THE MEIKLE COMMISSION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 14060, 15 May 1906, Page 5

THE MEIKLE COMMISSION.

■ ♦ A DENIAL. ■:*, [Feom Oue Correspondent.] DUNEDIN, May 14. In a letter to the press,_ Mr W. A. Stout, solicitor, Invercargill, says:— “Mrs Meikle, in evidence, makes some reference to me, and I ask leave to make the following statements, in justice to myself(l) I never had any conversation on the subject with Mrs Meikle, or anyone else o-n her behalf, and' never, to my knowledge, saw Mrs Meikle at’any time. (2) I never had any conversation with Meikle, or with any member of his family, regarding the matters which are now the subject of inquiry by the Commission. (3) I was living at Dunedin at the time when she speaks of having made some arrangement with mo in Wyndhara, 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, some two and a half ’ years after Lambert’s conviction, and five or six years after Meikle’s release.” THE WELLINGTON SITTING. [Per Press Association.] WELLINGTON, May 14. .The Meikle Commission' opened its sittings in Wellington this morning. John D. Redding, formerly of Gore, said that after Meikle’s conviction he had a conversation with Lambert, and witness asked if Meikle really stole the sheep.' Lambert said, “If ho didn’t he had before.” Counsel for suppliant asked if counsel for the Crown intended to present the witness Scott for examination. Dr hindlay replied that Scott had been sent to gaol in ISSTi, and his evidence was of\ little 'value. Counsel added that he believed that Soott was about to follow the same course as Meikle, and apply to Parliament to have his conviction for horse-stealing investigated, with a view to proving his innocence. Thomas M. M'Donnell, Crown Prose, cutor at Invercargill, detailed the evidence given at the trial of Meikle. Witness had cross-examined Templeton. Templeton was called to prove a conversation with Lambert, and witness

showed that Templeton’s statements about tho conversation on September 24 rendered it highly improbable that any conversation had taken place. On September 24 Lambert was not in the company’s employ. _ Templeton’s demeanour in tho witness box was not satisfactory. Regarding Harvey’s evidence, he said it was simply to the effect that Lambert had been there the night before the police camel the inference being that ho had an onnortunity of putting in the skins. AVhcn Scott offered to give evidence he was in gaol. He sent Lambert and a clerk in his office to interview Scott as to what evidence lie could gi.ve. Scott was not called, because the report was that ho would support Lambert’s testimony as to the taking of sheep on tho night of the 17th, hut he was not called because they considered lie would bo manifestly animated by feeling, against Aleikle-. which they thought would he undesirable. Cross-examined by Air Atkinson: It was probably'on the 17th that it was stated that Scott would not s)ivc evidence. Scott had been convicted before. Witness was aware of the testimony he might give. He thought so, hut would not swear positively, that the evidence before tho Court was that Lambert bad been employed by the companv from the beginning of September. That was the effect of ...s- information. Witness did not see Lambert before the indictment for sheepstenling was drawn. . It was drawn about a week before the trial. Lambert came to witness’s offfoo to sec him and Air Denniston. He wished to examine Lambert, owing to hie peculiar position after Templeton bad been cross-examined. Ho “toned” down, and said ho c”n 1 d not speak of what had taken place without tun books as to the date. Dr Findlay; AVho discovered the entry in a diary on October 26, containing the results of a muster of sheep on the pre-emptive right? Witness 1 : It was in your room. You were engaged in making notes, and I was looking through the diary. On turning over the leaves I came across this entry, and I made an examination and drew your attention to the entry, and you proceeded to examine it. No one had directed his attention to tho entry in tho diary. A telegram was road from Air Stout (brother of the Chief Justice), denying Mrs Alcikle’s statement that he would find her £IOO if letters were obtained Horn Troupe. Application was made by Dr Findlay for a Commission to have tho evidence of Mr Cameron taken at Home. When Mr Sutherland was recalled in Dunedin ho' assorted that Mr Cameron told him ho had laid a trap, that a trap was laid for Aleikle, that he took good care there was no one present, and that, indeed, the whole of the evidence he gave in the morning was true except in reference to placing skin® on the land. Mr Cameron’s friends felt, and he was instructed to urge this upon the Commission, not ' only in the interests of Cameron, but in the interests of the whole matter', that if that statement remained unoontradicted it might seriously affect Air Cameron’s reputation when the matter came to be discussed, as it probably would be. The delay would also enable Air M’Nab’s evidence to bo taken. Aleikle had denied that he expreseely authorised Mr Al’Nab to state to,, the. Premier that ho (Aleikle) would accept £SOO as a fair and final settlement of -any claim he had against tho colony. Air M’Nab would be here probably at the end of next month or the beginning of July, and the delay necessary for Air Cameron’s evidence would enable Air M’Nab’s evidence to be heard. Air Atkinson said that he did notoppose the application. The question of the final address of counsel was also considered, .and a suggestion by Air Justice Cooper that they should bo written out and submitted'’to the Commission in that form was referred to counsel for consideration.. The Commission then adjourned sine die.