H.—2l.
1907. NEW ZEAL A N D .
CLAIMS OF JOHN JAMES MEIKLE (REPORT OF COMMISSION APPOINTED TO INQUIRE INTO).
Presented to both Houses of the General Assembly by Command of His Excellency
REPORT. To His Excellency the Right Honourable Baron Plunket, K.C.M.G., X.C.V.0., Governor of the Colony of New Zealand. May it please Your Excellency,— Whereas by a Commission bearing date the 15th day of March, 1906, after reciting that at the Supreme Court sittings at Invercargill in the month of December, 1887, one John James Meikle was convicted of sheep-stealing, and was thereupon sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour for the term of seven years ; and reciting that upon his discharge from prison he commenced proceedings for perjury against one William Lambert, a witness for the prosecution at the trial of the said John James Meikle at Invercargill aforesaid ; and that the said William Lambert was at the Supreme Court sittings held at Invercargill in the month of June, 1895, duly convicted of the said offence of perjury, and was thereupon sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour for the term of four years ; and reciting that the said John James Meikle alleges that he was innocent of the said offence of sheep-stealing of which he was convicted, and that he has suffered grave wrong and pecuniary damage and loss thereby ; and has petitioned Parliament praying that his name be removed from the penal records of the colony, that he be granted compensation in respect of the aforesaid conviction and imprisonment, and that he be reimbursed the cost and charges incurred by him in defending himself upon his said trial and upon the prosecution of the said William Lambert; and reciting that it was expedient that a Commission should issue to inquire into the matters and things therein mentioned, for the purpose of arriving at a final conclusion and settlement in respect of the claims or alleged claims of the said John James Meikle and of determining whether legislation is necessary to give effect thereto, Your Excellency, in exercise and pursuance of the power and authority conferred upon Your Excellency by " The Commissioners Act, 1903," and the amendments thereof, and of every other power and authority enabling Your Excellency in that behalf, and acting by and with the advice and consent of the Executive Council of the said colony, was pleased to appoint us, Worley Bassett Edwards, of the City of Auckland, Esquire, and Theophilus Cooper, of the City of Wellington, Esquire, to be Commissioners for the purpose of inquiring into the following matters and things, namely :— 1. Whether the conviction of the said William Lambert for perjury established the innocence of the said John James Meikle. 2. Whether the conviction of the said William Lambert raised a reasonable presumption that the said John James Meikle was innocent, or that he was wrongfully convicted. 3. Whether there is any evidence to show that the said John James Meikle has since his conviction made any admissions or statements inconsistent with his innocence.
i—H. 21.
H.— 21
II
4. As to the circumstances which led to the prosecution of the said William Lambert for perjury, and whether there was any undue delay on the part of the said John James Meikle in taking proceedings for perjury against the said William Lambert. 5. As to the circumstances under which the said John James Meikle accepted the sum of £500 in full settlement of his claims ; and whether, apart from legal considerations, the settlement then made should be treated as final. 6. As to the financial position of the said John James Meikle immediately preceding his arrest for the said offence of sheep-stealing, and during his imprisonment, and at the date of his release from prison and since ; and whether, having regard to all the circumstances, the said John James Meikle is fairly entitled to further pecuniary compensation in respect of his conviction and imprisonment, or in respect of the loss and suffering alleged to have been entailed upon his family thereby; and, if so, to what amount. 7. As to the amount of legal and other costs incurred and paid by the said John James Meikle— (a) in respect of his defence at his trial upon the charge of sheepstealing ; (6) in respect of the prosecution of the said William Lambert for perjury ; and (c) as to the circumstances under which the" said John James Meikle accepted the sum of £294 16s. Id. in full settlement of his claim for legal and other costs as aforesaid ; and whether, apart from legal considerations, the settlement then made should be treated as final. 8. Whether, having regard to English precedent and the circumstances of the case, the claim of the said John James Meikle that his name be removed from the prison records can be given effect to ; and, if not, what alternative is practicable in the way of placing on record his innocence, if in your opinion his innocence has been established or may be presumed as aforesaid. 9. Whether, in your opinion, legislation is necessary to give effect to your recommendations, or to any of them. And whereas we, the said Worley Bassett Edwards and Theophilus Cooper, acting under the powers conferred upon us by the said Commission, have inquired into the several matters and things therein mentioned, sitting for that purpose in open Court, and have heard counsel for the said John James Meikle (hereinafter called " the claimant ") and for the Crown respectively, and have also heard the evidence upon oath in examination, cross-examination, and re-examination of all the persons tendered as witnesses for the claimant and for the Crown respectively. And whereas we, the said Worley Bassett Edwards and Theophilus Cooper, as and being such Commissioners as aforesaid, have duly weighed and considered the evidence adduced by and on behalf of the claimant and the Crown respectively, and the addresses of their counsel respectively : Now, therefore, we, the said Worley Bassett Edwards and Theophilus Cooper, as and being the said Commissioners, have the honour to report to Your Excellency touching the several questions referred to us for inquiry by the said Commission as follows, that is to say :— As to the First of the said Questions. The conviction of the said William Lambert for perjury did not establish the innocence of the said claimant. As to the Second of the said Questions. The conviction of the said William Lambert did not per se raise a reasonable presumption that the claimant was innocent or that he was wrongly convicted. As to the Third of the said Questions. No evidence has been adduced before us to show that the claimant has since his conviction made any admissions or statements inconsistent with his innocence. As to the Fourth of the said Questions. No evidence has been adduced before us as to the circumstances which led to the prosecution of the said William Lambert for perjury other than the circumstance that the said William Lambert was the chief witness against the claimant
H.—2l.
on the prosecution of the claimant for sheep-stealing. There was no undue delay on the part of the claimant in taking proceedings for perjury against the said William Lambert. Again, as to the First, Second, Third, and Fourth of the said, Questions. We have answered the said questions according to the wording thereof ; but, having regard to the other terms of the said Commission, and especially to the recitals therein contained, it does not appear to us that the said questions sufficiently raise the real questions intended to be referred to us, upon this branch of the inquiry, and that these questions really are : (a) Has sufficient evidence been adduced before us to show that the claimant was guilty or was innocent of the crime of sheepstealing, whereof he was convicted ? (b.) If the evidence is insufficient to enable us to arrive definitely at either conclusion, is the question of the guilt of the claimant so far left in doubt that, if he were now being retried by us as a jury upon an indictment for the said crime, he ought to be acquitted upon the ground that the said crime had not been sufficiently proved against him ? Before entering into the inquiry directed by the said Commission we intimated to counsel for the Crown and for the claimant that we interpreted the said Commission as being intended to raise the questions last stated, in addition to the questions specifically raised by the said Commission. This interpretation was acquiesced in by counsel for the Crown, and the inquiry has throughout been conducted by counsel for both parties upon that basis. Since then Your Excellency has been pleased, in consequence of delays in making our report herein (caused solely by the manner in which the inquiry has been conducted by counsel), twice to extend the time limited by the said Commission. We proceed then to deal with this branch of the case upon the assumption that the said Commission was intended to raise for our determination the questions (a) and (b) which we have stated. The matters which we have been required to investigate in order to enable us to answer these questions happened over nineteen years ago. Many of the witnesses whom it would have been desirable to examine are dead, and the memories of those who survive have been dimmed by so great a lapse of time. Even if an earnest desire to speak the bare truth, adding nothing and suppressing nothing, could be attributed to all the witnesses, it must be obvious that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for us to feel any degree of certainty as to the accuracy of the conclusions of fact which we are called upon to form. The difficulty in the present case is enhanced by the fact that the claimant, who is properly claimed by his counsel to be his own chief witness, has proved himself in his evidence before us to be utterly unworthy of credit in any matter affecting his owu interests. The particular matter in respect of which the claimant's reckless disregard of his oath was made clear to us was with respect to illicit relations, which he ultimately admitted, that he has had for some years with a young woman named in the evidence. Upon cross-examination by counsel for the Crown he denied these relations after repeated warnings from both members of the Couit, and after his attention had been pointedly called to the fact, which he admitted, that false evidence upon this point would go to the value of the whole of his testimony. Nevertheless, he denied these relations over and over again, and in every possible form, in the course of such denial blackening, not shielding, the woman's character, and endeavouring to fasten his own transgressions upon his nephew. Counsel for the claimant endeavoured to persuade us that the claimant's natural modesty induced him to swear falsely in these particulars, and that his evidence as to the matters in controversy was still reliable. In our opinion, however, no weight is to be attached to the evidence of the claimant, as evidence, in any particular. The particulars of the claimant's evidence upon this point and of his counsel's argument upon the matter will be found in the printed report of the evidence, as mentioned in the margin. We regret that we are not able to attach much greater weight to the evidence of the claimant's wife. In one particular, as to which it appears to us very difficult to believe that her inaccuracy was due to mistake alone, she is admitted to have misstated the facts to us in her evidence. The particulars of Mrs. Meikle's evidence j upon this point appear in the printed report of the evidence, as mentioned in the margin. The discussion between the claimant's counsel and the Court upon this ' point appears also in the print at the pages noted in the margin. j
Pages 57 to 61.
Page, 155, questions 471 to 474; page 158, questions 600 to 606. Pages 230, 231, 232.
III
H.—2l.
Nevertheless, weighing the whole of the evidence as best we can in circumstances so difficult, we are of opinion that if the proceedings before us had been an actual retrial of the claimant before a jury upon the charge of sheep-stealing (of which he was convicted in 1887) the evidence of his guilt is so far from conclusive that it would on such a retrial have been proper to acquit the claimant upon that charge, and we should have so stated to the jury. We have the honour, therefore, to recommend that for the purpose of dealing with the claimant's claims he should be treated as having been acquitted upon a retrial before us of the charge of sheep-stealing, of which he was found guilty in December, 1887. As to the Fifth of the said Questions propounded to us by the said Commission. We have the honour to report that we find that on the 9th October, 1895, the Public Petitions Committee, amongst other things, recommended the Government to make provision on the supplementary estimates for the payment to the claimant " of a sum by way of compensation for the loss he has sustained in. connection with his business, the legal costs incurred in defending the charge preferred against him, and securing the conviction of Lambert for perjury, and also by way of compensation for the imprisonment he has suffered." It appears that Mr. McNab, M.H.R. for Mataura, was interesting himself on behalf of the claimant, and that he had certain interviews with the Right Honourable Mr. Seddon, then Prime Minister of the colony, in the course of which he promised the Right Honourable the Prime Minister that if he would place the sum of £500 on the estimates as compensation for the claimant he would worry the Prime Minister no more. The sum of £500 was accordingly placed upon the estimates for the year 1896. The claimant, however, declined to accept the sum so placed upon the estimates, because he was required to sign a receipt in full discharge if he took the money. In the Parliamentary Debates of 2nd December, 1897, Vol. 100, p. 275, appeared the report of a speech made by the Right Honourable the Prime Minister with reference to this matter. On the 17th December, 1897, the claimant received from an official in the Treasury Department, who has not been called or identified, payment of the mm so voted. Mr. Kelly, then M.H.R. for Invercargill, who had been foreman of the jury which had convicted the claimant, was then interesting himself on behalf of the claimant, and was present when the money was paid to him. Before the Treasury official would pay the money to the claimant he required the claimant to sign a receipt in the form presently set out. Mr. Kelly drew the attention of the claimant to the terms of the receipt before he signed it, and warned him explicitly that he was giving a receipt for all future claims. The claimant, however, said that he signed the receipt under protest, and signed it, and accepted and was paid the sum of £500 thereupon. The receipt, which was attested by Mr. Kelly, was in the following words :— I, John James Meikle, do hereby acknowledge to ha\e received from the Colonial Treasurer, on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen and the Government of the Colony of New Zealand, the sum of five hundred pounds (£500), of which the sum of two hundred and fifty pounds (£250) is now paid to me and the further sum of two hundred and fifty pounds (£250) is about to be paid at my request to George Esther, of Dunedin, in full satisfaction, release, and discharge of all claims and demands, or alleged claims and demands, which I now have, or at any time heretofore have had, against Her Majesty the Queen, or the Government of New Zealand, upon or in respect of the prosecution and conviction of myself for sheep-stealing, or the prosecution and conviction, at my instance, of one William Lambert for perjury, and in respect of any expenses, costs, or charges incurred in or about the said prosecutions, or either of'them, and any los«es sustained or alleged to be sustained by me thereby. John James Meikle. Witness to signature—J. W. Kelly, M.H.R. 15th December, 1897. Afterwards the claimant informed Mr. Kelly that he had signed the receipt on the advice of another person that he could come back and claim more. It is admitted by counsel for the claimant that the Government of the colony considered that in making this payment to the claimant they were making a final settlement of all his claims. It is also admitted by counsel for the claimant that the claimant received the money without protest save to the Treasury clerk from whom he received it, a minor official whose duty simply was to pay over the money to the claimant upon obtaining the claimant's receipt in the form directed by the Government.
