THE MEIKLE CASE.

Evening Post, Volume LXXIII, Issue 4, 5 January 1907, Page 9

THE MEIKLE CASE.

STATEMENTS QUESTIONED.

Sir, — A letter appeared in your paper on the 14 tb day of May last, signed W. A. Stout, about 'certain statements bo denied that Mis. Meikle had made. Mr. Stout also denied having anything to do with Meikle at any lime or Mrs. Meikle. I give his statements about certain matter that he denies, that appeared in your paper. Mrs. Meikle, I admit, mentioned Mr. Stout's name in&tead of another solicitor. By inserting the following letters you will greatly oblige as a matter of fair play. — I am, etc., J. J. MEIKLE. Wellington, 3id January, 1907. (Extract from the Evening Post, 14th May, 1906.) A DENIAL. (.BT TELEGRAM! — OWN CORHESPOJJDENX.i DUKEDIN, This Day. In a letter te the press, Mr. W. A. Stout, .solicitor, Invercargill, says: — Mrs. Meikle, in her evidence, makes some reference to me, and I ask leave to make the following statements in justice to myself — (1) I never had any conversation on the subject with Mrs Meikle or any one else on her behalf, aiid never to my knowledge saw Mis. Meikle at any time ; (2) I never Lnd any conversation with Mr. Meilde, or with any member of his family, regarding matters now the subject of enquiry by the commission ; ,(3) I was living in Dunedin at the time when she speaks of having made some arrangements with me in Wyndham, and did not leave Dunedin for Southland until a year or two after her husband's release from gaol ; (4) I did not start practice in Southland until the year 1898, Rome two and a half years after Lambert's conviction, and five or six years after Meikle's leieass.

Wellington, 14th May, 1206. Mr. W. A. Stout, Solicitor, Invercargill. Sir, — A letter appeals in to-night"s Post. You, sir, state that you never had any conversation with Mr. Meikle or with any members of his family regarding matters now tho subject of the commission. Please ref resh_ your memory and think about the letter you wrote about the Mcikle case. Just remember the first converaation you had with Meikle about the letter you sent for publication ; and, further, I thanked you most hfartily the tirsb time we met, when you told me my case rra 1 ? in a nutshell. Did you have several conversations about my case on several o-casions with myself ; and, further, did you not conduct a cass in tho couit at YVjTulh.im, at any lime, or do some law business for Meikle? I legrot very much that any unpleasant feeling should have cropped up over my case. I only want the truth, and I leave the public la judge who is truthful. — I remain, sir, yours respectfully, J. J. MEIKLE. Post Officg, Wellington. Invercargill, 17th May, 1806. Mr. J. J. Meikle, Post Office, Wellington. Sir, — I am just in receipt of yours of the 14th inst. There is no question whatever that Mrs. Meikle has made a serious blunder in' her evidence when she referred to having had any transactions with mo. What I state in tho letter is correct — that I was practising in Dunedin and resident there till the end of the year 1893. I then went down to Glenham, where I remained four years, and commenced practice in Wyndham in 1898. I havo no recollection of over having set eyes on Mrs. Meikle 'in my life. I need hardly say that my letter was not written in any spirit of antagonism to yourself, but solely to put myself right with the public. I always considered that you did not get fair play from , and probably told you so. Yours truly, WM. A. STOUT. [We have omitted a name from this letter, but may explain that the reference is to the Meikle trial.]

Wellington, 10th December, 1906. W. A. Stout, Esq., Bairister and Solicitor, Invercargill. Dear Sir, — I was in Wyndham last October, and got a copy from the Magistrate's Court about tho case Meikle v. Smith, claim of £5 for damage to a bull. You were my solicitor at that time, and the case was called in March, 1898, and adjourned to April, again adjourned to lOtli May. Decision of Mr. Raymond was to nonsuit, each party to pay his own coste. Mrs. Meikle was with mo when I gave you the case. You also wrote a letter to the Southern Standard, Gore, on 22nd June, 1895, about the Meikle case. I have a copy of your letter. How does it come that you stated last May that you did not know Mrs. Meikle or Meikle, that you never had any business or anything to do with Meikle? Ploase reply and let me know what light you have to deny having ever done ony thing for Meikle? I intend to publish in the papers here tho truth. I> have nothing to hide, and a reply from you will be only fair to every person. Your letter which appeared in the Post last May made out that Mrs. Meiklo and myself were not to bo relied upon. Mrs. Meikle had written to four solicitors, one of tho solicitors was Mr. Stout, the other three solicitors are well known. Mrs. Meikle mndc a mistake by stating Mr. Stout, of Wyndham, instead of another name. — Yours truly, J. J. MEIKLE. Post Office, Wellington.

At the recent sale of Lord Amhert's library seventeen Caxton volumes were catalogued for sale (but did not pass under the hammer.) To ono who is not a collector or a connoisseur this statement is not out of the ordinary, but it becomes startling when tho catalogue value is noted— viz, £25,000. Of tho seventeen, eleven are in perfect condition, practically as they left the hancte of England's first printer. One of them is Lofevre's "Historye of Troye," of .which no other jierfect coj2y_ ia known.