EVIDENCE FOR THE CROWN.

Otago Witness, Issue 2722, 16 May 1906, Page 28

EVIDENCE FOR THE CROWN.

Seventh Day — Wednesday.

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 Wednesday morningi Mr A. E. Atkinson (Wellington) appeared for Mi Meikle, and Dr Findlay (Wellington) for the Crown.

Dr Findlay, continuing his address in opening the case for the Grown, said it was clear that Lambett had fixed the date of October 17 — the date of the theft by young Meikle — by an event, the event being a visit to Gregg's house. Lambert, a man of experience, had he desired to manufacture evidence, would have fixed on a date on which the three chief personages concerned in this tragedy were likely to be about. Yet this so-called liar, according to the testimony of the other side, selected a date when one of the injured persons was ill. a date on which the night was so boisterous that it would have been absurd for anyone to attempt to drive sheep, and finally, a date on which Lambert himself was to have been at Mataura. All this established the fact that Lambert had not committed perjury wilfully. No part of the indictment whioh had been presented against Lambert referred to him putting the skins in the smithy. The evidence would show that there was practically no testimony against Lambert. It had been necessary to show to the jury at Lambert's trial that Lambert had fixed on a certain date, and then it had been necessary to prove an alibi, and then to establish the fact that the weather was so bad on that particular date that it was impossible -to drive sheep. By a diary counsel would show that the date named should have been the 18th. Lambert, as counsel had before stated, fixed on a date by an event — the departure from Islay of Mac-George and a visit to Gregg's house. Beyond Meikle's evidence, wh".t refutation had there been of Lambert's testimony given at the former's original trial? Counsel -submitted there had been none whatever. Mr Atkinson had endeavoured to make a great deal of capital out of the assertion that had been made that the sheep had been driven through an 18in door, while a 4ft door was available. The explanation of that was that the 18in door opened on to a small yard, into which the sheep had been driven. All improbability was eliminated from Lambert's story when the mistake of the date was rectified. The man Scott was a witness who would be called before the commission in Wellington, and he would swear that he saw sheep being diiven from the company's land to Meikle's by young Meikle. In respect to the statement made by Sutherland yesterday with regard to Mr W. R. Cameron, counsel desired to inform the bench of a rather curious fact. Mrs Cameron happened to be residing in Dunedin at the present time, and she was asked if she had any of her husband's papers which would assist in refuting the attack made on his character. A search was made among some rubbish, and a diary was discovered, which contained a full record of the events which took place on Islay Station. A great deal had been made by his learned friend of the fact that the number of .sheep alleged to have been stolen — 27— was not fixed until after the police raid. Counsel would show their Honors an entry in this diary which would prove that that number of sheep was recorded as being on Meikle's land six days before the raid. This was the entry : " Number of sheep taken off pre-emptive right 222; 380 sheep for Sunnyside; 15 rams; 26 sheep (Meikle's); 1 ram (Meikle's)." The date was 26th October, 1887, or six days before the police went to Meikle's plaoe. * The bona fides of the book could not be denied, and its entry plainly established that the real criminal was Meikle and that Lambert was innocent. The whole case really came down to this: The two actors in this miserable business were in court that day. Meikle swore he was not present on the night that these sheep were stolen, and was not a party to the theft Lambert swore to the story for which he had already suffered imprisonment, but he would do so again without fear, though he might again be liable to perjury. Cutting away all the detail they came down to this: Which of these two men were they to believe? On the previous day learned counsel had said there was no spot of any kind against Lambert, but since that Lambert had told him that over 20 years ago he was fined 5s or 10a for a minor assault, and that 12 or 13 years ago ha was fined 30a (including witnesses' expenses) for assault. With those exceptions, Lambert stood without any blemish on his character. He had, certainly, been charged with perjury, but at the instance of Meikle. But how did Meikle stand beside Lambert? Learned counsel referred to the assault committed by Meikle on a man named M'Corley prior to 1887, and to other charges brought against him, and referred to his conduct in the box last week when he was questioned with regard to staying with a woman in a house in Invercargill. Meikle now appealed for assistance to the colony, and what honour had he to aupp.o£t h.jm jn. his request?. Skfi comrnjsflioD^

learned counsel submitted, had exposed one of the biggest hyprocrites who had ever attempted to get money from the public purse in the whole history of -the colony. On the other hand there was Lambert, against whom there had been nothing at all except two trifling assaults until he suffered for the alleged perjury. If it wa-s a question then of which man was telling the truth, he thought the commission would have no doubt as to which man their Honors would decide..

Evidence was then called in support of the suppliant's case.

