Tragic tale of John Meikle —innocent man jailed

Press, 16 February 1980, Page 16

Tragic tale of John Meikle —innocent man jailed

By

JIM SULLIVAN

The name of Arthur Allan Thomas is one which few New Zealanders will forget. But how many of us know the name of John James Meikle?

Meikle was a Southland farmer who served a sentence for a crime he did not commit and then spent 45 years in a fight to gain compensation for his time in jail. Meikle was convicted of sheep stealing last century and sentenced to seven vears hard larbour. Unlike Thomas, Meikle had to have a special Act of Parliament passed to confirm his acquittal — the Meikle Acquittal Act of 1908. The tragic tale began in 1887 at Meikle’s 800-acre farm at Tuturau, near Wyndham. The farm, with its 800 sheep, a few cattle, and paddocks of crops, was the result of 20 years hard’ work by the immigrant Scotsman. His holding was sur-’ rounded by the sprawling acres of the New Zealand Mortgage and Investment Association, which was showing alarm about the large number of sheep disappearing from its property during the 1880 s. So serious was the problem that the company hired a “private detective,” William Lambert, to solve the mystery. Lambert, described as a “rouseabout” by some of the locals, was given a job on the company farm as a cover, was paid a pound a week, and was promised 50 pounds on the conviction of the sheep stealer.

Meikle had always been haggling with the company over fence lines and roadways so it was natural for Lambert to look over the fence for a potential culprit.

In his court-room evicence later, Lambert claimed that one night in October, 1887, he saw Meikle’s 13-year-old son,

Arthur, driving a mob of sheep along a road running through company property. The boy was said to have told Lambert that he was “taking them home to get a fat one.” He put the sheep into a yard near the Meikle house and then, with his father holding a lantern, he herded the animals.into the farm smithy. A fat one was then chosen and killed.. All the while Lambert was chatting with the two Meikles. He said that Meikle senior had offered him a job doing a bit of shearing “as long as you keep your mouth • shut about what you see.”

Lambert claimed he saw the company, earmark and brand on some of the sheep in the smithy. Consequently, he told the local constable to visit the Meikle farm and the policeman found two sheepskins bearing the company mark.

Meikle and his son were arrested and the jury trial began in the Invercargill Supreme Court in December, 1887. Under the exist-

ing law neither Meikle nor his wife were ablt to give evidence in their defence, although two years later the Criminal Evidence Act did give accused people the right to speak in their own interest. On the uncorroborated evidence of Lambert. Meikle was convicted of sheep stealing. Young Arthur had the charges against him dropped- because of his youth but the lad died only three years later. The defence claimed that Lambert was out to get Meikle for the fifty pounds promised by the company and. that, the whole thing was a frameup. The judge, who was said to have a monetary interest in the company, directed the jury to ignore any suggestion of a frameup.

The defence also pointed out that the fences between the properties were not sheep-proof and that the whole affair was simply a matter of two sheep straying next door. It was also admitted by the police that Meikle was sure that Lambert was out to get him and had told as much to a local detective weeks before his arrest. It was all to no avail. John Meikle was convicted and sentenced to seven years hard labour at Lyttelton jail. With remission for good conduct, he was released five years later, in November, 1892. Meikle now began a crusade to clear his name. His battle lost him his land, his marriage, and his peace of mind. After

almost three years of solo detective work in Southland, he was able to bring Lambert to court charged with perjury. Under the new law Lambert was able to speak to the court on his own behalf but it was not enough to prevent him being convicted and sent to jail himself. By now Meikle had spent 5000 pounds in his quest and in 1895 he petitioned Parliament for 10,000 pounds . compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment. Fifteen more years arid dozens of pleas to the government were needed before he was awarded 2500 pounds. The early years of this century was a great era of pamphlet printing and Meikle’s cause was promoted by'. several small booklets outlining the injustice of his case, and begging for relief. Their effect was. to stir , the nation into demanding some sort of inquiry. The points made in his 1904 pamphlet, “The Tragic Story of Mr J. J. Meikle,” were examined by. a commission comprising two judges. During this hearing Meikle was subjected to severe questioning about his private life after he had left gaol. By now he had befriended a woman who was later' to become his second wife and the commission is said to have accused him of attempted abortion and attempted rape. This speculation, far removed from the original sheep stealing, charge, generated even more public interest, although there was no evidence of wrongdoing . on Meikle’s part. The sorry story of the hearing is told in another bitter pamphlet printed in .1907, “Cleared At Last.” ■ In a confusion of legal jargon the commission did acquit Meikle but in such a . half-hearted way that.

the Wellington “Evening Post" was moved to remark that what Was needed was “no forensic logic chopping, but a touch of human sympathy and the good feeling of the country will supply what may be sought in vain among the dry bones of this report.’’ Legalising the acquital needed the passing of a special act and so the whole Meikle case Was. argued again in . the House. Meikle came in for a hard time from some Members, , but he seems to have . asked for some of it. The member for Dunedin North, Mr Barclay, report- • ed that' in the past he had supported Meikle but his : only reward had been an abusive letter from . Meikle. “In fact” said Barclay, “Meikle disgusts me but I will support this ' bill with a cold sense of ■ justice.” Considering the abuse which Meikle had suffered and the uphill battle he was fighting it is not surprising he became impatient with those he hoped would help him to get justice. After the Meikle Acquittal Act was passed .he continued his fight for another 30 years until his death. He visited Europe and America lecturing on . the “evils” of the .New Zealand legal system. His business ventures in' Auckland failed and he • eventually moved south •>. again and died in North East Valley, Dunedin, on November 25, 1937. He .. was 93, and had spent 5Q years living with the scars of his mistreatment. The , justice of his cause was never matched by any rewards of consequence and his life had been mis- < shapen by ill luck. Such a story is not the first to expose cracks in <■ our legal .system, and if the Arthur Allan Thomas case 'is any guide, it was ~ certainly not the last.