STATEMENT OF MEIKLE'S CASE BY JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, AND GOVERNMENT CONCLUSIONS THEREON AS STATED BY THK PRIME MINISTER.

Free Lance, Volume IV, Issue 182, 26 December 1903, Page 14

STATEMENT OF MEIKLE'S CASE BY JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, AND GOVERNMENT CONCLUSIONS THEREON AS STATED BY THK PRIME MINISTER.

JOHN JAMES MEIKLE was convicted at the Supieme Court sittings at InveicargiU on the 17th December, 1887, of sheep-stealing, and sentenced to seven jeais' impiisonment with haid labour. Dining his impiisonment ho petitioned se^elal times for lemission, stoutly asseitmg his innocence, and insisting that lie was the victim of a conspnacy He was discharged on the Bth No\embei, ]892, having served his full sentence, less the remission he had earned bv good conduct and a special lenussion of about thiee months. In 1894 Meikle commenced a prosecution against William Lambert, the chief witness for the Crown at his trial for perjun The first proceedings were aboitive, as the grand jury threw out the bill Subsequently Meikle laid a fresh infoimaition , Lambert was committed for tnal, and was tiied at the Supieme Court at Invercargill in June, 1890, found guilty, and sentenced to four ycais' imprisonment. Meikle then petitioned Parliament (July 189o) and the leportof the Public Petitions Committee was as follows. No. 97.— Petition of JOHN JAMES

MEIKLE, of Southland. Petitioner states that in the year 1887 lie was charged with the larceny of t\\ enty-seven sheep belonging to the New Zealand Mortgage and Investment Association (Limited) and convicted on the evidence of one William Lambert . that he, on his release, after serving his teim of imprisonment, instituted proceedings against the said William Lambert, for peijury, who, after trial, was convicted, and sentenced to foui years' imprisonment for perjury in his evidence against petitioner when on his trial for sheep-stealing , that petitioner and his family have been caused pecuniary loss and mental suffering through the said lmpnsonment. He ">rays that his name may be removed from the nnson records of the colony, and that he hegranted £10,000 as compensation for false imprisonment and financial loss sustained by him. I am directed to report that the Committee are of opinion that, after eliminating Lambert's evidence, who has since been convicted, and is now serving a sentence of perjury, there was not sufficient evidence adduced at petitioner's trial to warrant his conviction on the charge preferred against him. The Committee are also of opinion that the lequest of petitioner to have his name removed from the prison records of the colony merits the serious consideration of the Crown. The Committee recommends the Government to make provision on the Supplementary Estimates for the payment to petitioner of a sum of money by way of compensation for the loss he has sustained in connection with his business, the legal costs incurred in defending: the charge preferred against him, and in seeming the conviction of Lambert for perjury, and also by wav of compensation for the imprisonment he has suffered. . 9th October, 1895. The Government thereupon agreed to defray the cost of the prosecution of Lambert as if it had been a Crown prosecution and a sum of £294 16s Id was paid by the Government on this account in November, 1895. The salient facts in Meikle's prosecution are set out in Judge Ward's report dated the 28th April, 1888 —

REPORT OF JUDGE WARD IN REGINA v. MEIKLE. Large numbers of sheep having been stolen from Islay Station, the British and New Zealand Mortgage and Investment. Company employed a private detective named Lambert to discover the thief, promising him a reward of £50 if lie succeeded. Lambert visited repeatedly at the house of a farmer named Meikle, and apparently led him to believe that he intended "to sell the company and woik with him." On the rught of the 17th October Lambert went first to prisoner's house, and afterwards, about 9 p.m., to that of a farmer named John Gregg. The latter accompanied Lambert half way to his hut and just after parting with him hoard him speaking to a person whom, from his voice, he believed to be Arthur Meikle, &on of the prisoner. Lambert states that, he then met Arthur Meikle duving a number of sheep from the direction of the company's land • that after passing he turned and followed him, saw him drive sheep ii/fco prisoner's yard, and saw prisoner kill and dress two of them. He (Lambert) could see by the light of the lantern used the brands and ear-marks on the sheep. On the 2nd November Meikle's farm was searched by the police. Arthur Meikle, who was present, acknowledged that certain sheep of the company's were there, but said they had been there nine months The number and condition corresponded with those which Lambert had seen Arthur Meikle drivinp-. tuentv being fat. It appeared that Arthur had a silent sheep-dog, which drives sheep without