Printed evidence, pages 232, 233, 234,
Printed evidence, pages 44, 45, 46.
IV
H.—2l.
There can be no doubt, we think, that if the claimant had at the time of receiving the money made his protest to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister, and had then declared his intention of again presenting a petition to Parliament claiming further compensation, this sum of £500 would not have been paid to him. The position, therefore, was that at the time of this payment there was a disputed claim pending between the claimant and the Government of the colony, the claimant alleging that he had been wrongfully convicted, and the Government denying that position. In this state of the facts the Government of the colony were willing to pay to the claimant the sum of £500, to which they considered the claimant was not entitled, upon condition that the claimant accepted that sum in final settlement of all claims, real or fancied, which he had in respect of the matters of which he complained, and the claimant accepted that sum upon those terms. If the claimant had had a cause of action against the Crown, or against any person representing the colony, in respect of the matters of which he complains, there could be no doubt that the payment made to and accepted by him would have bound him legally, and, in our opinion, morally also. The essence of the settlement of a disputed claim by the payment of a sum of money, which the person paying it denies to be owing, is that on the one hand the person paying the money in effect purchases peace for all time from being further harassed by the disputed claim, and the person accepting the money in settlement of the claim in effect sells his claim for that sum, and binds himself both legally and morally not to agitate that claim again. In such circumstances, if the claim should afterwards prove to have no foundation whatever, the person paying the money can make no claim to have it refunded—so, on the other hand, if the claim should prove to be well founded, and to be of much greater value than the sum paid in settlement of it, the person who has accepted a sum of money in settlement is not allowed afterwards to agitate the matter, or to set up the claim which he has in effect sold to his adversary. The same rule of law applies as between the Crown and a person making a claim upon the Crown, as well as between two private persons. There is nothing unjust or inequitable in setting up such a settlement as an answer to the claim which has been settled. On the contrary, if injustice or want of equity there be, it is on the part of the person who, having received from his adversary the price of peace, seeks to harass him again in respect of the same matter. It has always been considered to be a rule of high public policy that such settlements fairly and honourably arrived at should never afterwards be allowed to be disturbed, no matter how bad the bargain which either party has made may turn cut in the long-run to be. The claimant, however, had no cause of action against the Crown ; he had, in fact, no grievance either against the Government or against any officer of the Crown. His grievance, if he was wrongly convicted, was against certain persons whom he alleges to have committed perjury upon his trial. No attempt has been made to impugn the fairness of that trial, and no suggestion has been put forward that the claimant's conviction was procured by any erroneous ruling of the learned Judge who presided at the trial, or by any miscarriage upon the part of any officer of the Crown. The claimant's claim, therefore, cannot be put higher than as an appeal to the bounty of the State. There can be no rules to regulate the bestowal of bounty, save such rules as the donor of the bounty may choose to make for himself. We are unable, therefore, to answer that part of the fifth question which asks us whether, apart from legal considerations, the settlement made with the claimant should be treated as final. That question can only be answered by Parliament, which alone has the power to regulate the bestowal of its bounty in such manner as it thinks fit. We can only report that if the claimant had had a legal cause of action against the Crown he would have been held in all Courts where the rules of English law prevail, and, we believe, in the Courts of all civilised countries, to be both legally and morally bound by the settlement made'with the Government of the colony on the 15th December, 1897, and evidenced by the receipt of that date. We may, however, properly call attention to some matters which appear to us to deserve the earnest consideration of those who have the control of the finances of the colony.
V
H.—2l.
In the first place, it appears to us to be obvious that, in the interests of all those who have or may have what are conceived to be moral claims to the bounty of the State, there should be some definite rule by which a final settlement can be arrived at, so as to preclude those claims from being afterwards successfully agitated. If there is no such rule, it appears to us that the Government of the colony must in all cases be exceedingly chary in allowing any such claim at all, lest its allowance should be treated as an admission not merely that the claimant has a fair moral claim upon the bounty of the State, but that he has a moral right to compensation or indemnity against loss, which are very different matters. Apart from the application of the wholesome and necessary rule of law that every settlement of a disputed claim honestly and fairly arrived at shall never afterwards be disturbed, the weakness of the claim of the claimant in the present case appears to us to be that it assumes that if the claimant can establish that if the evidence adduced before us had been adduced before the jury on his trial in December, 1887, then that jury would or ought to have acquitted him of the charge of sheep-stealing, and that, consequently, he has a moral claim not merely to bounty from the State, but to complete indemnity against all losses direct and indirect which he can attribute to his conviction, and also to a large sum by way of compensation in respect of what his counsel calls " false imprisonment," in respect of loss of character and reputation, and even in respect of suffering to his family. We have the honour to report that no such moral right to compensation or indemnity has ever, so far as we are aware, been recognised or allowed by the Government or Parliament of Great Britain, or of any community regulated by the principles of English law. Further, we are aware of one authentic case only in which a large sum has been paid to a person wrongly convicted—namely, the case of Adolph Beck, to whom a sum of £5,000 was paid upon his absolute innocence being conclusively established. Whether or not this sum was based upon any estimate of Mr. Beck's actual losses there is nothing before us to show. We think that it is unlikely that that was the case, but it is immaterial to inquire, as the case of Mr. Beck has no point of similarity with the case of the present claimant. Mr. Beck was charged in March, 1896, before Sir Forest Fulton, then Common Sergeant, at the Old Bailey, on several charges of fraud. He was found guilty and was sentenced to seven years' penal servitude, which sentence he served. In 1904, nearly three years after he had been released, Mr. Beck was again arrested on a charge similar to those on which he had been previously convicted. He was tried before Mr. Justice Grantham and was again convicted. The learned Judge had, however, misgivings about the case, and he postponed sentence until the next session. Meantime the actual offender, a man named Smith, was arrested on similar charges, based on acts committed whilst Mr. Beck was in custody. This led to further inquiries and the consequent release of Mr. Beck, and his pardon in respect of both the convictions of 1896 and 1904. The Master of the Rolls (Sir Eichard Henn Collins), Sir Spencer Walpole, and Sir John Edge (late Chief Justice of the High Court of the North-western Provinces of India) were then appointed by the Home Secretary a committee to make inquiry as to the circumstances of Mr. Beck's convictions. The report of the committee will be found in the Parliamentary Library. It appears from this report, pp. xi and xii, that the Judge who had tried Mr. Beck's case in 1896 had excluded certain evidence which, if it had been admitted, must have resulted in Mr. Beck's acquittal. Nothing could be more emphatic upon these points than the report, from which it is sufficient to quote a few sentences only from p. xii. "If Mr. Beck was entitled to the verdict of the jury on these points he never had it. He was convicted on evidence from which everything that told, or might be thought to tell, in his favour was excluded. His case was never tried. Two questions therefore arise: Was the Judge's ruling right ? Did it carry with it these consequences ? In our opinion the ruling cannot be supported, and the consequences named ensued." ' Farther, it appears from the report (p. vi) that immediately after Mr. Beck s first conviction, in 1896, he petitioned the Home Office on the grounds that the case was one of mistaken identity and that there had been a mistrial, both of which grounds were strictly true. The system on which such petitions are dealt with
VI
H.—2l.
in the Home Office is detailed on p. xv of the report. From this it appears that they pass through the hands of subordinate officers, who deal with the simpler cases, and that the more difficult only are passed up with explanatory minutes until they reach, if necessary, the Permanent Under-Secretary, who uses his discretion in consulting the Secretary of State upon them. The actual mode in which Mr. Beck's petition was dealt with is set out in the report at pp. xv-xvii. On p. xvii the result is summed up in these words : " The short fact is that if there had been any one in the Home Office in the chain of subordination up to the Permanent Under-Secretary whose legal training had enabled him to convey in a minute the real nature of the miscarriage, the attention of that official must have been attracted to the case in such a manner as to compel intervention." Prom this report, which bears the great weight of the authority of the Master of the Rolls, it appears therefore plain in the first place that Mr. Beck's wrongful conviction was due to a miscarriage on the part of the learned Judge who tried him, and in the second place that his petition to the Home Office failed by reason of a miscarriage on the part of the officials of that office. It can hardly cause surprise that in these circumstances the Home Secretary felt that Mr. Beck was entitled to a substantial sum. The allowance of that sum does not, however, afford any precedent in the present case, in which, as we have already observed, it has not been even suggested that there has been any miscarriage on the part of the learned Judge, or of any official of the Crown. At the commencement of the hearing in Dunedin at the beginning of May, counsel for claimant mentioned another case, which he said related to a solicitor named Barber. He stated that he would supply particulars of this case to us at the adjourned hearing in Wellington, but he has not done so. A case in connection with a burglary at a clergyman's house was also mentioned from the bench, speaking from recollection of a newspaper paragraph. We have been unable to obtain any details of either of: these cases. Without particular knowledge of the circumstances of each, neither is of any assistance in the consideration of the matters referred to us. We repeat that we are not aware that in such circumstances as exist in the present case any moral right in the person wrongly convicted to be compensated or indemnified out of the public funds has ever been recognised or allowed by the Government or Parliament of Great Britain, or of any community regulated by the principle of English law. To this we add that we are not aware that in such circumstances any substantial grant has ever been made by way of bounty, as distinguished from compensation or indemnity, to a person who without any misconduct, laches, or mistake on the part of some public responsible official has had the misfortune to be wrongly convicted. We think that it is proper that we should call the attention of those who are asked to establish a new precedent in this respect in the present case to the fact that such a precedent must open up an enormous and constantly recurring number of claims against the State. The wrong suffered by a person who, apart from a miscarriage of justice on the part of some public official, has been wrongly prosecuted, but has escaped conviction, is in character and in many of its consequences the same as the wrong suffered by a person who in the same circumstances has been wrongly convicted. No year passes without many persons charged with criminal offences being acquitted by juries, not infrequently upon the direction of the Judge given constantly because the evidence is insufficient to warrant a conviction, although the Judge himself may entertain but little moral doubt as to the guilt of the person charged, and in rarer but by no means uncommon cases because there is really no case against the prisoner. In such a case an injury which may be practically irreparable in its consequences may be done to the person charged. We may instance the case of a medical practitioner charged with manslaughter, an alleged malpractice, or gross neglect in the exercise of his profession, and committed for trial. It may happen—it has happened quite recently in the history of the criminal jurisprudence of this colony—that there was no evidence which could warrant the committal, and that the Judge had directed the Grand Jury to throw out the Bill. Yet, who shall say that that medical practitioner has not suffered a grievous wrong, the consequences of which may attend him to the last day of his life.
