THE MEIKLE CASE.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 13907, 5 December 1910, Page 3

THE MEIKLE CASE.

A GRANT OF £2500. (BPECIAI, TO "THE TRESS.") WELLINGTON, December 3. A proposal to grant Mr J. J. Meikle a sum of £5000 in full settlement of his claim against the Government was the subject of a long discussion in the House of Representatives to-day, and eventually the proposed amount was reduced by one-half. Mr Anderson moved to reduce the vote, "Compensation to J. J. Meikle in full and final payment for wrongful imprisonment, £5000," by £4999. Ho said no reason had been shown why the previous decision of the House should be reversed. The Prime Minister said that in order ' to carry'out the report of the Royal Commission on the Meikle case the Government had to do somethinc. The members of the Government were not unanimous in the matter. He read tho clause of the report of the Commission (consisting of three Supreme Court Judges), in which it was stated that if their enquiry had been a re-trial of Meikle on the charge of sheei> steaJing of which he was-convicted in 1887, they I would have directed a jury to acquit ! him. He (the Prime Minister) had ' promised a deputation that either a re- ' trial should be granted, Parliament should be asked to legislate and vote compensation. The latter alternative was adopted as being the more practicable. Cabinet had never been unanii taous in the matter, but what was pro- ! posed was, he thought, the duty of the j Government. I Mr Fisher strongly supported the vote. He remarked that something had been said recently about a "higher hand" dealing: with someone's enemies It was noticeable that out of seven members who strongly opposed I a measure of recomjxmsc to Mr Meikle on a previous occasion, one died soon after, and the other six—(the remainder of the sentence was drowned in laughter). Mr Ilogan referred to the case of Oliphant Hughes of Wanganui. He was fully convinced that that mon was innocent, and so were many people in "Wanganui. Specialists in London were quite satisfied that Hughes never signed the share certificates, and never transferred his shares. Hughes's people had asked him to return to England and livo there, but he had decided to remain in New Zealand with the object of clearing his character. Mr Massey said he also was convinced that Hughes was innocent, and the Government should do something in the mr.tter. Tho Prime Minister said he also had the belief that Hughes was innocent, but the difficulty was to bring in general legislation that would apply to such casps. In the course of further discussion Mr Davey said he wanted to know whether the money would go to Mr Meikle, or whether a syndicate would get a big •share of it. He would object to voting money for a company to make a profit out of a man's misfortunes. The amendment to reduce the vote was, on a division, lost by 28 votes to 10. Mr Anderson then moved to reduce the vote by £4-500. There was no further debate, and on a division the amendment was defeated by 29 votes to 17. Mr Luke desired to have the money invested by the Public Trustee, so as to provide an annual payment to Meikle. His motion to that effect was ruled out of order by the chairman. Mr Nosworthy then moved to reduce the item by £2500, and the Honso j acrnin divided, with tho result cnat the amendment was carried by 26 votes to 18. The following is the division list :—• For the reduction (26) —Messrs Alien, ! Buchanan, Buick. Clark, Craigie, 1 Dillon. T. Y. Duncan, Field, Fraser, Gnthrie, Hnll, Hardy, Hocgr. T. Mnckenzio, Miisspy, Newman. Xosworihv, Pearce. Phillins. Reed, Ross, Scott Smith. Stallworthy, T. E. Taylor and Sir William Steward. -A'jfiinst the reduction (18> —Messrs Buddo, Carroll, Ell, Fisher. Guinness, Herries. Hogan. Jeunines, Lanjr, Lmirenson, Lawry, Luke, Mac Donald. McLaren. MiHtir. E. H. Taylor, Wright, and Sir Joseph Ward.