Robert Troup, farmer, Waikawa, said that many years ago he managed Islay Station fdr the New Zealand Investment Company. The company had 616 sheep on the* turnip land, perhaps, in the month of August. He did not inspect Meikle's land particularly at about that time, but it did not seem to be overstocked. There was nothing especial on Meikle's land to attract sheep from the preemptive right, the company's property. There were oats on Meikle's ploughed land, but not of sufficient height for feeding. The company had been losing sheep both during my time and before. The books showed that there was a leakage of over 1000, and the leakage was mostly observable at Meikle's boundary to the company's property. The first suspicion of Meikle was in July, when he noticed certain tracks, consisting of those of sheep, a man, and a dog. leading towards Meikle's boundary. Witness followed them, and saw a place in the- fence where the sheep had been driven through on to Meikle's property. Witness reported the matter to Mr W. R. Cameron, who saw Constable Leecs in my company. He suggested the employment of William" Lam"bert as one who oould watch and ascertain who was stealing the sheep. The arrangement was that he was to get £1 a week and found, and in addition a bonus- of £50 as soon as a conviction was obtained of the man •who was stealing the Islay sheep. It was absurd to say that a suggestion was made that Lambert should place sheep and skins on Meikle's land to get him convicted. On the court resuming at 2 p.m., witness Troup, further examined by Dr Find.ay, said Mac George was a team driver. There was an entry in the diary produced on the 19th October that William Mac George left Islay for Waico'a. Mac George came from Lambert's hut on the 18th, and left the station for Waicole on the 19th. It would take him two days to go from Islay Station to Waicola. From Islay Station to Mataura would be 10 miles, and the journey would take half a day. Monday, ths day before the 18th October, was a very bad day, and it was not the practice for Mac George to go out in bad weather. If he was instructed to go out on such a day it would be his duty to stop in. Six hundred and forty sheep were put on the turnips in August. None of those sheep would have gone from there on to Meikle's land of their own free will. Witness never said to Mavin or anyone that he had documents in his possession that would get Meikls ou*fc of gaol, and was told by Templeton to hold his tongue. It was quite incorrect to < say he had made such a statement. He never had any documents in his possession that would have got Meikle out of gaol. He had put Mavin out twice as acting bailiff,- and in consequence of that Mavin had ill-feeling against him. The diary produced was in general use on the station. Witness had read Mr Atkinson's address in the newspapers, and, in consequence of seeing reference made to Cameron, bad gone to Mrs Cameron to see if it was possible to get possession of any of the station books or documents which would assist his (witness's) memory. Mrs Cameron said there was an old diary which the children had had access to. Witness told Mr M'Donald this, and he requested him to go back and get the diary from Mrs Cameron. He did this, and gave the diary to Mr M'Donald. To Mr Atkinson : The 610 sheep were put upon the turnips in August. Generally speaking, turnips were all over by October. Alongside the pre-emptive right there was not much on Meikle's land to attract sheep. Oats would not be springing so much in October there. Not much could ba expected from land at 10s per acre. Meikle was as good a farmer as those around him, and he did his best to put his land into cultivation, but witness could not spy how many acres he had in English grass. It might have been about July witness spoke to Constable Leece about the sheepstealing.

Constable James Danvers Leece, stationed at Roxburgh, said that in 1887 he was stationed at Mataura. His place was about 14 miles from Meikle's farm. Xn 1887 Mr Troup complained to witness- of sheep-stealing on the company's Islay land. Subsequently, Mr Troup made another complaint about more sheep-stealing. This was not long after the middle of the year. Mr Ca-meron and Mr Troup came to his station one day, and, after a talk about the sheep-stealing, it was decided, on witness's recommendation, to engage a man named William Lambert, who had previously been engaged in doing bailiff's work. Lambert was to get £1 a week, and £50 additional in the event of securing the thief. That was a common arrangement, and a proper one. Detectives Ede, Constable Fouhy, witness, and others m?de a search, later on, of Meikle's property. * They first searched a hut. Then they went to the barn. Some skins hanging on a beam were examined, and two of them were taken away. In the stable, which was also searched, no skins were found. Arthur Meikle, in reply to Detective Ede, said the sheep were in a certain paddock. The sheep were examined, and 25 of them were recognised as the company's. Arthur Meikle said the two skins were got off the fence. Harvey was also present, but witness could not say whether he heard what Detective Ede said to Arthur Meikle about the skins. In reply to the detective Arthur Meikle and Harvey indicated that the sheep had got on to Meikle's land at the north-eastern corner. Witness examined some of the fences, and found them in good order and sheep-proof. Dr Findlay (to witness): What was the general character that Meikle bore before complaint was made to you in 1887? Mr Atkinson objected to the question.