VII
H.—2l
Again, we may instance the case—and such cases are by no means unknown — of a person committed for trial upon evidence which apparently warrants the committal, but who has been able satisfactorily to establish his innocence upon a trial in the Supreme Court. Such a person may be, and in many cases is, a person in a humble rank of life. To defend himself against the charges made against him he may have exhausted the whole of his scanty means, have been beggared in his circumstances, and injured in his reputation throughout the whole of his life. In the cases which we have instanced it is impossible to deny the grievous wrong which the victims of circumstances have suffered. If compensation or indemnity could be limited to these classes of cases, it is possible that this community might recognise a moral responsibility towards such persons which, however, has never, so far as we are aware, hitherto been recognised in any, even the most highly civilised, community. It would be impossible, however, to inaugurate a system which would recognise the right of such persons to compensation or indemnity without letting in claims in vastly different circumstances. The Common Jury is, in our system of jurisprudence, which in our opinion it is impossible and undesirable to abolish, though it may possibly be subject to some modification, the tribunal which is ultimately charged with the determination of whether or not a person arraigned for crime is guilty, and upon that question its decision is in the case of an acquittal final and irrevocable for all purposes. Not a year passes without numbers of such persons being acquitted by juries, sometimes in the teeth of evidence which to the mind of the presiding Judge is clear and convincing ; more often because, although there is no moral doubt as to the guilt of the person charged, the evidence is legally insufficient to warrant a conviction. It would be impossible to inaugurate a system which would recognise the right of the persons in the first two classes of cases which we have mentioned, and who are really innocent, to indemnity or compensation without at the same time recognising a similar right in persons who have been acquitted by juries, although there may be no moral doubts in the minds of the persons best qualified to judge of their guilt; for, upon this point, the verdict of acquittal by a common jury is, as we have observed, necessarily final and conclusive for all purposes. To recognise such rights would impose an enormous and ever-increasing burden upon the finances of the State. No one supposes that our present system is perfect. No one but must rejoice if some system could be devised which would relieve the truly innocent without letting in an enormous crop of claims of persons really undeserving. We know of no system which could be devised for this purpose. Certainly the deserving cannot be sifted out from the undeserving by means of Parliamentary Committees, or even by means of such a Commission as has been intrusted to us. Even if it were possible to sift out the deserving from the undeserving by means of such a Commission, the cost must necessarily be prohibitive if that system were adopted in the case of every claim. If it were adopted in some case?, but not in all cases, the inevitable result must be that the pertinacious and probably the least deserving would be the only persons to benefit by it. Hitherto the innocent in such cases as those to which we have referred have had to suffer for the general benefit of the community of which they are members. It is for Parliament, not for us, to say whether this principle shall be departed from in the future, with the necessary consequences to which we have referred. Our duty is discharged by pointing out what these consequences must be. As to the concluding Part of the Sixth Question propounded to us. " Whether, having regard to all the circumstances, the said John James Meikle is fairly entitled to further pecuniary compensation in respect of his conviction and imprisonment, or in respect of the loss and suffering alleged to have been entailed upon his family thereby, and, if so, to what amount ? " We have necessarily answered it. so far as we can answer it, in our answer to the fifth question. If Parliament, having regard to our answer to the fifth question, thinks fit to grant further bounty to the claimant, Parliament alone can measure the extent of the bounty which it is prepared to bestow.
VIII
H.—2l.
As to the First Part of the Sixth Question. As to the financial position of the said John James Meikle immediately preceding his arrest for the said offence of sheep-stealing, and during his imprisonment, and at the date of his release from prison and since: The information which has been given to us in reference to the matter is that contained in the addresses of the claimant's counsel and in the claimant's evidence, pp. 46, 47, and 71. Accepting the estimates there given to be accurate, the claimant's financial position at the time of his arrest was that he possessed land and property in his own name, the Government valuation of which was £2,352, there were also 206 acres in his children's name, valued by the claimant at £4 10s. per acre, namely £927. He had a flock of eight hundred sheep which he stated were worth 10s. per head ; twelve cattle, valued by him at £6 per head ; sixteen horses, valued by him at £20 per head ; and farm implements, drays, &c, valued at £250. The total gross value of his property, including the land in his children's name, is estimated by him to have been £4,321, made up as follows :— £ s. d. Land in his own name .. .. .. .. .. .. 2,352 0 0 Land in his children's name .. . . .. . . .. 927 0 0 Sheep 400 0 0 Cattle .. : 72 0 0 Horses 320 0 0 Drays, farming implements, &c. .. .. .. .. .. 250 0 0 £4,321 0 0 His liabilities appear by his evidence to have been— £ s. d. First mortgage on the land .. .. .. 1,000 0 0 Second „ 200 0 0 Amount secured by crop lien .. .. .. 300 0 0 Other creditors, about .. .. .. .. 200 0 0 1,700 0 0 Leaving an estimated surplus of assets over liabilities of .. £2.621 0 0 At the time the claimant was released from imprisonment his financial position appears to have been that he was without any assets, and he has ever since been, and now is, in debt. As to Subparagraph (a) of the Seventh Question. As to the amount of legal and other costs incurred and paid by the claimant in respect of his defence at his trial upon the charge of sheep-stealing, we have the honour to report to Your Excellency that no evidence properly so called has been adduced by the claimant, but after the proceedings had closed Mr. A. R. Atkinson, counsel for the claimant, in response to a request from ourselves for particulars of the costs alleged to have been incurred and paid by him in reference to his defence, and which had been referred to in his opening address to us, forwarded to us a statement of account, which we annex hereto. This account is wholly unverified, and from its contents and nature it does not appear to us to afford any satisfactory basis for an answer to this question. As to Subparagraph (b) of the Seventh Question. " In respect of the prosecution of the said William Lambert for perjury " : The said statement of account also contains numerous items alleged to refer to this matter. We have also received from the Justice Department documents purporting to be certified copies of receipts for the respective sums of £83 os. 3d. and £211 15s. lOd. (being the total sum of £294 16s. Id. referred to in subparagraph (c) of question 7) and details of the witnesses' expenses claimed by the claimant in November, 1895, in respect of the prosecution of Lambert, accompanied by a document purporting to be a certified copy of a statutory declaration made by the claimant in support of these statements. We also annex these copies to this report. As regards Subparagraph (c) of the said Question 7 — namely :— "As to the circumstances under which the said claimant accepted the sum of £294 16s. Id. in full settlement of his claims for legal and other costs as aforesaid ; and whether, apart from legal considerations, the settlement then made should be treated as final." We have to report that neither the Crown nor the claimant has
ii—H. 21.
IX
H.—2l.
given any evidence, properly so called, or any information other than is contained in the documents referred to in the last two paragraphs, and hereto annexed. We have the honour further to report that if the said sum of £294 16s. Id. was paid to the claimant upon the basis purporting to be shown in the documents received by us from the Justice Department and hereto annexed, such payment should, apart from legal considerations, be treated as final in respect of the prosecution of William Lambert for perjury. As to the First Paragraph of the Eighth Question propounded to us by the Commission. We have the honour to report that the claim of the claimant that his name be removed from the prison records cannot be given effect to either having regard to English precedent and the circumstances of the case or having regard to common sense and the safety and inviolability of the public records. As to the Concluding Paragraph of the Eighth Question. We have the honour to say that the answer is, in our opinion, to be found in the last paragraph but one of the report of the committee on the case of Adolph Beck, in these words : " May not'the time have come for abolishing the anomaly of pardoning a man who never ought to have been convicted, and a simpler remedy adopted of quashing the conviction on motion by the Attorney-General and entering an acquittal as of record." The alternative is the grant of a free pardon, which may be granted, as was done in the case of Adolph Beck, although the claimant has served a sentence which has long since expired. We recommend that one or other of these two courses shall be taken for the purpose of placing on record the conclusion at which we have arrived, that upon the evidence placed before us the claimant would have been properly acquitted. As to the Ninth Question propounded to us by the said Commission. We have the honour to report that if it is thought desirable to adopt the course suggested in the paragraph from the report of the committee in the case of Adolph Beck, which we have quoted in the last paragraph, legislation will be necessary. Such legislation should be general in its terms, and should by no means be limited to the case of the claimant. It will be necessary that it shall be drafted with great care, and that special provision shall be made to preserve for all persons the protection granted by the conviction reversed. Legislation of this description should be submitted to the Judges of the Court of Appeal at the commencement of some one of the sittings of that Court, and the recommendations of the Judges as to the form of such legislation should be adopted without qualification, alteration, or addition. ■ We have the honour to forward herewith the printed copy of the evidence adduced before us, and of the addresses of counsel, as taken down and transcribed by the official stenographers. We have, &c, W. B. Edwards, J. Theo. Cooper, J.
X
H.—2l.
Enclosures.
STATEMENT HANDED IN BY COUNSEL FOR CLAIMANT. 1. COSTS AND EXPENSES OF JOHN JAMES MEIKLE. Regina v. Meikle. 1887. Before the Justices at Wyndham. £ g. d. Nov. 4. Expenses obtaining bail for A. Meikle at Wyndham : Templeton and Winter (bondsmen), at 10s. 6d. a day, trap-hire Mataura to Wyndham, £2 2s. ..330 ~ 7. Expenses obtaining bail for J. J. Meikle : Winter and Richardson (bondsmen), at £1 a day ; trap-hire Wyndham to Edeudale, and train fare to Invercargill, £2 10s. 3 10 0 ~ 11. Expenses obtaining bail for J. J. Meikle and A. Meikle at Gore: Winter and Richardson, Templeton and Boyd, at £1 per day .. .. .. ..400 ~ 18. Messrs. Wade and Finn's fees '.. .. .. .. .. .. 13 13 0 ~ 18. Witnesses — Templeton —Three days, at 12s. .. .. .... .. 1 16 0 G. Davie—Three days, at 12s. .. .. .. .. .. .. 116 0 W. Harvey—Three days, at 12s. ; mileage, 9s. .. .. ..250 Mrs. Shiels —Three days, at Bs. ; mileage, 3s. .. .. .. ..170 A. McDonald —Three days, at 12s. ; mileage, 95... .. .. ..250 J. Young—Three days, at 10s. Bd. ; mileage, 35... .. .. 1 15 0 J. Telfer —Three days, at 12s. ; mileage, 9s. .. .. .. ..250 R. Duncan—Three days, at 12s. ; mileage, 9s. .. .. ..250 Alexander Benge—Three days, at 12s. ; mileage, 3s. .. .. 1 15 0 James Meikle —Three days, at Bs. ; mileage, 9s. .. .. .. .. 113 0 Waters—Three days, at 12s. .. .. .. ~ .. .. 116 0 Westacott—Three days, at 12s. .. .. .. .. .. 116 0 Bain—Three days, at 12s. ; mileage, Is. .. .. .. ..200 Expenses to Invercargill to tell Detective Ede about the plant of skins by Lambert, and £50 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..250 Expenses going to Invercargill to instruct Mr. Wade and Mr. Finn .. ..200 Copying depositions from Wyndham Court .. .. .. .. ..550 58 10 0 In the Supreme Court, Invercargill. Witnesses — J. McGregor, solicitor —Nine days, at £5 .. .. .. .. *45 0 0 J. Templeton —Nine days, at 12s ; train and coach, 7s. sd. .. .. 515 5 A. Mac Donald—Nine days, at 12s. ; train and coach, 12s. .. ..600 James Young —Nine days, at 12s. ; train and coach, 7s. sd. .. 5 15 5 W. Harvey —Nine days, at 12s. ; mileage, 125.; train, ss. 6d. .. ..656 R. Duncan —Nine days, at 12s. ; mileage, 125.; train, ss. 6d. .. ..656 J. Telfer—Nine days, at 12s. ; mileage. 125.; train, ss. 6d. .. ..656 A. Waters —Nine days, at 12s. ; mileage, 125.; train, ss. 6d. .. ..656 A. Meikle—Nine days, at 12s. ; mileage, 125.; train, sb. 6d. .. ..656 J. Bain —Nine days, at 12s. ; mileage, 125.; train, ss. 6d. .. .. 6 5 (i J. Westacott —Nine days, at 12s. ; train and coach, 9s. .. 5 17 0 James Meikle —Nine days, at 12s. ; mileage, 125.; train, ss. 6d. .. ..656 Mrs. Shiels —Nine days, at 10s. ; train and coach, 10s. .. .. ..500 ,J. Burgess —Nine days, at 125.; mileage, 125.; train, 7s. .. .. ..670 J. Bain—Nine days, at 12s. ; train and steamer, 7s. 6d. .. .. 515 6 Expenses to Dunedin to obtain counsel .. .. .. .. 310 0 191 8 10 Meikle v. Lamburt. , , 1894. Before Mr. Rawson, S.M., at Wyndham. Aug. Witnesses — G. Crosbie —Five days, at 105... .. .. .. .. .. 210 0 J. Forsyth—Five days, at 10s. .. .. .. .. .. 210 0 A. Mac Gibbon —Train and bus, 4s. 6d. ; five days, at 10s. .. .. 214 0 R. J. Coomer —Train account . . .. .. .. .. 2 14 0 R. Urquhart —Mileage, 18s. ; five days, at 10s. .. .. .. ..380 Thomas Adams —Mileage, 18s. ; five days, at 10s. .. .. ..380 Thomas Westacott —Mileage, 18s. ; five days, at 10s. .. .. ..380 .lames Mvir —Mileage, 18s. ; five days, at 10s. .. .. .. ..380 James Young —Mileage, 3s. ; five days, at 10s. .. .. .. .. 2 13 0 C. Forsyth—Mileage, 4s. 6d. ; five days, at 10s. .. .. .. ..2116 Alexander Cameron—Mileage, 18s. ; five days, at 10s. .. .. ..380 Carried forward .. .. .. .. .. 224 4 4 * Of this amount £12 only has been paid.
