MEIKLE COMMISSION.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 13589, 10 May 1906, Page 8

MEIKLE COMMISSION.

EVIDENCE FOR THE CROWN. Seventh Day—Wednesday. The Royal Commission -to inquire into the guilt or otherwise of John Jamos Meikle for sheop-stealing in Southland in 1657 and other matters resumed its sitting yesterday morning. Mr A. R. Atkinson (Wellington) appeared for Mr Meikle, and Dr Findlay (Wellington) for the Crown.

Ur Findlay, continuing his address in opening the case for the Orovra, said it was clear that -Lambert had fixed the date of October 17—the date of tho theft by young Meikle— by an event, the event being a, visit to Gregg's house. Lambert, a man of experience, had he desired to manufacture evidence, would have fixed 1 on a date on which the three chief personages concerned in this tragedy were likely to be about. Yet this so-called liar, according to the testimony of the other side, solected a date .when one of the injured persons was ill, a dale on which the night-was so boisterous that it -would have been absurd for anyone to attempt to drive sheep, and finally, » date, on which Lambert himself was proved (o have been nt Mataura. All this established the fact that Lambert had not committed perjury wilfully. No part of the indictmont which tad been, presented .against- Lambert referred to him putting tho skins in tho smiliy. The evidence would show that there was practically no testimony against Lambert. It had been neoessary to show to the jury at Lanibort's trial that Lambert had fixed on a, certain date, and" then it had been necessary to provo an alibi, and then to . establish, the fact that the weather was so bad on that particular date that it was impossible to drive she'ep. By a diary counsel would show that the date named should have been the 18th. Lambert, as counsel had before stated, fixed on a date by an event—the departure from Isla-y of MacGcop'o and a visit to Gregg's house. Beyond Meikle's evidence, what refutation had thcTO been of Lambert's testimony given at the former's original trial? Counsel submitted there had been none whatever. Mr Atkinson had en'deavoured to make a great, deal of capital out of the assertion -that had been made that tho shcop had been driven through an 18in door, while a 4ft- door was available. The explanar tion of that was that the 18in door opened on to a small yard, into which the sheep had been driven. All improbability was eliminated from Lambert's story when the mistake of the date was rectified. The man Scott was a witness who would bo called before the commission in Wellington, and ho would swoar that he saw sheep being driven from the company's land to Meikle's by young Meikle. In respect to the statement mado by Sutherland yesterday with regard to Mr W. R. Cameron, counsel desired to inform the bench of a rather curious fact. Mm Cameron happened to be residing in Dunedin at the present time, and she waa' askeil if she -had any of her husband's papers which would assist in refuting the attack made on his character. A search was made among some .rubbish, and a diary was discovered, which contained a full record of the events which took place on Islay Station. A great deal had been made by his learned friend of tho fact that the number of sheep alleged to have been 9tolen—27—was not fixed until after tho police raid. Counsel would' show their Honprs an entry in this diary wliioh would prove that tlmt number of sheep was recorded , as being on Meikle's land six days before the raid. This was tho entry: " Number of sheep token off pre-emptive right 222; 380 sheep for Sunnyside; 15 rams; 26 sheep (Meikle's); .1 ram (Meikle's)." Tho date was 26th October, 1887, or six days before the police went to Meikle's place. The bona fiden of the book could not bo denial, and its entry plainly established that tho real criminal was Meikle and that Lambert was innocent. The whole case really came down to this: The two actors in this miserable business were in court that day. Meikle swore he was not present on the night that these sheep were stolen, and was not a party to the theft. Lambert-swore to the story for which he had already suffered imprisonment, but he would do so again without fear, though he might again be liable to perjury. Cutting away all. the detail they came down to this: Which of these two men- were they to beliove? On the previous day learned counsel had said thero was no spot of any kind against Lambert, but since that Lambert had told him that over 20' years ago ho was fined 5s or 10s for a minor assault, and that 12 or 13 years ago he was fiucd 30s (including witnesses' expenses) for assault. Willi those exceptions, Lambert stood without any blemish on his character. He had, certainly, been charged with perjury, •but at the instance of Meikle, But how did Meikle stand beside Lambert? Learned counsel re ferret! to the assault committed by Meikle on a man named M'Corloy prior to 1887. and to other charges brought against him, and referred to lids conduot in the box last week whon ho was questioned with regard to staying with a woman in a house in Invercargill. 1 Meikle now appealed for assistance to the colony, and what honour had ho to support 'him in his request-? Tho commission, learned counsel submitted, had exposed one of the biggest hyprocrites who had ever attempted to get money from the public putse in the whole 'history of the colony. On the other hand there was Lambert, against whom there' had been nothing at all except two trifling assaults until he suffered for the alleged perjury. If it was a question then of which man was telling the truth, he thought the commission would have no doubt as to which man their Honors would decide.

Evidence wag then called in support of Hie .suppliant's case.

