Meikle Commission.

Woodville Examiner, Volume XXII, Issue 3871, 9 May 1906, Page 2

Meikle Commission.

SOME INTERESTING EVIDENCE;

Dunedin, May 7. The Meikle Commission is expected to finish here on Thursday, in which case the sitting will be continued in Wellington on Monday. The eviderce to-day was largely that of those witnesses who bad given evidence at formal trials t and several witnesses found it difficult to recall details after such a lapse of time.

Alex. McDonald, farmer, said that Lambert bad told bin be conld clear Meikle if be liked ; he saw Meikle shortly after but did not mention what Lambert said. He had not mentioned the matter at the trial.

Jat>. Meehan, ebeepfamer, deposed that be leased a reserve which Meikle had occupied. In con* versation with Troupe, one of tbe company’s managers, Troupe, who was leaving the company’s employ, said he bad documents which would clear Meikle. Witness told him to be careful or he might find himself where Meikle was.

Arthur Perkins and Jane Shields, who bad been in Meikle’s employ, gave evidence as to Lambeii saying at Meikle’s place that he was going to get £SO to convict Meikle. James Connor, who bad baen in Meikle’s employ, testified to seeing the company’s sheep on Meiklo’s land.

James Meikle, son of supplicant, gave evidence as to Lambert staring the company had employed him to put skins on bis (witness') fathar’s place with tbe objsct of getting him into trouble. DR FINDLAY’S ADDRESS, Dunedin, May 8. The Meikle Commission continued its sitting to-day. Dr. Findlay opened his case. He gave an oatline of the whole case, contending that Meikle bad no claim whatever on the colony, tbe prosecution being started by tbe company, and Meikle being convicted on the evidence of tbe company’s witnesses, He then went on to show that stories told now were inconsistent with tbe matter at tbe time of the trial, ridiculing tbe state* ment that Lambert had said be was going to put skins on Meikle’s land. It would have been easy to have pointed ont at tbe time it was Lam* bert’s work, but instead a plea was put forward that the skins mast have been taken off tbe fence by mistake. He went on to oontand that Lambert’s conviction for perjury did not prove Meikle’s innocence. It did not do away with 27 sheep being found on Meikle’s property ; or with two skins, with tbe company’s brand, in Meikle’s smithy, although not his. He believed he would satisfy the Commission that Lambert was innocent of tbe perjury for which he bad been convicted. Lambert bad fixed the night on which be bad seen young Meikle drive sheep, by his having visited a person named G-regg. That would be the 18th instead of 17th October. A diary had come to light since, showing that McGeprge, with whom Lambert was living on the station, bad left on tbe 18th instead of tbe 17th of October. If that could have been produced at Lambert’s trial he (counsel) was confident Lambert woulcl have been convicted.