XI
a.—2i.
Meikle v. Lambert— continued. £ s. d. 1894. Brought forward .. .. .. •. • • 4 4 Aug. Witnesses — J. Greenshiels—Mileage, 9s. ; five days, at 10s. .. .. . . .. 219 0 Angus Cameron—Mileage, 4s. 6d. ; five days, at 10s. .. .. .. 214 6 R. Duncan—Five days, at 10s. .. .. • • • • .. 210 0 J. Templeton—Five days, at 10s. .. .. .. •• .. 210 0 A. McDonald—Mileage, 12s. ; five days, at 10s. .. .. .. ..320 E. Ryder—Mileage, 12s. ; five days, at 10s. .. .. .. ..320 James Connor—Mileage, 18s. ; five days, at 10s. .. .. ..380 J. Johnston—Mileage, 13s. 6d. ; five days, at 10s. .. .. ..336 W. Harvey—Mileage, 18s. ; five days, at 10s. .. .. .. ..380 Jane Shiels—Mileage, 3s. ; five days, at 6s. .. .. .. .. 1 13 0 S. Richardson—Five days, at 10s. .. .. • • • • .. 210 0 Mrs. Howe—Train, 7s. 6d. ; five days, at 6s. .. .. .. .. 1 17 6 J. Winter—Mileage, 7s. 6d. ; five days, at 10s. .. .. .. ..2176 Jane Meikle—Mileage, 18s. ; five days, at 6s. .. .. ..280 Jas. Meikle—Mileage, 18s. ; five days, at 10s. .. .. .. ..380 J. J. Meikle—Mileage, 18s. ; five days, at 10s. .. .. .. ..380 Paid two men for trying to drive sheep into smithy .. .. .. .. 110 0 Paid for copies of evidence .. .. .. •• •• ..330 272 16 4 1894. In the Supreme Court, Invercargill. Sept. 25. Witnesses— G. Crosbie—Mileage, 10s. 6d. ; three days, at 10s. .. .. ..206 J. Forsyth—Mileage, 10s. 6d. ; three days, at 10s. .. .. ..206 A. MacGibbon—Mileage, 10s. 6d. ; three days, at 10s. .. .. ..206 R. J. Coomer—Mileage, 10s. 6d. ; three days, at 10s. .. .. ..206 R. Urquhart—Mileage, 18s. ; three days, at 10s. .. .. ..280 Thomas Adams—Mileage, 18s. ; three days, at 10s. .. .. ..280 A. Cameron—Mileage, 12s. ; three days, at 10s. .. .. .. ..220 James Muir—Mileage, 18s. ; three days, at 10s. .. .. ..280 J. Westacott—Mileage, 18s. ; three days, at 10s. ... . . ..280 James Young —Mileage, 9s. ; three days, at 10s. .. .. .. 1 19 0 E. Forsyth—Mileage, 10s. 6d. ; three days, at 10s. .. .. ..206 J. Greenshiels—Mileage, 13s. ; three days, at 10s. .. .. ..230 Angus Cameron—Mileage, 10s. 6d. ; three days, at 10s. .. .. ..206 R. Duncan—Mileage, 10s. 6d. ; three days, at 10s. .. .. ..206 J. Templeton—Mileage, 10s. 6d. ; three days, at 10s. .. .. ..206 A. McDonald—Mileage, 18s. ; three days, at 10s. .. .. ..280 C. Ryder—Mileage, 18s. ; three days, at 10s. . . .. .. ..280 J. Johnston—Mileage, 13s. 6d. ; three days, at 10s. .. .. ..236 James Camar —Mileage, 18s. ; three days, at 10s. .. .. ..280 W. Harvey—Mileage, 18s. ; three days, at 10s. .. .. .. ..280 Jane Shiels—Mileage, 9s. 6d. ; three days, at 6s. .. .. ..176 S. Richardson—Mileage, 10s 6d. ; three days, at 10s. .. .. ..206 Mrs. Howe—Mileage, 10s. 6d. ; three days, at 6s. .. .. ..18 6 J. Winter—Mileage, 10s. 6d. ; three days, at 10s. .. .. ..206 Jane Meikle—Mileage, 18s. ; three days, at 6s. .. .. .. .. 116 0 James Meikle—Mileage, 18s. ; three days, at 10s. .. .. ..280 J. J. Meikle—Mileage, 18s. ; thiee days, at 10s. .. .. .. ..280 W. Waddell—Mileage, 18s. ; three days, at 10s. .. .. .. ..280 Service summonses . . . . . . • • • • • • ' ' Photographer taking building .. .. .. ■ • • ••• ; 5 ° ° Copying depositions .. .. .. • • • • • • ..330 344 14 10 Before Mr. Hawkins, S.M., at Core. John Waddell—Mileage, 6s. ; four days, at 10s. .. .. .. ..260 J. J. Meikle—Mileage, 18s. ; four days, at 10s. .. .. .. .. 2 18 0 W. McGeorge—Mileage, £1 10s. ; four days, at 10s. .. .. .. 310 0 E. Forsyth —Mileage, ss. ; four days, at 10s. .. .. .. ..250 James Connor —Mileage, 18s. ; four days, at 10s. .. .. .. 218 0 A. Cameron—Mileage, 8s 6d. ; four days, at 10s. .. .. ..286 R. Barclay—Mileage, 18s. ; four days, at 10s. .. .. .. .. 218 0 F. Fraser—Four days, at 10s. .. . . .. . . • • ..200 J. Mvir —Mileage, 18s. ; four days, at 10s. . . .. .. .. 218 0 Jane Shiels—Mileage, 9s. 6d. ; four days, at 6s. . . .. . . .. 113 6 A. Perkins—Mileage, ,18s. ; four days, at 10s. .. .. .. .. 218 0 R. Urquhart—Mileage, 18s. ; four days, at 10s. .. .. .. .. 218 0 Mrs. Howe —Four days, at 6s. .. .. .. .. • • ..140 Jane Meikle—Mileage, 18s. ; Four days, at 6s. .. .. .. ..220 James Meikle—Mileage, 18s. ; four days, at 10s. .. .. .. 218 0 W. Harvey—Mileage, 18s. ; four days, at 10s. .. .. .. .. 218 0 Service of summonses .. .. .. • • ■ • • ■ .. 610 0 Copying depositions .. .. .. • ■ • • • • .. 3.3 0 Carried forward .. .. .. • • • • 395 010
XII
H.—"2l
Meikle v. Lambert — continued. 1895. Before Mr. Hawkins, at Core. £ 8, d. May. Brought for ward .. .. .. .. .. 395 010 A. Henderson —Mileage, Bs. 6d. ; four days, at 10s. .. .. ..286 J. Kelly—Mileage, Bs. 6d. ; four days, at 10s. .. .. .. ..286 J. Ward —Mileage, Bs. 6d. ; four days, at 10s. .. .. .. ..286 A. Grieve —Mileage, 10s. 6d. ; four days, at 10s. .. .. .. 210 6 J. Westacott—Mileage, 18s. ; four days, at 10s. .. .. .. .. 218 0 J. Waddell —Mileage, Bs. 6d. ; four days, at 10s. .. .. .. ..286 J. Mvir —Mileage, 18s. ; four days, at 10s. .. .. .. ..2180 E. Forsyth —Mileage, Bs. ; four days, at 10s. .. .. .. ..280 M. Carriek —Mileage, Bs. 6d. ; four days, at 10s. .. .. .. ..286 W. Harvey—Mileage, 18s. ; four days, at 10s. .. .. .. .. 218 0 W. McGeorge —Mileage, 20s. ; five days, at 10s. .. .. .. .. 310 0 R. Barclay—Mileage, 18s. ; four days, at 10s. .. .. .. .. 218 0 A. Cameron—Mileage, Bs. 6d. ; four days, at 10s. .. .. ..286 F. Eraser —Four days, at 10s. .. .. .. .. .. ..200 James Connor —Mileage, 18s. ; four days, at 10s. .. .. 218 0 Mrs. Howe —Four days, at 6s. .. .. .. .. .. ..140 Jane Meikle—Mileage, 18s. ; four days, at 6s. .. .. .. ..220 Jas. Meikle—Mileage, 18s. ; four days, at 10s. .. • . . .. .. 218 0 R. Urquhart —Mileage, 18s. ; four days, at 10s. .. .. .. .. 218 0 Service of summonses .. .. .. .. .. .. ..500 J. J. Meikle —Mileage, 18s. ; four days, at 10s. .. .. .. .. 218 0 Copying depositions .. .. .. .. .. .. ..330 454 13 4 1895. In the Supreme Court, Invercargill. June. A. Henderson, solicitor —Five days, at £1 .. ~ ~ ..500 J. Kelly—Five days, at 10s. .. .. .. .. .. 210 0 H. Carriek —Five days, at 10s. .. .. .. .. .. 210 0 ' J. Ward —Five days, at 10s. .. .. .. .. .. 210 0 W. McGeorge —Seven days, at 10s. ; train, ss. .. .. .. .. 315 0 F. Eraser —Mileage, 7s. ; Seven days, at 10s. .. .. .. .. 3 17 0 J. Waddell —Mileage, Bs. 3d.'; seven days, at 10s. .. .. .. 318 3 A. Grieve —Mileage, 15s. 4d. ; seven days, at 10s. .. .. ..454 J. Westacott —Mileage, 15s. 4d. ; seven days, at 10s. .. ~ ..454 E. Ryder—Mileage, 7s. 3d. ; seven days, at 10s. . . .. ~ ..3173 W. Harvey —Mileage, 16s. 3d. ; seven days, at 10s. .. .. ..463 E. Forsyth —Mileage, 7s. 3d. ; seven days, at 10s. .. .. .. 317 3 J. Templeton —Mileage, 6s. 4d. ; seven days, at 10s. .. ~ .. 3 16 1 J. Muir—Mileage, 15s. 4d. ; seven days, at 10s. .. .. .. ..454 A. Cameron —Train, 4s. 4d. ; seven days, at 105... .. .. .. 314 4 James Connor —Mileage, 16s. 3d. ; seven days, at 10s. .. .. ..463 H. Serwill —Mileage, 6s. 4d. ; seven days, at 10s.. . .. .. .. 316 4 James Meikle —Mileage, 16s. 3d. ; seven days, at 10s. .. .. ..463 Mrs. Howe—Mileage, 7s. 3d. ; seven days, at 6s. .. .. ..29 3 Jane Meikle —Mileage, 16s. 3d. ; seven days, at 6s. .. ~ ..293 A. McDonald —Mileage, 15s. 4d. ; seven days, at 10s. .. .. 4 5 4 J. A. MacGibbon —Mileage, 7s. 3d.; seven days, at 10s. .. .. .. 317 3 J. J. Meikle —Mileage, 15s. 4d. ; seven days, at LOS. .. .. .454 J. Eade—Seven days, at 10s. .. .. .. ~ .. .. 310 0 Malcolm McDonald —Mileage, 18s.; seven days, at 10s. .. .. ..480 Service of summonses (witnesses) .. .. .. .. .. .. 610 0 Mr. Solomon's fee .. .. .. ~ .. . ..*6O 0 0 Mr. Neave's fee .. .. .. .. .. .. -j-30 q 0 Copying depositions for 1887 .. .. .. .. .. ..330 Copying Judge's notes of Supreme Court evidence ... .. .. ..330 Drawing petition and getting names (1888) .. .. .. .. . .'lO 10 0 Mrs. Meikle's expenses to interview the Governor at Ihinediu .. .. ..570 667 7 9 Two years and six months spent in collecting evidence against, prosecuting, and convicting Lambert, at £200 per year .. .. .. .. 450 0 0 Expenses of attending on Barliamentary Committees for ten years from 1895 .. 250 0 0 £1,367 7 9 * Of tliis amount £18 only has been paid. j- Of this amount £22 only has been paid.
