892, and the rase against Lambert did not start till two years afterwards. In th* -meantime Meikle was going round the country preparing his own proof and preparing proof upon which Lambert was convicted, mild If the differences in the evidence cf 1887 #nd 1895 were compared, no other conclusion could be "come to than that they were icauufactured. Learned counsel proceeded to refer In detail to the differences. Why was not foung Meikle asked iv the Supreme Court In 1895, " Did you not hear your father ask Lambert about* the bag that was standing Iga-inst the building?" How was it in crosstsumnation Lambert was never asked a word jibout the bag beiog there? Surely that was

» one of the things a capable man like Meikle Tor his solicitor would have asked. The court wculd look with the greatest suspicion upon | this steady increase of evidence of essential facts from 1887 to 1895. Even in 1906 the process was still going on, a-nd was an illustration of how a case in. the hands jf an , industrious and anxious man could be uvatls stronger as time went on. Then the condition of Meikle's land in 1887 was entirely differ2nt to its condition in 1895. The condition of the fences had, of course, been altered, sr,d the pastures had been altered, mid Meik'e had been able to bring into court evidence -'of hii pastures much better and easier when the jury tried him in 1887 than now. Learned counsel compared Harvey's evidence in 1887 with that given by him in 1895, and said he was a witness who had been coached up by 1 Meikle, and had altered his evidence for the I1I 1 purpose of securing Lambert's conviction. Referring to the evidence of Riley, who Lad not been called, but whose evidence was to I be pressed upon the court, Dr Findlay said he would put in evidence which wouid oi:lv 'be the police records. It was imperative I Eiley's record should be known.

Mr Atkinson : I wish you would give us Lambert's record.

Dr Findlay: I have told you I have applied to the police, and there is not one single record against him. His Honor Mr Justice Edwards (to Mr Atkinson): Do you agree to strike out Rilej's evidence ?

Mr Atkinson : I thought the whole of the Supreme Court evidence was going in.

Dr Findlay, continuing, said the next witness relied upon was Westacott, the butcher. He had not been called in the Police Court, though he was called in the Supreme Court, and his evidence given the previous day would have been valuable. H© had said he had seen the skins, and they were the skins from dead sheep. When he was called to give his evidence in 1895 the skins had disappeared, and could not be produced to confront Westacott. His evidence was not called in 1887 at al'. His evidence might ba quite honesfc, but it wa3 quite inaccurate. The skins had been examined by a. man who could claim to know twice as much as Westacott, and he would be able to give a minute description of the skins, and would be able to give conclusive proof that these skins came from sheep killed in the ordinary way. He (counsel) was informed by four witnesses he could call, that if a sheep had died from inflammation traces of it were left most clearly upon the skin itself. It presented an entirely different appearance to one taken from a sheep killed in the ordinary way. Was it credible that if the skins came from dead sheep the court would not have had evidence of it in 1887 from an old sheep farmer like Meikle. The statement was made after eight years, when the skins had disappeared, and Lambert could not produce them. Criticising Connors evidence, Dr Findlay said there wa3 no explanation why he was not called in 18S7. (Mr Atkinson : He was in the hospital). The whole condition of things had changed*. One of the main questions in dispute had been the state of the fences, and yet this witness was not called in 1887.

His Honor Mr Justice Edwards: It would be quite safe, after eight years, for a witness to swear almost anything he liked about the fences.

Dr Findlay agreed, and resuming, sajd the conditions of the pastures was curiously enough never raised in 1887. Now they had evidence to the subject that was quite valuable then. The whole .district could have been called to prove if there was nine inches of oat 3 growing on Meikle's property. This evidence must be viewed with such grave suspicion that it could not be relied upon at all, and they were entitled to go back to the case made out against Lambert in 1887, and ask whether the case then made out against him proved him to be guilty of perjuiy. Lambert's* jtorj would, be th&t tiaces 9* sheep

being driven from the company's leashold to Meikle's were found, and it was discovered that a/log under the fence to make it sheepproof had been removed, and not properly replaced in its old bed. Mr Troup had seen Constable Leece, and as the police could not watch the station several miles away, he (Lambert) was recommended by the police for the work. He was to get 20s a week, and to live upon the company's land, and if he discovered the real thief he was to get the sum of £50. That, learned coxinsel, considered was a perfectly honourable arrangement, notwithstanding what Mr Atkinson had said at opening. Lambert had taken the best means of discovering the source of the thefts. He had gone straight to Meikle and told him why ho was there, and said something that would lead Meikle to believe he had no cause for fear. By this means he obtained Meikle's confidence, and was invited to his houee. Another circumstance (the altering of the brand of a horse) had caused an additional confidence between them. The very first thing a skilful detective required to do in dealing with a man like Meikle was to establish this friendly relationship which was established. Referring to the fact of Lambert meeting Arthur Meikle driving sheep one night, learned counsel said there was no doubt Lambert was in Gregg's house that night, that Gregg accompanied him some distance when he left, and that Lambert spoke to someone whose voice was like that of Arthur Meikle. Gregg would have been in attendance at the sitting of the commission, but he could not be found. Gregg wss a respectable farmer, accused of no bias, and had accompanied Lambert that night — the night of the theft — towards the pre-emptive right. Dr Findlay desired to emphasise that Lambert had not pressed that it was the 17th October as an essential point, but that \t was the night he had visited Gregg's house. It might be it was the -18th October he visited Gregg's. A diary had come to light showing that the date Mac George left Islay Station was the 18th, and Lambert had been tried and convicted upon having sworn the 17th was the date on which Mac George left. Had this evidence he (Dr Findlay) was now able to give the court been forthcoming before, he was confident Lambert would never have been convictedThe court rope at 4 p.m. and Dr Findlay resumed his address at 10,30 next morning.