Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

The Meikle Commission.

Dunedin, May 11

Before the Meikle Commission today James Fleming, farmer at F»akahopu, stated that he bad examined the fences between the properties of Meikle and the Company on the 12th November, 1887. He found them in good order. There was nothing particular to tempt the sheep on either one side of the fence or the other. William Stuart, who succeeded Troup in 1887 as manager of Islay station, Stated there was fairly good feed for sheep on the company’s pre-emptive right. He did not think there was anything on Meikle’a land to tempt sheep to stray from off the company’s land.

William Lambert was examined and said that prior to being engaged by the company in connection with the sheep-stealing on their estate, he had been working for Constable Leece as bailiff and doing some private detective work. There was never any arrangement for anyone to put ■kins on Meikle’s place. Before entering the company’s employ he did not suspect Meikle was a thief. He never told Meikle tbat he was to get £SO for putting skins into Meikle’s smithy, so as to get him convicted. Witness put no skins whatever on Meikle’s place. He only saw Cameron once after he was engaged by the company, and that was in the presence of Troup. Witness had always held that he was wrongly convicted of perjury and repeated that statement now.

The Commission concluded taking evidence here to-day, and will leave for Wellington in the morning. William Lambert’s evidence varied bat slightly from that given at the trial of Meikle. He said the company had paid £SO in instalments to bis wife. He only saw Cameron once and then it was in company with Troup. He always bald he was wrongfully convicted of perjury. . Witness was cross-examined by Mr Atkinson, but did not vary in his testimony. Troup, recalled, said be had heard •bout the letter written by Meikle about suing the company for £SOOO, bat he had never seen it, and Lambert was mistaken in supposing he had given it to witness.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WOODEX19060514.2.9

Bibliographic details

Woodville Examiner, Volume XXII, Issue 3873, 14 May 1906, Page 3

Word Count
346

The Meikle Commission. Woodville Examiner, Volume XXII, Issue 3873, 14 May 1906, Page 3

The Meikle Commission. Woodville Examiner, Volume XXII, Issue 3873, 14 May 1906, Page 3