XIII
S.—2l.
2. RECEIPTS OF JOHN JAMES MEIKLE Department of Justice, Wellington, 15th January, 1907. Re Meikle. SjTR In compliance with the request contained in your letter to Mr. 1). M. Findlay of the 14th instant, I have the honour to forward to you the accompanying certified copies of the following documents, namely: — ■ ,«-/«« 1 Receipt of John James Meikle for the sum of five hundred pounds (£500). 2. Receipt of John James Meikle for the sum of eighty-three pounds and threepence (£B3 Os. 3d.) for law-costs. ... 3. Receipt of John James Meikle for the sum of two hundred and eleven pounds fifteen shillings and tenpence (£2ll 15s. 10d.), expenses of witnesses in Meikle v. Lambert. The sum of £294 16s. Id., referred to in your letter, is made up as follows :— Regina v. Lambert — ' «■ ,> £ "' d ' Expenses of witnesses as per statements marked "A " and "B attached to Meikle's declaration of the 19th November, 1895 .. .. ..21115 10 Law-costs .. .. .. •• •• •• •■ •• 83 ° 3 £294 16 1 I have, &c, F. Waldegrave, Under-Secretary. A. C. Cooper, Esq., Secretary, to Meikle Commission, Supreme Court, Wellington. Receipt for £500. I John James Meikle, do hereby acknowledge to have received from the Colonial Treasurer on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen and the Government of the Colony of New Zealand, the sum of five hundred pounds (£500), of which the sum of two hundred and fifty pounds (£250) is now paid to me and the further sum of two hundred and fifty pounds (£250) is about to be paid at my request to George Esther of Dunedin in full satisfaction, release, and discharge of all claims and demands or alleged claims'and demands, which I now have, or at any time heretofore have had, against Her Majesty the Queen or the Government of New Zealand, upon or in respect of the prosecution and conviction ot myself for sheep-stealing, or the prosecution and conviction, at my instance, of one William Lambert for perjury and in respect of any expenses, costs, or charges incurred m or about the said prosecutions, or either of them, and any losses sustained or alleged to be sustained by me thereby. John James Meikle. Witness to signature-J. W. Kelly, M.H.R. IM* December, 1897. Receipt for £83 os. 3d. I have this day received from J. W. Povnton, Stipendiary Magistrate, Invercargill, the sum of eighty-three pounds and threepence (£B3 os. 3d.) in full satisfaction of all claims by me or any person claiming by, under, or through me against the Government of the Colony of New Zealand for law-costs in the cases against William Lambert for perjury in the Magistrate s and Supreme Court. Dated at Invercargill, this 29th day of November, 1895. John James Meikle. 29th November, 1895. Witness to the signature of J. J. Meikle-H. Dixon, S.M. Court, Invercargill. Declaration of J. J. Meikle. . I, John James Meikle, of Wyndham, Southland, Otago, New Zealand, farmer, do solemnly and sincerely declare that, — . t , 1 I was the prosecutor in the case against William Lambert, who was convicted of perjury and sentenced to four years' imprisonment at the last sittings of the Supreme Court at Live cargill, in the TlfeTatement hereto attached, and marked " A,"'contains the names and particulars of certain witnesses who gave evidence against the said William Lambert, either at the said Supreme Court sittings, or on other occasions gave evidence, or were in attendance so to do, when the said case was before the law-courts of the colony. ~ . . , , 3 The said witnesses were by me paid all the expenses of attendance at the said trial and hearings'of the" said case in the Courts of law at other times, and have not now nor has any person on behalf of any of them, any claim whatever against me for expenses for attendance thereat. 4 The witnesses whose names and particulars are given in the statement marked B, hereto attached have authorised me to receive on their behalf ;he amounts payable to them for expenses as witnesses during the said trial, or at other times in connection with the said case 5 No other person save and except those in the said statement « B," described, has now any claim "to receive from me any sum for attendance as a witness at the said trial or when the said case was on other occasions before the law-courts. . And 1 make this solemn declaration, conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of the provisions of an Act of the General Assembly of New Zealand intituled The Justices of the Peace Act, 1882." Jqhn Jamjw Meikle , Declared at Invercargill, in the Colony of New Zealand, this 19th day of November, 1905, before me -J. W. Poynton, Justice of the Peace.
XIV
H.—2l.
A. This is the statement marked " A," referred to in the attached declaration of John James Meikle made before me this 19th day of November, 1895. J. W. Poynton, Justice of the Peace.
B. This is the statement marked " B," referred to in the attached declaration of John James Meikle made before me this 19th day of November, 1895. J. W. Povnton, Justice of the Peace.
I hereby acknowledge having received from J. W. Poynton, Stipendiary Magistrate, Invercargill, the sum of two hundred and eleven pounds fifteen shillings and tenpence (being the amountsabove set forth, together with my own expenses as a witness in the ease Meikle v. Lambeit, amounting to £10 17s. 10d.), in full satisfaction of all claims by me or any person claiming by, under, or through me against the Government of the Colony of New Zealand for expenses of witnesses in connection with the cases against William Lambert for perjury in the Magistrate's and Supreme Court. As witness my hand this nineteenth day of November, 1895. John James Meikle. Witness to the signature of John James Meikle —H. Dixon. Clerk, S.M. Court, Invercargill.
XV
Name of Witness. Occupation. Address. Amount of Expenses. R. T. Coomer Edward Ryder J. Greenshields Angus Cameron J. Telfer W. Harvey .. Alexander Cameron T. Adams A. Grieve William Waddell J. Waddell .. James Crosbie A. Perkins W. McGeorge R. Barclay C. E. Rawson J. W. Ede .. Farmer Labourer Farmer Farmer Farmer Labourer Farmer Shepherd Stationmaster .. Farmer Farmer Farmer Farmer Labourer Castrator Stipendiary Magistrate Hoa i d inghouse-keeper Gore Gore Wyndham Edendale Glenham .. Waikaka .. Mataura . . Glenham .. Pine Bush Waikaka .. Tuturau .. Wyndham Sydney .. Winton . . Wendon .. Invercargill Invercargill £ s. d. 2 1 9 5 15 11 6 17 8 7 16 10 3 6 4 8 19 11 3 0 0 1 11 4 6 18 7 1 12 5 5 16 7 1 6 1 1 15 0 8 3 3 7 18 9 0 17 1 1 10 0
Name of Witness. Occupation. Address. Address. Amount of Expenses, Number of Authority. John Ward J. W. Kelly A. ('. Henderson . . H. Carrick Ebenezer Forsyth Robert Duncan John Templeton . . W. J. Winter H. Sherwill James Young Alexander Macdonald Joseph Johnson . . Francis Fraser Jane Shields James Muir Eliza How Jane Meikle James Meikle Robert Urquhart .. James Connor James Forsyth ' .. Thomas Westacott Samuel Richardson A. A. MacGibbon Journalist .. M.H.R. Solicitor Journalist . . Commission agent Labourer Butcher Saddler Billiard-marker Farmer Farmer Carter Contractor . . Farmer Midwife Married woman Farmer Farmer Labourer Farmer Farmer Stablekeeper Auctioneer .. Invercargill Invercargill Gore .. Wyndham •: Menzies Ferry Wyndham Mataura Gore .. Wyndham .. i Auckland Gore .. | Wyndham .. , Tuturau Tuturau Waikoikoi Edendale Wyndham Wyndham Invercargill £ s. d. 2 17 1 2 17 1 2 7 1 2 17 1 7 13 4 2 18 10 5 2 8 2 15 10 4 4 8 2 10 7 0 17 8 2 12 6 1 13 5 4 7 11 10 1 10 7 5 11 10 17 10 10 17 10 5 6 5 10 14 11 1 2 5 10 7 10 1 2 4 2 14 5 I 3 4 5* (i 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 11 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
To be read into page 1 (facing this) immediately precediny Mr. Atkinson's opening address. Dr. Findlay: May it please your Honours, —I ask, as a preliminary to the proceedings, what hours your Honours may be pleased to sit. May I say, with all respect, that I have to see my witnesses in Dunedin. Unfortunately there are a considerable number of them, and they have just arrived from the South. I have to see them after Court hours, and I find it will impose a considerable burden on me unless I have some margin of the day left after the Court work is over. May 1 ask if the Commission can see its way to adopt the hours which their Honours adopted in the Voucher Commission held in Wellington recently? I think the hours were from 10.30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Mr. Atkinson: If your Honours will allow me, I shall be pleased to support my friend's suggestion. The burden upon me is heavier than upon him. I have the affirmative to prove, and I have not got any professional assistance. Some of my witnesses are here, but I have not had time yet to see one of them except my main witness—Mr. Meikle himself. Therefore it would be a great relief to me if your Honours can adopt my friend's suggestion. Mr. Justice Edwards: Very well; we think it is reasonable. Dr. Findlay: There is one further matter 1 wish to mention. We have three shorthand-writers here, who undertake to have the evidence taken to-day and the following days ready by the following day, but they cannot undertake to do that with regard to addresses. I think your Honours will remember, where evidence has been taken in previous cases such as these large compensation cases, the addresses are not taken by the shorthand-writers, but merely a verbatim report of the evidence. It would relieve the burden on the shorthand-writers and greatly lessen the expense if the addresses were not reported, and I do not know that the verbatim transcript of my friend's or my own addresses will be of assistance to this Court. I would ask, therefore, that the shorthand-writers be asked merely to take the evidence. Mr. Justice Edwards: I do not think this case is altogether the same. Of course, in compensation cases there is only one question for consideration, and that is as to the value of the land. I hope counsel will be able to assist us materially. I hope they will. Mr. Atkinson : If your Honours will allow me, I was glad to hear your Honour's last remark, but it was not on that ground I mainly intended to rely. I imagine your Honours are so accustomed to noting arguments in the addresses of counsel —and I trust we will be able to afford your Honours some assistance—that I do not think your Honours will need to rely materially on the shorthand-writers; but I do submit, seeing this is not a Court whose award is final —it is a Commission which makes recommendation — and, seeing that to give the recommendation any effect Parliament must proceed upon it, and seeing in fact that this is something in the nature of a' State trial, I submit it is of very high importance if the arguments are going to be reasonable they should be reported. Mr. Justice Edwards: We think so. We think everything should be reported. If it presses too heavily on the shorthand-writers to give us a transcript of the addresses of counsel immediately afterwards, they can postpone that until they have transcribed the evidence.
H.—2l.
MINUTES OF ADDEESSES BY COUNSEL, AND EVIDENCE.