Robert Troup, farmer, AVa.iltn.wa, said that many years ago he managed Islay Station for the New Zealand Investment Company. Tlio company had G!6 sheep on the turnip laud, perhaps, iu (lie month of August. He did not inspect Meikle'.s land particularly at- about that time, but- it did not seem to be overstocked. There was nothing especial on Meikle's land !o attract sheep from the preemptive right, tile company's property. There were oats on Meikle's ploughed' land, but not of sufficient height for feeding. The company.had been losing sheep both during my time and before. The books showed that there was 3j leakage of over 1000. and the leakage was mostly observable at Meikle's boundary to the company's property. The first suspicion of Jfeikle was in July, when ho noticed certain tracks, consisting of those of sheep, a man, and a. dog. leading towards Meikle's boundary. . Witness followed them, and saw a. place in the fence where (he sheep liad been driven through oil to Meikle's properfv. Witness reported the matter to Mr W. ]{, Cameron, who saw Constable Leece in my company. Ho suggested the employment of William Lambert as 0110 who could watch and ascertain who was stealing the sheep. The arrangement wski that he was to get £1 a week and found, and in addition a bonus of £50 as soon us » conviction wa« obtained of the man who was, stealing the Islay sheep. It- was absurd to say that a suggestion was made that Lambert should place sheep and skim on Moikle's land to get him convicted. Oil the court resuming at. 2 p.m., witness Iroup, further examined by Dr Find'.ay, said was a team driver. There was an entry in tile diary produced on the 19th October that Wilham Mac George loft Islay for Waicola. Mai-George nunc from Lambert's hut on the 18th, and left, the station for Waiook, on the 3'Jtii. It would take him two days to go from Islay Station to Waicola. From Islay Station to ifrttanra would bo 10 miles, and the journey would lake half a day. Monday, the day liefore tlio 18th October, was a very bad day, and it waa not the practice (or MacGcorge io go out in bad weather. If he was instructed to go out on such a day it. would be his duty to stop in. Six hundred and forty sheep were put on the turnips in August. Nono of those sheep would have gone from there on to Meikle's land of their own free .will. Witness never said to Mavin or anyone that he had documents in his possession that would gel lleiklo out of gaol, and was told by Templetoii to hold his tongue. It was quite incorrect to say ho had mado such a statement. He never had any documents in his possession that would have got Meikle out of gaol. He had put Mavin out twice as acting bailiff, and in consequence of that Mavin had ill-feeling against him. Tlio diary produced was in general use on the station. Witness had read Mr Atkinson's address in the newspapers, and, in consequence of seeing reference made to Cameron, had gone to Mrs Cameron, to see if it was possible to get .possession of any of the station books or documents which would assist his (witness's) memory. Mrs Cameron said there was an old diary which the children had had acceES to. Witness told Mr M'Donald this, and he requested him to go back and get the diary from Mis .Cameron. He did this, and gavetbe diary to Mr >MT)ona]d.

To Mr Atkinson: The 640 sheep WCTfc put upon the turnips iu'August. Generally speaking, turnips were all over by Octobcr. Alongside tho pre-emptive right there was not muoh on Meikle'a land to attract sheep. Oats would not bo springing so much in October there. Not much could be expected froui land at 10s per acre. Mciklo was as good a farmer as those around him, and ho did his best to put his land into cultivation, but witness could not fav how many acres he had in English grass. It might have been about July witness spoke to Constable Leeco about the sheepstealing.

Constable James Daavers Leece, stationed at Roxburgh, said ■that in 1887 he was stationed at Mataura. His place was about 14 miles from Meikle'a farm. In 1887 Mr Troup complained to witness of sheep-stealing on tho company's Islay land. Subsequently, Mr Troup made another complaint about more sheep-stealing. This was not long after tho middle of the year. Mr Cameron and Mr Troup came to his station one day, and, after a talk about the sheep-stealing, it was decided, on witness's recommendation, to engage a man named William Lambert, who had previously been engaged in doing bailiff's work. Lambert was to get £1 a week, and £50 additional in the evont of securing the thief. That was a common arrangement, and a proper one. Detectives Ede, Constable Fouhy, witness, and others made a search, later on, of Meikle'a property. They first searched a hut. Mien they went to the barn. Some skins hanging on «, b?s(n. wcfe. ami tw,o of, %p}

were taken away. In the stable, whioh was also- searched, no skins were found. Arthur Meikle, in reply to Detective Ede, said the sheep were in a certain paddock. The Bheep were examined, and 25 of them were recognised as the company's. Arthur Meikle said the two skins were got off the fence. liarvcy wag also present, but witness could not say whether lie heard what Detectivo Edo said to Arthur Meikle about the skins. In reply to the detective Arthur .Meikle and Harvey.indicated that tho sheep had got on to Moikfie's land at the north-eastern corne.. Witness examined some of the fences, and found them in good order and shcop-proof.

Dr Findlay (to witness): W-hat was the general character that Meikle bore before Complaint was made to you in 1887?

Mr Atkinson objected to the question. Dr Findlay contended that the question waa quite permissible. If a man asked tho court to assess his reputation, and it was shown ha had no reputation at all, tho question ought to bo permitted.

Mr Atkinson submitted that his friend's line of attack was quite misconoeived. He had to concede that Dr Findlay was entitled to pursue the most rigid cross-examination, with a view to attacking Mr Meikle's credit in respect to veracity, but for a claim of this kind to bo met with evidenoe of the sort it was now proposed to lead was out of the question.

Mt Justice Edwards thought tho question was permissible.

Witnoss, in reply to tho question, said that Meikle boro the reputation of a sheep-stealer.

By Mr Atkinson: Tho two skins that were taken away weTo found among other skins. .Th« sheep were found in a- paddock in which theTe was a patch of green feed. In other paddocks tho feed was very rough.

To Dr Findlay: Another search was mado on tho following day,- and two moro sheep were found near tho bush. There was one ram in the number. Witness would say that Meikle's pasture was poor.

Tho" commission adjourned until this morning.