Dr Findlay contended that the question was quite permissible. If a man asked the court to assess his reputation, and it was shown he had no reputation at all, the question ought to be permitted. Mr Atkinson submitted that his friend's line of attack was quite misconoeived. He had to concede that Dr Findlay was entitled to puraue the most rigid cross-examination, with a view to attacking Mr Meikle's credit in respect to veracity, but for a claim of this kind to be met with evidence of the sort it was now proposed to lead was out of the question.

Mr Justice Edwards thought the question was permissible. Witness, in reply to the question, said that Meikie bore the reputation of a sheep-stealer. By Mr Atkinson: The two skins that were taken away were found among other skins. The sheep were found in a paddock in which there was a patch of green feed. In other paddocks the feed was very rough. * To Dr Findlay: Another search was made on the following day, and two more sheep were- found near the bush. There was one ram in -the number. Witness would say that Meikle's pasture was poor. The commission adjourned until next morninjj.

Eighth Day— Thuesday.

guilt or otherwise of John James Meikle iot sheep-stealing in Southland in 1887 and other matters resumed its sitting on Thursday Mr A. R. Atkinson (Wellington) appeared for Mr Meikle, and Dr Findlay (Wellington) for the Crown.

Dr Findlay said: Your Honors, in consequence of a letter I have received this morning from Mrs Daniels asking me to oorreot certain possible inferences from abbreviated reports of the Mills incident,' I have Mr Atkinson's permission to say that Mrs Daniels does, and always has, kept a highly respectable boarding establishment, and had no reason' whatever to suspect that the man who cam* to stay at her house with Miss Mills was not her husband. - ' _, His Honor Mr Justice Edwards said that there was no doubt in the minds of the court regarding the respectability of Mrs Daniels. , Mr Atkinson expressed regret at the misunderstanding. Further evidence was called for the Crown. James D. Leece, police constable, recalled! by Dr Findlay, said that Mr Stewart imported! to him that there were 28 sheep on Meikle's land, and there were still 26 missing, making 54 altogether. James Fleming, farmer, at Rakahopu, said that on the 12th of November, 1887, he examined the fences between the properties of Meikle and the company, and found them, in good order. There was nothing. particular to tempt sheep either on one side of the fence 3 or the other. If a lantern were placed inside* the barn, shown m the illustration, sheep would readily go in towards the light. By Mr Atkinson: He had^ never worked sheep through an 18in door, but was perfectly satisfied there would be no difficulty in doing so, provided the light "was placed in a proper position inside.. It is possible under certain . circumstances for a sheep, to get through a. fence considered to be sheep-proof.

To Dr Findlay: He was very careful in making any examination of the fences, as he knew he was to give evidence in the Supreme Court.

William Stewart, farmer, at Otapiri "Gorge, said that in 18S7 he was appointed manager of the Islay Station, succeeding Mr Troup. There was fairly' good feed for sheep on the company's pre-emptive right. He did not think there was anything on Meikle's land to tempt sheep to stray from off the company's land. Lambert repo.ted to him the theft by young Meikle of some sheep, and said that one of the sheep had been killed, the paint brand being combed out of the skin. The- number of sheep reported as having been stolen waa 28. It was never arranged that Lambert should put skins on Meikle's land. It was never even, discussed. When he reported the matter to the police be told them that 28 sheep were stolen. The reason he laid an information against Meikle for the theft of 54 Bheep was that after Lambert's report they mustered the sheep and put 26 rams in p. small paddock. The next morning they were missing, and he naturally concluded that they had gone with the other 28. Consequently, he laid the information for 54. They made a search at Meikle's, and eventually recovered 27 sheep, which, with the one killed, made up the exact number reported by Lambert as having baen stolen. Any assertion that there was any crop on Meikle » land 9in high was untrue. The reason he made Fome delay in giving information to the police was in order to give Meikle an opportunity of telling him that the sheep were on his land. The two skins fcuid were those of butcherkilled sheep. The skins in question were dried under a roof. Had they been brought from the hut and placed by Lamber' in Meikle s smithy they would have shown weather signs, as there was no way of drying them inside up at the hut. There were no wire marks on the skins. , . „ To Mr Atkinson: There was oiw place. in the boundary fence which was not sheep-proof. Sinclair William Trotter, drover, said that the evidence he gave at Meikle's trial in 1887 was true. Witness joined the service of the company on the 22nd October of that year as shepherd. William Stewart was. then, irannger. Shortly after witness began to work for the company the sheep were mustered. He saw Lambert about that time. Witness made tha entry in the diary in -which occurred: the words: "26 iM&ikle's), rams 15, one ram, (Meikle's)." That meart that certain sheep, the property of the company, had been taken; off Meikle's land on October 26, 1887. Witr.ess saw the two skins found in Meikle's barn. He would say they wbw off butcherkilled sheep. He did not think they had been dried in the open. Witness made entries in his diary when he got home at night or next morning.