Dunedin, Tuesday, Ist May, 1906 (Before their Honours Mr. Justice Edwards and Mr. Justice Cooper.) Dr. J. G. Findlay appeared for the Crown. Mr. A. K. Atkinson appeared for Mr. Meikle. Mr. Atkinson: May it please your Honours, —The question for your Honours to decide is one which must be rare, if not unique, in the annals of judicial investigation. Your Honours are asked in the year 1906 to decide whether a man was wrongfully convicted of sheep-stealing in the \ear 1887. That is the main question involved; but incidentally it involves others of still more serious import for my client, and, as I submit, of still graver public importance, for the alternatives between which your Honours are asked to decide really are these: On the one hand Mr. John James Meikle, whose conviction forms the subject of this inquiry, is not only a sheep-stealer, but something, and a good many tilings, a good deal worse. He is a perjurer; besides, he is a suborner of perjury; and also he is an impostor, who through a long course of years has disturbed the public peace. He has invaded the law-courts at every possible opportunity, he has besieged Parliament, and he has worried successive Ministries in season and out of season. He is the man who, in the year 1895, by perjury and subornation of perjury—his own perjury in that case being punishable by a life sentence —obtained the conviction of the chief witness against him at his own trial. Proceedings, by the way, for that perjury are not barred. And he is the man who is prepared to-day to repeat that perjury before your Honours, and he will bring all the witnesses, or all who are alive, whose assistance lie had on the previous occasion before your Honours again to support him. Well, on that alternative it is quite clear that Mr. Meikle, at any rate, has this merit: he is entitled to be ranked with the Tichborne claimant as one of the grossest of public impostors. It is not quite so ambitious a flight he is attempting as that attempted by Arthur Orion, but it is more persistent, it is equally brazen, and it is far more prolonged. That is one alternative, your Honours, and I do not think I have exaggerated in a single respect the importance of it to my client. Now, on the other hand, the other alternative: if he is not a sheep-stealer, if he is not merely wrongfully convicted, but innocent, as I shall confidently submit to your Honours, then he is a man as grossly wronged as could be. His fate has been worse, we may say, than murder. He has been unjustly robbed of liberty and property aud reputation—of practically everything that makes life worth living. He is the man who has performed the astonishing feat and the great public service of convicting, after serving a sentence of seven years, the false accuser, who was the chief instrument in getting him that sentence, and he has thereby, 1 submit, cleared every tittle of the evidence against him; and he is a man who, notwithstanding that, has been permitted to go for another eleven years with bis wrong unredressed. Dr. Findlay: From the opening we have heard, it is clear we are to have the whole of the witnesses heard in the previous trial, except, of course, those witnesses who are not now alive, and there will obviously be the greatest conflict, as has been the case in the previous trials. I think my friend will agree with me that all witnesses should leave the Court. Mr. Justice Edwards: Very well. All witnesses are to leave the Court. Mr. Atkinson: If the former alternative I have submitted is correct, then by all means let Mr. Meikle go back to gaol as one of the most hardened and persistent scoundrels who ever stole or lied, and spend the rest of his life there for a crime a thousandfold worse than sheep-stealing, aggravated by a campaign of deceit which, though the law may prescribe no penalty, certainly the conscience of mankind wili visit with scarcely less unmeasured condemnation. If the second alternative is proved —that he is innocent—then I think neither my learned friend, nor your Honours, nor the Government, nor Parliament, nor the country will have much heart to haggle over the minor questions raised by the Commission, or to split legal or moral hairs over the precise measure of compensation or redress to which a man placed in that terrible position is entitled. Then, your Honours, I shall submit that Mr. Meikle was wrongfully convicted in 1887 ; not merely that there was insufficient evidence, but that he was innocent of the charge with which he was charged. I shall submit that William Lambert, his accuser, was rightfully convicted in 1895. There was, excluding the testimony of Lambert and the other evidence which his conviction discredited, nothing left to justify either the conviction of Mr. Meikle, or the sending of the case to a jury, or his committal by a Magistrate, or even any reasonable person in entertaining a suspicion. With regard to the onus of proof, as your Honours have ruled, it lies upon me, and hence it is that I begin ; but I take it that the two questions of the guilt or innocence of the two chief parties are so°mixed that it is really difficult to keep legal presumptions in the matter distinct. I assume, however, that as a matter of law the presumptions really are that Meikle was rightly convicted, and that Lambert was rightly convicted. The Crown may contend, as your Honours have already ruled to be open to it in some of the preliminary proceedings, that Meikle is guilty because Lambert is innocent; and obviously also it is open to maintain that Meikle is guilty though Lambert is guilty. The later alternative will certainly give me an easier task. In the former alternative, which is the assumption that Lambert is innocent, the onus clearly is put upon the Crown. As, however, according to my contention, the two questions are inseparable—the guilt of Meikle and the innocence of Lambert are the opposite sides of the same issue or different statements of identical propositions —the possibility of the Crown now challenging the verdict, which
I—H. 21.
1
H.—2l.
they never challenged before, against Lambert in 1895 does not seriously embarrass my position. It is clear I have to review the whole of the matters submitted on both occasions, and deal with them in my argument, and the evidence to be adduced. First of all, the alleged crime for which Mr. Meikle was convicted was the theft of some twenty-seven sheep and one ram—according to the indictment, belonging to the New Zealand Mortgage and Investment Company (Limited)— on the 17th day of October, 1887. The scene was at Tuturau, in the Provincial District of Southland, and I am fortunate, your Honours, to have a duplicate of the map which was put before the Court during Mr. Meikle's trial in 1887. We have also the map which was put before the Court in Lambert's trial in 1895. I hand the map up to your Honours. I have here what my client says is the actual map, or, rather, one of many, as there was a map for each juryman, and counsel were also well supplied. Your Honours will see that my client's land is the block that is marked red upon the plan It embraces about 800 acres. The company's laud was the land marked green (to the north), and aho that coloured drab (on the east of Mr. Meikle's farm). Your Honours will see that the blue land, the intervening land, was land occupied by Mr. Gregg, and that Mr. Meikle occupied a very commanding position between the two portions of the Islay Estate, which was the name of the company's property. As I shall put it to your Honours, Mr. Meikle had not merely a picked position, but really his land in quality was picked land, and it was better land than that of any of the adjoining blocks. It will be easy for your Honours from the sketch to judge distance. According to the evidence given, the distance from Gregg's place to Lambert's hut was about halt a mile and from Lambert's hut to Meikle's one mile. Lambert's hut, which is on the boundary of the land marked "Tussocks" and "Turnips" respectively, is at the junction of the roads, where the roads make a right -angle near the creek. According to the evidence given tor the prosecution at Mr. Meikle's trial, the land marked "In turnip*," which embraces some hundreds of acres was in turnips. There was a considerable mob of sheep there—about six hundred sheep— and it was from that flock that the sheep which my client was alleged to have stolen had been missed. It was conceded that the company's leasehold—the drab—was land of somewhat poor quality, and they took the sheep from there to the better land to fatten them. That land appears throughout the" depositions and the evidence as pre-emptive right. It was land over which the company had the right of purchase from the Crown under a pastoral lease. It is indicated by the letters P.R. To the south of the land there was a road which your Honours can see, and there was a fence on the north side of it. The case was that the sheep were on the turnips and that the tussock was uninviting land, and that immediately adjoining the tussock land on Mr. Meikle's property was land which had been recently ploughed, and that neither there nor in any other part of Meikle s property was there anything to attract sheep. The case, as I shall put it, for Mr. Meikle, as I have already stated to your Honours, is that his land was of better quality. I shall prove to your Honours how is was cultivated at the time. Roughly, there were 230 acres in English grasses, 200 in a crop of oats, and about 250 besides. Most of the latter was surface-sown, and some of it was poor and rough land. That, roughly speaking, is the position. Your Honours will notice that the western boundary of the turnips and the pre-emptive right and tussock land is a creek—the Waiarikiki Creek—which runs down and joins another creek named the Mimihau, and forms the south-wostcrn boundary of my client's land. With regard to the fences, there was a boundary fence the exact value of which was in dispute. It was alleged, at any rate, by the company to be absolutely sheep-proof—that is, the boundary fence between the pre-emptive right and Mr. Meikle's property. It was not in dispute that the boundary fence on Mr. Meikle's eastern boundary—that is to say, the fence dividing the company's leasehold form Mr. Meikle's land — was not a sheep-proof fence, and that it was a matter of no great difficulty for the sheep to get through Well", that is how the parties were geographically placed. So far as their other relations go, I may say, without labouring the matter, that there had been a considerable quantity of trouble previously". There had been quarrelling and litigation before the Road Board and the Land Board, and before the various Courts. Mr. Meikle, whatever else he is, is a first-class fight-ing-man, arid the subjects over which the fighting took place in these years were the usual subjects between neighbours in the country —the state of the fences, trespassing sheep, boundaries, roadlines and there was one assault case and a charge of perjury growing out of the dispute, and for that assault Meikle got one month's imprisonment. Meikle swore an information against the company's shepherd, who was concerned in the assault, for perjury and the company retaliated. Both prosecutions failed. Mr. Meikle was committed, but the juries disagreed. The shepherd was committed, and the grand .jury threw out the bill. Actually there were two troubles pending in the mouth of October, 1887, when this prosecution commenced. Mr. Meikle had an action pending for defamation, which a servant of the company was alleged to have written to a public officer in Dunedin, and a petition was pending to Parliament, in the hands of Sir George Grey, asking for full inquiry into the circumstances of Meikle's conviction for assault and perjury. Well, the parties being" so placed, the company lost sheep. AH runholders lose a certain number of shVp, I presume; but their loss was abnormal. They considered, rightly or wrongly, their losses we're abnormal, and they set about to stop the leak. They employed for that purpose a gentleman, sometimes described as a shepherd in the evidence and sometimes as a private detective. I do not know whether "private detective" is a term of distinction or not, but this man was employed ordinarily in the capacity of rousenbout or rabbiter. It appears from the evidence that he received £1 a week and found, and in addition he could keep any rabbit-skins he got. He had been previously employed for the detection of sheep-stealing. They employed Lambert on a very singular basis—the basis of "no cure no pay." It was that he should be paid £50—not if he searched for and collected evidence and gave his time to assisting in getting up a case which the company or its legal advisers thought a good case; it was not even the payment of £50 for securing a conviction for a crime already committed; but it, was really the payment of £50 to secure a conviction for a crime which had not yet taken place. That was in substance the bargain made with Lambert. Now, £50 is a very big consideration to a man in that position. Of course, the
2
3
H.—2l
force of any inducement is obviously in proportion to the resisting-power of the person to whom it is offered, and the resisting-power is proportionate to the man's character and his earnings and means. Dr. Findlay: I desire it to be distinctly understood that the compauy did not give £50 to secure the conviction in the case of an offence which had not yet been committed. All tiie evidence taken in the Courts shows that the £50 was offered in order to secure a conviction for an offence which had already been committed. Mr. Atkinson: It is not in dispute that Lambert was employed at the time, and it is not in dispute that the crime which Lambert alleged was committed was committed on the 17th October, so that my friend's point appears to me to be a distinction without a difference. The first information was for the stealing of certain sheep en the 24th August, and the second information was for the stealing of sheep on the 17th October- six or eight weeks subsequent to the appointment of Lambert. As I submit, it is clear on the facts which I shall submit to the Court that the bargain was a grossly improper one, and that it was something like criminal negligence on the part of the company if they had not made the fullest possible inquiries as to the character of the men they employed, and in any case the company was morally responsible for any miscarriage of justice if such has taken place. The information was laid by William Stuart, who was also in the company's employ, apparently in a somewhat similar capacity to Lambert —viz., partly shepherd or station hand and partly detective. The information was laid on the Ist November, 1887. Mr. Meikle was committed by the Justices in November, and he was tried by Mr. Justice Ward. Mr. Meikle and his son Arthur were included in one indictment, but they were tried separately on the election of prisoner's counsel. The prosecution originated as a private prosecution on the information of Stuart, an employee of the company, but it was taken up by the Crown in the Supreme Court, and the counsel who appeared were the present Mr. Justice Denniston, Mr. Macdonald, of Invercargill, Mr. Harvey, who watched the case for the company, and Mr. John MacGregor appeared for the prisoner. Mr. Lambert was the chief witness for the prosecution, and, as I submit, he was practically the sole witness. He told a very singular story, of which I can give you a summary of the leading points from the report of the Judge who tried Meikle, which report he sent in to the Minister of Justice when the Ministry of the day determined to make some inquiry on account of the petition they received from Meikle, who was then in gaol. His Honour gave the following summary: — " Large numbers of sheep having been stolen from Islay Station, the British and New Zealand Mortgage and Investment Company employed a private detective named Lambert to discover the thief, promising him a reward of £50 if he succeeded. Lambert visited repeatedly at the house of a farmer named Meikle, and apparently led him to believe that he intended ' to sell the company and work with him.' On the night of the 17th October Lambert went first to prisoner's house, and afterwards, about 9 p.m., to that of a farmer named John Gregg. The latter accompanied Lambert half-way to his hut, and just after parting from him heard him speaking to a person whom, from his voice, he believed to be Arthur Meikle, son of the prisoner. Lambert states that he then met Arthur Meikle driving a number of sheep from the direction of the company's land; that after passing