THE MEIKLE COMMISSION

New Zealand Times, Volume XXIX, Issue 6178, 9 April 1907, Page 4

THE MEIKLE COMMISSION

The Commission, consisting of Judges Edwards and Cooper, appointed in March, 1906, to inquire into tho claim of Mr John James Meiklo for further oejupensation of wrongs which he rllegcd he had sustained as the I result of a wrongful conviction for shcopstcaling, has presented its report, the substance of which appears in our columns this morning. From this report it will appear that whilst tho Commission considers the evidence tendered by Meiklo on matters affecting his own interests as “utterly unworthy of credit,”'it, nevertheless, recommends that for the purpose of dealing with tho claimant’s claims, he should bo treated as having boon acquitted upon a retrial before tho Commission on a. charge of sheep-stealing. As regards the claim for compensation mado by Meikle, it will be remembered that the Government in 1897 granted Meiklo tho sum of £SOO in settlement of his claims in full, for which sum tho claimant gave his written acknowledgment as a “full satisfaction, release, and discharge of all claims and demands.” Tho Commission finds that, if the claimant had had just cause of action against tho Crown, this payment would have boon a final discharge. On this point the Commission insists with strong emphasis. The Commission, however, finds that Meikle had no good case against the Government, and “therefore , the claimant’s claim cannot be put higher than as nn appeal to the bounty of tho State.” Thoro is no limit or qualification of such bounty possible exaept by tho will of tho donor; and therefore tho only authority that can pronounce such bounty sufficient is the donor, that is, tho Now Zealand Parliament. In connection with this matter of State bounty, tho Commission thinks it necessary to enter an emphatic caution against lightly establishing a precedent for such bounties, inasmuch as tho Stato, by establishing suck a precedent, would be laying itself open to an enormous number of claims by undeserving persons.

As to Moikle's claim to have liis name erased from the prison records, tho Commission reports that tho clai-n “cannot bo given ejfcct to, either hav^

ing regard to English precedent and the circumstances of the case, or having regard to common-sonso and the safety and inviolability of the public records.” The alternative courses proposed by the Commission are either to grant a free pardon, or formally to quash tho conviction on the motion of tho Attorney-General, and enter an acquittal as of record.