THE MEIKLE COMMISSION.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 12499, 9 May 1906, Page 8

THE MEIKLE COMMISSION.

THE CASE FOR THE CROWN. (srECIAL TO "TOE I'RESS.") DUNEDIX. May 7. At tho Meikle Commission to-day. Alexander McDonald, farmer, rreid- J ing at WyiAiham Valley, tsiikl:—l was j a vritm*»* for Mr Mriklo on his trial . in 1887. I alM> appoared in certain j proceedin-ss taken against Lambert. I J romember a convortsation 1 had ixv In- [ vorcarpill with tho day after Molkle's anv-st. in which lie told mo ho j could clear Meikle if he liked. Some j tima after this we again met. I n>- ■■ member a\o wen? in Meikles company. Meiklo ««>ked Lnmbert. to speak truthfully in this case, mean-ins tho sheep ciuso. replied that ho would, and that ho was waiting to pot. ! ten pounds from Stewart. About twelve er eighteen months after MeikleV eonriciion I had another oonroi-sa.tim j with Lambi-rt. in which ho said ho didn't remember (wiyinp anything to mo in In\-H v re-ugi!l. He aiterwards said li-i U>li<'ved he did say something like what 1 had sworn to. lie K.iid he was. sorry to put Meiklo in, but ho could not help lit; he had to e!o:ir liim.-elf. Ho «*aid ,he pot £o() for doing it. MoPhail thru. I came in. calhxl LanilxM-t an informer, and Lanilkert- pickid up a ptikor aiKl hit McPhail ovir the head witli it, knocking him down. Cror.s-r.\aminod by Dr Findlay. witness .*;iid :—"I remember the hoi.-o l>i'in<j: stolen from Templeton's* yaid. Tliere is not a word of truth in tho >taffluent that I was drunk tho night I put tht> lioi>-o in Temploton's. Scott, s-tcle oik , of the horses jinil Mt-iklo and 1 gavo evideiitv against him. He was convicted. ! di<l not. mention to Moiklo : «hat Lambert had ssiid t<i mc about l>eine; able to clear Meiklo if lie liktxl. 1 dent know wliy I did not mention it ' to Meiklo, and can give no reason for ■ my wleiuie. 1 understood thait. when . l*amborr said he was to got ton pounds : -blood money" from -Stewart, ho meant i that In , A\a> to get the money for put- ! tilia; the skins on Mi'ikle's place. I di<l lint say anything at tho lyambert trial abour his utatomont to mo regard- ■ ing (lip I'oO. I did not mention tho niatior until hist Thursday. James Mavin, Arthur Perkins, Jano Sliiel<ls, James Connor .and James Moiklo (roh of the supplicant) also gave evidence. May 8. Mr Atkin&on has called all his witnesses, with Ihe exception of Mrs Meiklo. who was too ill to attend today. Tho first witness to-day was Nell Sutherland, who .-raid:—l remember reading of Meikle's conviction. I raw W. R. Cameron, then connected with the management of the company, about 1894, and ho told mo that the company had wanted to get Meikle off hifi land, as ho was a sheep stealer. Ho told mo that lie had employed a certain person, whoso name ho did not mention, to n-.ako a trap for Meikle. I asked him if tho instructions were given verbally or in writing, and he said they were verbal instructions. He said there was nobody present at the time, and that he had taken oare of that. I tried to communicate with. Mr Solomon, who [ was £oing to Invercargill to prosecute { Lambert, but was too late to oatcb. him. Cross-examined by Dr. Findlay: I cannot pay why' I havo not come forwaixl with this evidence before. Ido not know Mr Meiklo personally. I recognise that if my statement is ft true ono Cameron is liable to a very long term of imprisonment. I)r. Findlay said that this was a very serious matter. It oame as ft complete surprise, and Mr Atkinson did not open it. Mr Justice Edwards: Perhaps Mr Atkinson did not know of it. Mr Atkinson: I did not, your Honour. Dr. Findlay said it would, undoubtedly bo necessary to obtain c commission to secure Mr Cameron's evidence. Mr Cameron was at present in. England, and would not bo returning to the colony. '■ Dr." Findlay, in. opening his case, eaid Meiklo might be guilty or innocent; but the public agitation and the in<terest he had created were no guarantee that he was not an impudent impostor. When Meikle cam© out of gaol he prosecuted Lambert for perjury, and cot him four years' imprisonment. Meiklo then appealed to Parliament and got .£291 odd for expenses involved in the prosecution of Lambert, and for this he gave a receipt in full. Two years later ho again petitioned Parliamentj and got another £500, making altogether the sum of £794. For this latter sum he gave, a full and final discharge of all claims he had or thought ho had, against the Government. IVtr Kelly, then an M.H.R. for Lnveroargill, pointed out to Meikle exactly what ho was doing, yet Meikle signed this ireceipt, and promised not to come an the colony a{sain. Later on he ignored the discharge, and demanded two things—a formal declaration of his innocence, and £15,000 for the wrong he and hie family bad suffered. Not ol>-t.ai-ning anything further, Meiklo then demanded a Royal Commierion. Immense expense had been involved, and then it occurred, that on Friday last, ■ when he wae on oath, and Meikle had, to face the question, he told them that ho was not prepared to accept the findings of this Court as final. That, coun.Mjl submitted, w«s a plain parallel to that previous breach, when he turned bis back on his promise not to trouble the colony again. There were two questions to be eub-. initted—(l) Was Meikle innocent? (2) If * innocent, was he entitled! to'more compensation, or wae he entitled to any compensation at all? The country was under no moral obligation to convpeneate him, even if he wae innocent. What wrong, legal or moral, had the country done Meikle? Connfwl submitted that no injustice had been done him. What tbe colony did/ in 1887, and for five years following, it must do again to-morrow, and for ever, if r-ociety was to exist. The colony had ' given him a fair trial; twelve of his fellow colonists had found him guilty of sheep stealing; tho Judge had to sentence him, and the State had to imprison him. There had been no act of injustice towards him. Counsel went on to say that it could not follow at all that Meiklo was innocent because. liflmlK-rt had been convicted of perjury. Lambert's conviction did not dispose of two very «tronc proofs of guilt against Meiklo—it did not remove tho fact that twenly-.seven sheep wero found on Meikle's land and two skins were found in the smithy, at tho time the search was made there. Xo court had ever decided that Lambf.rt had put the sheep or the *kiru> there. If Ijaml>ert did nat put the skins in the smitJiy. then Meikle was ,rightly convicted. He made no attempt to explain their presence there, either by accident or mistake. As a matter of fact Meikle's utory that Lambert placxl tho skin-s in the smithy was Absurd, and was not\ believed in In. , Meikle himself at the time. Dr. Findlay fiatl not concluded his addross when the Court rose for the day.