he turned and followed him, saw him drive sheep into prisoner's yard, and saw prisoner kill and dress two of them. He (Lambert) could see by the light of the lantern used the brands and earmarks of the sheep. On the 2nd November Meikle's farm was searched by the police. Arthur Meikle, who was present, acknowledged that certain sheep of the company's were there, but said they had been there nine mouths. The number and condition corresponded with those which Lambert had seen Arthur Meikle driving, twenty being fat. It appeared that Arthur had a silent sheep-dog, which drives sheep without barking. On further search two sheep-skins bearing the company's brand were found among others belonging to prisoner. Of course, the mere fact of these sheep being on Meikle's land would only be a ground or suspicion in ordinary cases, but it was proved that all the fat sheep of the company were on turnips, and that in order to stray to the paddock where they were found by the police they must have left turnips for ploughed land or.tussock, and have gone through two fences in order to reach very poor pasture where they could not possibly have fattened. It would be difficult to frame a clearer case for the Crown than the foregoing." That is His Honour's summary of the case for the Crown. It is far from accurate, as I shall presently endeavour to satisfy your Honours, but it is ample for my present purpose, which is to show that the case which the Crown depended upon was practically the evidence of Lambert, and Lambert only. Now, what are the corroborative points of Lambert's testimony as they appear from His Honour's report? In the first place, there is the evidence of Mr. John Gregg, farmer, of Tuturau. He was not called in the lower Court, but he was called at Invercargill in the Supreme Court. His Honour says in his summary: — " On the night of the 17th October Lambert went first to prisoner's house, and afterwards, about 9 p.m., to that of a farmer named John Gregg. The latter accompanied Lambert half-way to his hut, and just after parting from him heard him speaking to a person whom, from his voice, he believed to be Arthur Meikle, son of the prisoner." Gregg does not say that the person was Arthur Meikle, or that he saw Arthur Meikle steal the sheep, but "it was a voice like Arthur Meikle's." Now, what is the additional corroboration of a satisfactory character to which His Honour refers in his report? " The number and condition corresponded with those which Lambert had seen Arthur Meikle driving, twenty being fat." That is to say, the number found on the 2nd November corresponded with the number Lambert " alleged he saw on the 17th October. On the 17th October Lambert says he saw the sheep that were stolen. The first information was laid for the stealing of fifty-nine sheep between the 24th August and the 26th October. There is nothing there about the 17th October. According to my instructions the number "fifty-nine" was subsequently amended to "fifty-four." As far as I am con-
H—2l.
cerned I will not lay very much stress on the variation from '"fifty-nine" to "fifty-four." But when we come to the evidence we shall see that " fifty-nine " is once mentioned and " fifty-four " several times. However, this is absolutely certain : that rhe information was subsequently amended, as I shall presently describe. On the Ist November the information was laid. On the 2nd and 3rd November the search was made. The first discovery tho police made on the 2nd was two skins found in Meikle's smithy. They went out and found twenty-five sheep in his paddock. On the second day three of the police and some of the company's servants came, and they found two more of the sheep of the company on Mr. Meikle's land. When Mr. Meikle came before the Justices on the information on which he was committed it then appeared that it was twenty-seven sheep that had been stolen, and an amendment of the information was made. In the absence of the original information we have here the summary of it given in the preface to the depositions in 1887 in the examination of William Lambert. It appears sufficiently plain on the face of that document that there had been an amendment, because these sheep had been valued at Bs. a head, which would have made the number fit in somewhere at about fifty-five, but obviously the number could not be twenty-seven. They altered the number but not the value. Then there is the preliminary investigation held by the Justices at Wyndham from the 18th to the 21st November. Lambert then swore to having seen twenty-seven sheep and one ram stolen on the 17th October, or about that day. When the proceedings came up in tiie Supreme Court on the 16ch December the charge was for stealing twenty-seven sheep and one ram on the 17th October. Now, is there any corroboration of Lambert's story in that? On the contrary, under the circumstances does not that cast the gravest possible doubt upon Lambert's story? Let me put a-few test questions in regard to this matter. Here is Lambert gets his MA a week, with an- additional £50 if he gets a conviction. He sees his man on the 17th October and he does nothing—neither he nor his employers take any steps till a fortnight later. Why the delay if the occurrence was a reality? Lambert says that he saw this occurrence between 10 and 11 o'clock at night on the 17th October. Half a dozen witnesses could have been produced fiom the company's station to have seen the corpus of the dead sheep—to have seen the caput of the dead sheep from which, according to Lambert's story, Meikle took the precaution of cutting the ears off. furthermore, the police could have arrived by breakfast-time or early in the following day, and everything could have been proved up to the hilt. If, on the other hand, the occurrence was unreal there was the greatest reason for delay. More corroboration was needed, and I shall submit that the delay actually took place owing to the want of corroboration, and until some corroboration could be obtained. It was admitted by Lambert in his evidence in 1887 in the Supreme Court that he was in Meikle's smithy on the evening of the -'51st October or the Ist November. It was a day or two before the arrest of Arthur Meikle. At page 21 of the printed statement there is the following: — "Last time I was at Meikle's, about 6 p.m., was before Arthur's arrest one or two nights. Search was made 2nd November; Arthur turned grindstone for me, and while we were sharpening knife father came over. No paiticular conversation." That is stated by Lambert as having taken place a night or two before Arthur's ariest, and Arthur's arrest was on the 3rd, the search having taken place on the 2nd and 3rd. According to the evidence submitted on Meikle's behalf —and I shall submit it again to-day—Lambert called that evening about 9 p.m. My client's evidence is that Lambert called about 9 that evening, and that Lambert said his errand there was to sharpen his knife. Lambert's statement is that he was there about 6 p.m. That is not highly material, except that it would make his errand a little more suspicious if he came that distance to sharpen his knife at 9 p.m. According to the evidence— which was not before the Court in 1887—I maj- remind your Honours that Meikle's mouth was closed in 1887, and also Mrs. Meikle's mouth, because the criminal law did not allow a wife to give evidence on her husband's behalf. However, it appeared that Lambert sharpened his knife and went away. The police came the following day according to the statement of Meikle and his witnesses, but according to Lambert's statement it might have been the day after that. Evidence was. also given both in 1887 and 1895, and will be repeated here, that particular precautions had been taken over the locking of these outhouses at this time, that at Lambert's request the smithy had to be unlocked that night to admit Lambert, and the evidence given by the police was that the smithy-door was open when they came along on the 2nd November, the other outhouses with one exception being locked according to the evidence of Meikle's witnesses. Lambert then had the opportunity that night. Why was the 17th October selected? The reason, 1 submit, is this: that Lambert had a partner in his hut up to the 17th October—McGeorge—who was also in the company's employ. McGeorge left the hut for another station or another employment about 8 o'clock in the morning of the 17th October, and Lambert fixed the day on which he saw the sheep stolen by reference to the fact that McGeorge had left on that date. In other words, that was the one outstanding point in Lambert's chronology, so that, assuming that Lambert was perpetrating the offence, the presence of McGeorge would be a very awkward element. It was stated by McGeorge that there were dogs about the hut, and that if sheep had been about the hut they would have let him know about it. At ali events, there were dogs there on the 17th October. Meikle was to go to Dunedin on the 18th, but he did not go until the 19th October. The number of sheep Lambert had seen stolen had remained unascertained for a number of days —fourteen days. Twenty-seven had not been sworn to and the 17th October had not been sworn to, but the number was determined with mathematical accuracy after the search. Surely the numerical coincidence of this is a very suspicious circumstance. Fourteen days Meikle was in possession of the stolen property. For fourteen days it was practically as he had got it, and was there for the police or any one else to see, and absolutely nothing had been done. Take the case of the skins. Two skins bearing the company's brand were found in Meikle's barn—found in one of the only two outbuildings not locked. The police went straight there and found them among Meikle's own skins; there had been no attempt at concealment, as is freely conceded by the police and the company's servants. Why
4
5
H.—2l
did the criminals leave everything practically as it was on the night of the crime, when such damning traces as these could have been removed by any one wuo had a guilty conscience i Further, at page 19 of the evidence of 18S7, and page 45 oi the evidence of 1890, it was stated by Lambert that lUeikle toolv the greatest and promptest care to remove certain traces of his crime as soon as the sheep had been killed. This appears at the bottom of page 19:— " Elder prisoner had gone over to the house. After sheep dressed he returned; told his son to cut tire brand and earmark off, and to cut them up into small pieces. That was done; earmark was two notches either back or front. That was company's earmark. 1 did not see brand on sheep that was killed. Skin was put on some bags, Head was hung on wall. Prisoner said he would defy company or any one el»e." That statement as it stands there might have been merely a device, but I submit that it is clear from the context and that page 45 of the evidence of IBS*S makes it absolutely clear that the note of defiance was sounded because the traces of the crime had disappeared, i put it to your Honours: assuming that he had got the skins out of the road, and that the police had come in and found sheeps' lieads without ears, it would have been a matter for greater suspicion than the finding of the skins. He took precise and prompt care to remove the earmarks and fire brand, and left skins with the company's large ana familiar brand for the police or anybody else who chose to look in at an open door to find them. Why were the skins in one of the only two outbuildings not locked? That appears from the evidence of ail the police. Detective Ede swore (page 2a): — " Skin was not concealed; just among rest. Door not locked." Then there is Constable Fouhy. Ede is dead, but Fouhy, 1 think, is now sergeant, and we shall have him here. Then there is -Constable Leece. All testified that the door was not locked, and in the 168/ depositions Leece says it was wide open. Harvey, one of Meikle's servants, says he called the attention of the police to the fact that tht other doors had been locked. Why were the skins there in the most accessible place like goods exhibited on his own front door'/ Why were the live sheep there in his own best English-grass 200-acre paddock all these fourteen days? Dr. Findlay: There is oue matter 1 think should be mentioned at this stage, because obviously your Honours are being asked to accept Mr. Atkinson's statement as the purport of the evidence. 1 would ask where he finds authority for the statement that the skins found by the police were the same skins as Lambert refers to on the night of the 17th October. Mr. Atkmson: 1 do not think there is any evidence needed to prove that. Dr. Findlay: You said just now that Mr. Meikle, after asking his son to cut off the ears, said he could now defy the company. Very well; I ask Mr. Atkinson to say whether he is going on the assumption that JLambert Admits, or the police admit, that the skins there found were the same as those cut off on the 17th October. That is what Mr. Atkinson is implying, and I question what he says. Mr. Atkinson: Certainly there was no evidence. Lambert only saw one sheep killed on the night of the 17th, and there were two skins found. Assuming that Meikle killed both these sheep on the night before the police came, if he were a criminal he could have put them out of sight in five minutes as easily as killing the animals. I can put it this way: that it was put by the Crown to the jury in 1887 that the jury might take the skins as confirmation of Lambert's story, just as well as if they had seen young Meikle putting his knife to the throats of the sheep. It is a matter for inference really; it was btyond the possibility of evidence. Another extraordinary thing: The sheep were stolen between 9 and 10 p.m. After Lambert saw the sheep being driven, he mentions that he waited half an hour for young Meikle to drive through the turnips and to the road. It took twenty minutes to get them into the smithy. Some expert witnesses considered an hour the least in which it could have been performed. At any rate, it must have been getting on to midnight when this took place. Anyway, Meikle had one sheep killed in Lambert's presence, and had the earmarks chopped off; he was so short of meat and so careful that he does all that at once. Apparently he needs no more meat during these fourteen days. The registered brand of the company was not touched, and the sheep to the original number remained in the paddock for any one to see, with the special distinction that the company's braud and Meikle's were different in colour. So that anybody without expert knowledge as to the sheep could have said they were there. As regards the shortness of the meat, Mr. Westcott has been subpoenaed; I do not know whether he has been found. He was the man who supplied Meikle with meat from Wyndham, and he put in receipts showing that from the 12th to the 16th October Meikle had paid him £2 ss. for meat, and he also described Meikle's general course in dealing. At all events, in Lambert's evidence Meikle did all that, has been stated, and fourteen days passed without anything being detected of the thief or anything done to remove the traces. Furthermore, there is the evidence as to the fences, the evidence on which perhaps the most convincing part will be practically the evidence of witnesses for the Crown. It was absolutely unavoidable that tbere should be a straying of sheep from property to property, at least to the normal extent that prevails between two well-fenced runs. That, I submit, we shall conclusively establish. Fourteen days went on. There were, I presume, some stray sheep in the meantime. Meikle got fourteen days during which he could have removed all traces without anybody looking on. Apparently there were none stolen, but the identical number was found that Lambert swore he saw going oij to the property on the 17th October. There is one possibility of meeting my last contention, and I might as well rebut it. The only possibility of getting around it is that the natural ebb and How during that time had balanced, as regards sheep stra3'ing from one property to another. Of course, such a mathematical coincidence would be a miracle. I say that nothing but a series of miracles can get away from the facts —from the suspicion created by the coincidence between the number of sheep found and the number which Lambert afterwards swore to have seen. Now, then, with regard to corroboration. I submit for the corroboration of Lambert Gregg alone remained. Surely the coincidence of number is worse than useless for the purpose of corroboration, in that it raises an overwhelming presumption that the evidence is not
H.—2l.
