THE MEIKLE COMMISSION.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXVIX, Issue 8135, 9 May 1906, Page 5

THE MEIKLE COMMISSION.

TELEGRAMS.

By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright.

DUNEDIN, May 8. Evidence for the suppliant at the Meikle Commission was concluded during the forenoon. Nevil Sutherland, au old-age pensioner, stated that Cameron told him in 1894 that the company wanted to get Meikle off the land, as no was a aheep-stealer, and that he had employed a certain person, whose name was not mentioned, to"make a trap for Meikle. Dr Fiudlay said this evidence came to him as a complete surprise. Tl would be necessary to obtain a Commission to seoure the evidence of Cameron; who at present was in England, and would not be returning to the colony. With the intimation that Mrs Meikle was too iil to give evidence to day, and thnt it might be necessary to call her later on, the suppliant's case closed. Dr Findlay then opened the case for the defenoe,, and gave an outline of the case, contending fbat Meikle bad no claim whatever on the colony, the prosecution being started by the Company, and Meikle being convicted on evidence of the Company's witnesses. He then went on to show that stories told now were inconsistent with matters at the time of the trial ridiculing the statement that Lambert had said he was aoing to put skins on Meikle's land. It would have been easy to have pointed out nt the time it was Lambert's work, but insiead a plea was put forward that the skins must have been taken off the fence by mistake. He went on to contend that Lambert's conviction for perjury did not prove Meikle's innocence, (t did not do away with the 27 sheep being found on Meikle's property, or with the two skins with the Comoany's brand being found in Meikle's smithy. ' Although not his main purpose he believed ho would satisfy the Commission that Lambert was innocent of the perjury for which he had been convicted. Lambert bad fixed the night on which he had seen .Voung Meikle drive the sheep by his having visited a person named Gregg. That might have been the 18th instead of the 17th October. A diary had come to light I since showing that MoGeorge, with whom Lambert was living on the station, hnd.left on the 18th in. stead of the 17th Ootober. If that could have been produced atj Lambert's trial he, counsel, was confident that Lambert would not have been convicted. ■