barking. On further search, two sheepskins bearing the company's brand were found among otheis belonging to prisoner. Of course, the mere tact of these sheep being on Meikle's land would only be a ground for suspicion in ordinary cases, but it was proved that all the fat sheep of the company were on turnips, and that in order to stray to the paddock where they were round by the police they mu&t have left turnips for ploughed land or tussock, and have gone thiough t\\o> fences in order to leach very poor pasture where they could not possibly have fattened. It would be difficult to frame a clearer case for the Crow n trom the foregoing. For the defence, the first witness was one Templeton, who swore to a conversation with Lambert, giving full rjairticulars of time and place , but, finding that certain \\ ltnesses were prepared to prove an alibi for Lambert, desired Mr. McGiegor, counsel for prisoner, to retract his evidence next morning by stating that he had been entirely mistaken in both the above particulars , by which retraction he saved himself from being committed for perjuiy, and enabled the jury duly to appreciate his testimony. The next witness, Harvey, a servant of the prisoner's, swore that Lambert did not leave Me.kle's house on the 17th October till 10 p.m. (in which he was contradicted by Lambert and Gregg), and that he (Lambert) was at Meikle's every other night, and sometimes two nights running (in which he was contradicted by Arthur Meikle and Mrs Shiels, both witnesses for the defence), and ultimately stated that he could not tell ?t all whether Lambert was there between the 17th October and the Ist November. He swore to certain conversations with Lambert, but his testimony was most unreliable thioughout. Mrs. Shiels, another servant of the prisoner's, swore that Lambert told her that he was to get £50 for putting sheepskins of the company on Meakle's land, but her account of the conversation as given before the jury varied most materially from that given in the Resident Magistrate's Court. Arthur Meikle, of course, contradicted Lambert's account, stating that he had gone to bed ill on the 17th October, at 4 o'clock p.m., had had no tea, and had not got up again till next morning. The servant Harvey had just before stated that he (Arthur) had tea \n the kitchen with the rest at 5 o'clock that afternoon. A good deal of contradictory evidence was given about the state of the fences between the company's land and Meikle's, but there were no questions as to the respective merits of the sheep feed on the tw o places. I have only further to say that, in my opinion, the verdict was fully justified by the evidence for the Crown, and that I have seldom heard harder swearing than that of the witnesses for the prisoner. The crime of sheep-stealing has long been rife in the Wyndham district, and it is fortunate that an example has i~ - _ . . • - Referring to the case Regina v. Scott, in which Meikle was the chief w itness for the Crown, I may state that, in my opinion, Macdonald, Meikle, and Scott i < Carswell White of the horse, for the theft of which Scott was convicted. The Crown Prosecutor at Invercargill informed me that after Scott's conviction he was most anxious to be allowed to give evidence against Meikle, stating that he (Scott) was at the farm of the accused on the night the sheep were stolen. This course was not deemed advisable, as there was already ample evidence in the case for the Crown. 28th April, 1888. C. D. R. WARD. At Lambert's trial the theory of the prosecution was that Lambert, in order to secure the leward offered by the company had "planted" the skins on Meikle's piemises. At Meikle's trial Lambeit swore that the sheep were stolen on the night of the 17th October, 1887. At Lambert's trial evidence was brought to show that it was impossible for the occurrence described by Lambert to have taken place on the 17th. Evidence was also brought to show that Lambert had obtained two skins bearing the company's brand from a man named McGeorge. There was further evidence as to certain admissions made by Lambert. In 1895, Judge Ward was asked by the Public Petitions Committee to leport as to how far the conviction of Lambert would raise any presumption as to Meikle's innocence. His reply was as follows . — Greymouth, 29th August, 1895. Sir, — I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt (on 27th August of your despatch, requesting me to furnish a report as to how far the conviction of Lambert for perjury would raise any presumption as to Meikle's innocence in the case of Reg. v. Meikle, tried in 1887. In other words, the question is whether, after striking out Lambert's testimony, there remains sufficient evidence to justify Meilde's conviction. The remaining evidence for the Crown amounted to this that Meikle's land adjoined that of the company, the fences between the two being in good

order and sheep-pioof, except where the dividing fence ran into the n\ei, bub where sheep did not appear to have passed, that a large number of the company's sheep unaccountably disappeared; that, on a search wairant being executed, some of the missing fat sheep were found on Meikle's poor land, and two sheepskins bearing the company's brand were found among fifteen or sixteen others on. Meikle's piemises. Had theie been no evidence beyond this, I should certainly not have directed the jury to acquit , but the case for the Crown would have been greatly weakened, and probably the able counseL engaged by Meikle would then have secured his acquittal, had it not been for the exposure of the gross perjury committed on Meikle's behalf by the witness Templeton, which might have turned the scale the other way. — I have, etc. C. D. R. WARD. R. Meredith, Esq., M.H.R., Chairman of Public Petitions Committee. Meikle petitioned again in 1896. and the Committee reported as follows — No. 10.— Pettion of JOHN JAMES

