The Timaru Herald. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1896.

Timaru Herald, Volume LX, Issue 2185, 12 September 1896, Page 2

The Timaru Herald. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1896.

A very telling illustration of the old suying that " circumstances alter cases " was presented to the House of Representatives on Thursday afternoon, when Mr McNab moved the adjournment of the House m order to secure the opportunity of commenting on an unsatisfactory answer which he had received from the Government, relativeto the petition of Mr J. J. Meikle, a farmer at Wyndham. Our readers may remember that Mr Meikle is the man who, some years agb, m the Supreme Court at Invercargill, before Mr Justice Ward, was convicted of sheep-stealing, and sentenced to a long term of imprisonment with hard labour. It is only fair to state that at that time the evidence appeared to be conclusive against Meikle. He served his sentence, and on his release from gaol at once set about the task ot proving his innocence, which he had all along strenuously asserted. His statement was that the evidence upon which he had been convicted was a mass of lies, and his efforts were directed to bringing the perjurer to justice. Meikle overcame great difficulties m the pursuit of his object, and a considerable time elapsed before he was able to present the case to a jury. At length, however, his wish was gratified. His accuser was placed m the dock, and after a lengthy and exhaustive enquiry, a verdict of guilty was returned, and the perjurer was sent to gaol. We followed the evidence closely at the time, and it appeared to us to be quite conclusive as to Meikle's innocence, and as to the fact that his accuser, for the sake of securing a reward, had deliberately and successfully schemed to get Meikle convicted, partly by placing on his premises the skins of sheep that had been stolen (and which were subsequently found there by the police), and partly by direct false evidence concerning what he alleged he had seen Meikle do. Meikle was able to prove a distinct alibi— was able to show, on the most satisfactory evidence, that he was m a totally different locality at the time when, according to his accuser, the sheep were stolen. He was also able to prove that his son, whom the perjurer alleged had helped to drive the sheep, was at Jthat very time confined to his bed by the illness of which he not long afterwards died. We cannot call to mind any case m which perjury was more conclusively sheeted home to an accused person. In the session of Parliament following the trial for perjury, Meikle petitioned the House for compensation, fgr the

misery and wrong which he had experienced. He has petitioned more than once, and the Public Petitions Committee have strongly recommended the case to the favourable consideration of the Government. We. are not sure whether or not the Government have recouped him any of his costs m the Supreme Court, but they certainly have not given him anything by way of compensation for his undeserved incarceration, extending, as we have already said, over some years. It must not be supposed that we blame either the Judge or the jury m the sheepstealing case. The evidence was amply sufficient had it been true, and the plot had been so skillfully carried out that it escaped detection at the first trial. But admitting that the Judge and jury were not to blame, the fact remains that Meikle experienced a terrible wrong, and it would be a poor consolation to him to refer him to the perjurer as the proper person from whom compensation should be demanded. Of course Meikle has no legal claim against the State, and it may be contended by some that he has no equitable claim, because his conviction was justifiable on the evidence. But however that may be, the public would, we are sure, be glad to hear that the Government had placed a substantial sum on the Estimates for Meikle's benefit. Such cases are happily rare, and the country can afford to be liberal when so much undeserved misery and loss result from the operation of the criminal law. The reports do not tell us what the unsatisfactory reply was that Mr McNab received from the Government. Probably he was told nothing m a multitude of words ; but the Premier, when speaking on the motion for the adjournment, promised to place on the table all the papers connected with Meikle's case, and he added : — " The Government would have to be careful m any action which they took over this matter. It was not competent for the House to set itself up as judge of matters that were decided m the Supreme Court." To which Sir Robert Stout retorted that " he was glad to hear the Premier make the statement that the House was not a proper tribunal to review a decision of the Supreme Court, and he hoped that the Minister of Lands would pay due attention to what the Premier had said." This brings us back to our remark about the illustration of the old saying that "circumstances alter cases." Sir Robert Stout doubtless had m his mind the recent speech of the Minister of Lands about the Maungatautari Block— the speech m which he grossly attacked the Judges of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal, and took them severely to task for having dared to decide a legal question m connection with an application for the registration of the title to the land, without taking account , of an opinion which had been expressed by the Native Affairs Committee of the House. Thus he not only though it right for the House to review a decision of the Courts, but he held that a bare expression of opinion by a Parliamentary Committee should, m the estimation of the highest tribunals m the colony, outweigh the legal merits of a case m which the Judges are called upon to deal withtherights of individuals. It is something to know thatthePrernier professes to take a juster view of the situation than his colleague does. At the same time we would point out that the Premier's remark was totally irrelevant as regards Meikle's case. It cannot be said that, m the sense intended by the Premier, the House was called upon to review a decision of the Supreme Court. A more correct statement would be that Mi McNab wished the Government to emphasise or back up the verdict of a Supreme Court jury which had affirmed that Meikle's accuser was a perjurer of the deepest dye.