Mr Justice Edwards (after inspecting the diary) said it was evident the <*ntry was made at the time. It was also stated : "Is paid) for lunch. Drove sheep to Sunnyside. Joe Burgess gave hand along bad road." Examination continued: Witness had not seen the diary since he left the station. Constable William Fouhy, sergeant of police at Ashburton, said that in 1887 he was stationed at Wyndham. On the 2nd November of that year witness, with others, made a search or Meikle's premises. Two skins fcund in a barn were identified as the company's property. Arthur Meikle made the remark that the skins must have been brought in from the fence. Twenty-five sheep belonging to the company were also found on Meikle's land. These sheep, Arthur Meikle said, must have come in at the top corner off the company's land. By Mr Atkinson: Meikle told witness tha company was paying a man £50 to watch him. That would be a month prior to the search. Meikle made no request to witness when he told him about the man. At this stage it was agreed to take the evidence of Mrs Meikle, a witness for Ihe suppliant's case. As Mrs Meikle is in delicate health, owing to heart trouble, their Kcnora heard her evidence in private. It was decided] to admit the press reporters.

Jane Meikle, wife of John James Meikle, said she could remember October 17, 1887, by the fact that her son Arthur was thought to be dying of pleurisy on that day. She also remembered it by the fact that her husbandi intended to go to a sale to buy a cow. The weather was so bad that he could not go.. Arthur was in bed all day. Witness also had) a baby four weeks old, and another child waa not walking. Arthur was not out on the following day. She heard Lambert sayj on several occasions that he was to get £50 to put sheepskins in her husband's barn or smithy. Other persons heard Lambert make the statement. A3 a consequence, Harvey waa instructed to lock the doors. One nighfl Lambert came to sharpen his knife in the smithy, and when he was going away she heard him say, " Good-night, old man. It won't be to-night.- I'll let you know .when ilf will be done." After her husband had been,, imprisoned Troup came* to Her place, whenr she refused to shake hands with him. Sheep had been stolen from, the company's land, about that time, and witness said to himy " Tou might as well do to me what you have done to my husband." Later on witness wenti to Wyndham to see Troup. She said to him, I believe you have letters in your possession that would clear my husband ? " He said»

" Yes, but it would put other people in." 1 Witness offered him £100 for the letters. Witness told this conversation to other < artier, and also wrote to her husband ip. gaol about

By Dr Finil*ay. Harvey was a truthful man. Hie made a mistake when he said that he had dinner with Arthur in tbe house and also had tea with him on tLe 17th. . If Harvey afterwards corrected that evidence by saying it might have been on the 18th that he had dinner and tea with Arthur he was making another mistake.

Dr Fiiid'ay: I call your attention to the fact that this statement was not made by an enemy but by a friend of the family.

Further cross-examined : Arthur was weak, and was not allowed out after 8 o'clock. Witness scolded him for going out one night to turn the grindstone • to sharpen Lambert's knife.

Dr Findlay: When you 3poke to Troup did you not increase the sum from JEIOO to £400? — No.

Where were you to get the money? — Sir Robert Stout's brother was a lawyer in Wyndham at the time, and said he would advance the money if I could get the papers.

Did Mr Troup not tell yo\» that any more evidence he could give would do your husband more harm than good? — K"o.

Did Mr Troup advise you not to give security over your land? — I do not remember that he mentioned it. I would not believe Troup on oath. To my sorrow I know what he has done.

Witness continued : Aiter her husband was in gaol she saw the company's sheep coming through the fences on to her land. Robert Trcup'was recalled by Dr Findlay to- give evidence to rebut that of Mrs Meikle. He said that Mrs Heikle approached him, telling him that she bad a large family and that she- believed he had documents in his possession that would take her husband out of gaol. He replied to her th«t he had no documents of the kind, and that if anyone had told, her such a thing it was all a mistake-. He also said it would be '» terrible thing tar know that an innocent man v)a& in gaol and that he could clear him. He never told Mrs Meikle that if he got her husband out it would put others in. He was sorry to hear Mars Meikle speak as she had spoken in court that day. Witness advised Mrs Meik'.e at the interview at Wyndham. not to lead her place with mortgagee, and when Meikle Jiimsslf came out of he thanked witness for having .«o advised his wife. All the statements mscfe by Mr* Meikle about witness having dccxrmer.ts that vcuM get her husband out of gaol were u«true._ The Commission adjourned until next morning at 10 o'clock.