MEIKLE. Petitioner prays that full effect may be given to the Public Petitions M to Z Committee's recommendation of last session m his case. I am directed to report that tins Committee regrets that its recommendations of last session have not been earned out; and that this Committee is still of opinion that an allowance should be granted to him by way of compensation for imprisonment suffered and subsequent loss sustained. 14th July 1896. Meikle petitioned again in. 1897, and the Committee reported as follows — No. 4, Sess. I. and No. 72, Sess. ll.— Petitions of JOHN JAMES MEIKLE, of Wyndham. Petitioner prays that the recommendations of the Public Petitions M toZ Commitee's reports of the 9th October, 1896, and the 14th July. 1896, may be given effect to. . I am directed to report that this Committee, after carefully inquiring into the case of John James Meikle, considers the Government has treated the petitioner fairly by granting him the sum of £294 10s Id for expenses incurred in the prosecution of Lambert for perjury, and a further sum of £500 now placed on the Estimates in full discharge of petitioner's claims . therefore the Committee has no further recommendation to make. 16th November, 189 r. No. 4 Sess. I, and No. 72, Sess. ll.— Petition of JOHN JAMES MEIKLE, of Wyndham. A previous report on the above petitions having been referred back to the Committee by the House for further consideration, I am directed to report that, after careful investigation into all the facts of the case, the Committee can see no reason to alter the previous decision airived at and reported to the House on the 16th November, 1897. 2nd December, 1897. A sum of £500 was voted as compensation a H d was paid over— £2so to Meikle, and £250 to George Esther, of Dunedin, by direction of Meikle. The money was paid on the loth December, 1897, and Meikle gave a receipt for the whole amount in full satisfaction of all claims and demands, or alleged claims and demands against the Government in respect of his prosecution and conviction, and in respect of expenses, costs, etc., in connection with the prosecution ot Lambert. , He petitioned again in 1898, and trie Committee reported as follows . — Nos 23 and 226.— Petitions of JOHN JAMES MEIKLE. of Wyndnam. Petitioner prays that the report of the Public Petitions M to Z Committee of October, 1895, may be given effect to, etc. , I am directed to report that, as the petitioner has signed a receipt for £50U in full satisfaction, release, and discharge of all claims and demands or alleged claims and demands, which he now has or at any time heretofore has had against Her Majesty the Queen or the Government of New Zealand upon or m respect of the prosecution and conviction of himself for sheep-stealing: or the prosecution and conviction at his instance of William Lambert for penury, and for any expenses, costs, or charges incurred in or about the said nrosecutions. the Committee has no recommendation to make. 3rd November, 1898. He petitioned again in 1899 and 1901, and copies of the reports of the Committee are annexed. No 82 —Petition of JOHN JAMES MEIKLE, of Southland. Petitioner prays that effect may be given to the reports of the Public Petitions Committee, M to Z dated the 9th October, 1895 and the 14th July, 1896. I am directed to report that, the petitioner, having expressed his reknquishment of all claims by the receopt eiven to the Government dated the 15th December, 1897, the Committee has no recommendation to make. Ist August, 1899. No. 622— Petition of JOHN JAMES

MEIKLE, of Wyndham. Petitioner prays that effect may be given to certain reports of the Public

Petitions M to Z Committee on his case, and that his name be leinoved iiom the prison reooids of the colony. lam directed to leport that, as the recommendations of pievious Committees have been given effect to, and the petitioner has received the sum of £500 in full discharge and satisfaction of all claims, the Committee is of opinion the petitioner has no further claim on the colony. 3rd October, 1901. During the present session petitions weie presented by Meikle and by P. Chapman and 43b6 others. The reports of the Committee are annexed. Petition of JOHN JAMES MEIKLE, of Southland. Petitioner prays that he may be compensated for the loss he has sustained in connection with his business, the legal costs incurred in defending charges r>referred against him, and tor imprisonment suffered and also for an enquiry into the matter of the alleged forgery of a ceitain document, etc. lam directed to report that this Committee, having gone carefully into the petitioner's case, is of opinion that the document refened to in the petition is not genuine, but from the evidence submitted has no reason to believe that the petitioner is in any way responsible for the same. Regarding the petitioner's claim for further compensation, your Committee has no recommendation to make. Ist September, 1903. Petition of PERCY CHAPMAN and 4366 Others. Petitioners pray that effect may be given to the recommendations of the Public Petitions Mto Z Committee, dated the 9th October, 1895, and the 14th July, 1896, on the case of John James Meikle, of Southland, and that Meikle's name be removed from the prison records of the colony. I am directed to report that the Committee, having consideied the petition of Percy Chapman and others, asking that the name of John James Meikle be removed from the prison records of the colony, is unable to see how it can be given effect to, and has therefore no recommendation to make. Ist September, 1903.

STATEMENT BY THE PRIME MINISTER TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 21st NOVEMBER, 1903. Honourable membeis will recollect that when the report on the petition of John James Meikle was brought up the Premier promised that the Government would go fully into the case, and would make an announcement to the House as to what the Government proposed to do in the matter. This announcement has not been made at an earlier date because the Government was desirous of giving the fullest consideration to all the circumstances, feeling that a matter of such importance should not be dealt with hastily. I may say that Mr. Meikle's case has caused the Government much anxiety. We have desired to hold the balance evenly — on the one hand not to do a wrong to the petitioner, on the other not to ask Paihament to create a precedent that is fraught with the gravest possibilities. I need not detain the House by recapitulating the facts of Meikle's case, but I must refer to the report of the Committee of 1890 on the first petition presented to Parliament. That Committee reported that it was of opinion that, after eliminating Lambert's evidence, there was not sufficient evidence to warrant Meikle's conviction ; that his request to have his name removed from the prison records merited serious consideration ; and that the Government should pay him a sum of money by way of compensation for his losses, for the legal costs incurred, and for the imprisonment he had suffered. I wish the House to note that no subsequent Committee has gone further than this report. Well, the Government has complied with one out of the two recommendations of that Committee — that is to say, it has paid £294 16s towards the legal costs incurred and a sum of £500 by way of compensation. The only question that now remains to be settled is the erasure of Meikle's name fiom the penal records. I do not propose to enter upon the question of Meikle's guilt or innocence ; I merely point out that the conviction of Lambert has not finally and conclusively proved Meikle's innocence The most that can be said is that if Lambert's evidence had not been given, the chances are that the jury would have acouitted Meikle. His case, therefore, stands on a different footing from those cases in which it has been conclusively proved, either by the confession of the real offender or by a series of circumstances absolutely negativing the possibility of guilt that the wrong man has been convicted. To remove Meikle's name from the penal records would requiie an Act of Parliament. It would necessitate the cancellation of the record of his conviction in the Supreme Court, the erasure of his name from the prison registers, and woujd generally involve an extensive mutilation of the public records of the colony ; and for what purpose? If every public document bearing the name of Mr. Meikle were cancelled or destroyed to-morrow it would not alter the facts. The newspapers containing the accounts of his

tiidl cannot be destroyed, nor can the "Han&aid" m which appear the debates on his case. If the public records are mutilated, Mi. Meikle will not be in, one \\ hit a better position than he isi to-day except in this important lespect, that it Parliament solemnly declaies by statute that he is an innocent man, beyond laying the foundation for a further claim for compensation no other good purpose would be seived, and this would probably stimulate others to appeal for a statutory declaration of innocence. I am of the opinion that it would be highly improper to mutilate the public lecords of the colony by cancelling thei record of Mr. Meikle's conviction in the Supreme Court, and the erasure of his name from the prison legisters and records of the colony , and not only these records, but the records of Parliament, petitions and reports and "Hansard" all set forth the fact of the imprisonment Mr. Meikle has suffered. Again, there are the reports which have appeared in the press. In fact, the suggestion as to the removal and erasure from public records is impracticable, and if every public document or record were destroyed the facts would remain, unaltered. In justice to Mr. Meikle and his family, however, I am opinion that, as Lambert, the principal witness against him at his trial, was subsequently convicted of perjury, printed slips stating this and other facts favourable to Mr. Meikle's innocence, might be inserted in the pages of the records, and attention would be thus drawn to the matter. This w r ould meet what I understand Mr. Meikle and his> family desire — namely, that had it not been for the evidence of Lambert Mr. Meikle might have beea acquitted, of the charge upon which he was convicted. It is well that the House and Mr. Meikle should clearly understand that what I have hereinbefore suggested is done with a view to placing the facts clearly and impartially before honourable members, and any atteoint to obtain further compensation would be strenuously resisted, seeing that, with the full facts before it, after enquiry and on the recommendation of a Committee of this honourable House, the Government offered, and Mr. Meikle accepted, the sum of £500 by way of compensation, together with the sum of £294 legal costs incurred.

COPY OF RECEIPT FOR £500 GIVEN BY MR. MEIKLE. "I John James Meikle, do hereby acknowledge to have received from the Colonial Treasurer on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen and the Government of the Colony of New Zealand, the sum of five hundred pounds (£500), of which the sum of two hundred and fifty pounds is now paid to me, and the further sum of two hundred and fifty pounds (£2so^ is about to be paid, at my request, to George Esther, of Dunedin, in full satisfaction, release, and discharge of all claims and demands, or alleged claims and demands, which I now have or at any time heretofore have had against Her Majesty the Queen or the Government of New Zealand upon or m respect of the prosecution and conviction of myself for sheep-stealing, or the prosecution and conviction at my instance of one William Lambert for perjury, and in respect of any expenses, costs, or charges incurred mi or about the said prosecutions, or either of them, and any losses sustained or alleged to be sustained by me thereby. "JOHN JAMES MEIKLE. "15th December, 1897. "Witness to Signature — J. W. Kelly, M.H.R."