6
true. The fact of these sheep-skins being found, Lambert's opportunity for putting them there, and the absurdity of the prisoner leaving them there—that disposes of the third item. I submit that the case is left on Lambert's evidence alone, just as in \6\i'o it was left standing on Lambert alone,'the man who got a year's salary, payment by results, on getting somebody convicted. As to minor points in support of the proeecution in Meikle's trial, 1 refer your Honours to pages 29 and 30 in the report of Judge Ward in ilegina v. Meikle (page 29). I was just going to refer to the minor points in support of the prosecution to which he refers in his third paragraph, after referring to the recovery of the sheep: — " Of course, the mere facts of these sheep being on Meikle's land would only be a ground of suspicion in ordinary cases; but it was proved that all the fat sheep of the company were on turnips, and that in order to stray to the paddock where they were found by the police they must have left the turnips for ploughed land or tussocks, and to have gone through two fences in order to reach very poor pasture wnere they could not possibly have fattened. It would be difficult to frame a clearer case for the Crown than the foregoing." Now, with regard to the first presumption which His Honour makes there, 1 submit that it is entirely immaterial that the mere presence of sheep on the ground would in itself be some ground of suspicion. Why, 1 would submit to the contrary that the absence on any run of other persons' sheep is a presumption that there has been a muster made in the last day or so. However, that is not a point to labour. But I would put it that some leakage is usual, and lam entitled to put it that it is a common thing for a runholder to give notice to his neigiibour that he is mustering. There is a reference to it by one of the witnesses here. Mr. Justice Ward in his report says it was '• All the fat sheep of the company were on turnips, and that in order to stray to the paddock where they were found by the police they must have left turnips for ploughed land or turnips, and have gone through two fences in order to reach very poor pasture." Now, in the first place, as to the nature of the fence, your Honours will find in the same report, " A good deal of contradictory evidence was given about the state of the fences between the company's land and Meikle's, but there were no questions as to the respective merits of the sheepfeed on the two places." . ~ ~ .■ .. I will deal first of all with the question, Are these fences sheep-proof? I submit it is the nature of a sheep—part of the daily duty of an ordinary sheep—to get through a fence, and that he manages habitually to do it in spite of all the experts and mechanics in the world; certainly the most convincing expert testimony would not satisfy your Honours that the thing is so impossible that a crime is to be presumed because a sheep is found on the wrong side of a fence in© strongest evidence is that of Mr. Fleming for the prosecution (page 23 of the 1887 evidence, Supreme Court trial): — , „ , " Was asked to examine fences between company and Meikle. Did so on the 12th November. Fences all in perfeclly good order, except at one point, where sheep might possibly have got through. That is at place where'Meikle's fence ran into the river. No marks of sheep having got through. It is not likely sheep would have come to that place. If I mustered sheep en large block and found no stragglers from neighbours 1 should conclude fence in good order." That is the extent of Fleming's evidence. Then Stuart, cms of the company s servants, makes a similar exception (page 21 of the 1887 trial), that there was one place not very sheep-proof. William Stuart says in his evidence:— ■• - " I did not notice gap with only two wires near river at E.K.; there was place not very sheepproof, but there were no marks of any having gone through--no wool on fence. Dog might put slieep through there." , , That is Stuart's testimony. I stated to your Honours that I propose to prove these fences to be the very reverse of sheep-proof from what is practically the testimony of witnesses for the prosecution When Constable Leece was up there executing a search-warrant he saw Telfer and Duncan engaged doing fencing work, not for my client but for the company, and he asks these men to examine the boundary fences and report to him; and the report was so adverse that they were not called for the Crown. My client was put to the expense of calling them, and they gave evidence. It is very brief, but I will undertake to say it will carry more conviction than pages of general expert testimony (page 28). Robert Duncan stales:-- , . ... . "No fences between prisoner and company. I was asked to examine them by Constable Leece, Examined fence near pre-emptive right; not sheep-proof. Examined higher boundary ; not sheepproof. Re-examined: Saw" sheep go through fence between Meikle's and company s leasehold through slack wire from station side into Meikle's." ' That is the first expert the police employed to examine the fences. Secondly, that last reference is to the passage from the leasehold land. Previous evidence was on the state of the fence from the pre-emptive right (pnge 28). Telfer states, " Saw one sheep go through from company s into Meikle's " I made statement that these two men were in the company s employ when the police saw them It appears from the depositions, but is not in the evidence in the Supreme Court, that these two experts? who both swore that the fence was not sheep-proof and saw sheep get throu-h were working for the company when asked by the police to report. Then there is Baynes s evidence (foot of page 27). He was not deputed by the police to do the work:- ---" Wires looked very slack. Saw two sheep come through a-djoimug pre-emptive right. They went off Meikle's; no difficulty in going through fence. Fence not sheep-proof. It makes a turn before it strikes a creek. Dray could get in or out of Meides property. Here are Stuart and Fleming and Mr. Justice Ward wondering at sheep passing through and leaving no trace of wool on the fence, while here is one man, and I will call other evidence, to show that the reason why the sheep need not leave any marks on that particular fence was that a dray could get through. The thing almost becomes absurd from our point of view. There is no
H.—2l
7
suggestion of collusion between the two experts the police put on, and I will take it that the phrase " Experto cre'de " does not meau " Trust*an expert." It means " Believe the man who has been there —the man who has done it or seen it." And if the general testimony of Duncan and Telfer were discredited, that of Fleming would go with it. But they saw the sheep going through when they were asked to inspect the fence from the point of view hostile to Meikle. Now, further, there was no need whatever to go through that boundary fence or any other. Mr. Justice Ward has made a mistake, and it is a mistake in this case in my client's favour, when he refers to a gap in the boundary fence where the fence strikes the river. If your Honours will take a glance at the map you will see that the fence never strikes the creek at all. The point referred to by Mr. Baynes when he speaks of the fence striking the creek is the southerly point of the boundary between Meikle's land* and the education reserve. That is where a dray could get in or out of Meikle's property, according to Mr. Baynes's testimony, and Mr. Harvey was one of the witnesses for the defence who testified to the same effect. That is the point His Honour Judge Ward referred to in his second report, at page 30, and really the mistake made there is in my client's favour. Of course, 1 do not want to attempt to use it. The Judge reported: — " The fences between the two being in good order and sheep-proof except where the dividing fence ran into the river." If His Honour had spoken with the map before him he would have seen that the dividing fence never ran into the river. From the evidence of Lambert on page 20 I will show 3'our Honours another hole. It is three or four times or a good deal more of the size of the one I have already indicated. If your Honours will turn to page 20 it will be seen that this appears: — "Cross-examined: Paddock was ploughed altogether. There is opening near hut—2 or 3 chains. No gate at opening." Mr. Justice Cooper: Does he mean 2 or 3 chains in width or 2 or 3 chains from the hut? Mr. Atkinson: If your Honour is in doubt, I am instructed it means 2 or 3 chains in width. We will call evidence on the point. That is my case. No doubt there is no gate at the opening, and we may assume that sheep may get through an opening without a gate. Dr. Findlay: It was an opening without a gate, but a dog was there. Mr. Atkinson: I am endeavouring to state the inferences from the facts, and if my inferences any wrong my friend can show it. It is a point on which I have half a dozen witnesses. I dare say the police know enough about that. If there is an open gateway, and if it is 2or 3 chains in width, Mr. Fleming need not expect to see any marks of sheep after they have got through. Lambert's evidence continues, "There is open road-iine between tussock and river." I might incidentally call your Honours' attention to the extraordinary statement there which is not relevant to the present parties : " Gregg's place is across river." There is the open road-line. What, then, is the position with regard to the southern boundary between the pre-emptive right and Mr. Meikle's land"? I have shown already from the testimony as to that immediate boundary fence. My point now is to show that a sheep could get through —there is a gap without a gate, a gap, as I shall endeavour to prove, 2or 3 chains wide. There is an open road-line between the tussock and the river. That is the Waiarikiki River. Mr. Trotter, one of the company's servants, at page 22 of his evidence, near the top, says—l might remark here that unfortunately both names of the creeks are wrong. They are mentioned here as Wairiki and Mincham, and they should be Mimihau and Waiarikiki. Trotter says : — " Waiarikiki is not sheep-proof. I know hut. There is gateway. No gate near hut." So we have it that the western boundary of the company's land was not sheep-proof, that on this southern boundary between the turnips and the tussock there is a large gap without a gate, and that there is an open road-line between the tussock and the river to which Mr. Lambert has testified. Well, is it not enough now if we have that gap there and a gap at the corner of the education reserve that a dray could get through? And beyond that gap is the connecting-link, the creek running the whole distance; and without direct evidence on the point your Honours would be ready to presume that there is a likelihood of feed there being attractive to sheep. Evidence was given, and I shall call more, to show that there was good feed on the river. Harvey, at page 25 of the evidence before your Honours, towards the close of his examination in chief, says: — "Fence very deficient between prisoner's and Mincham River; owing to ground being ploughed stock can get through easily. At ford at Fig. 21 there is old gateway. ... At end of tussock fence comes to an end, and there is distance a dray could go through without fence at all." That makes quite plain any ambiguity about Mr. Baynes's position. '' There was feed on edge of river, fog and cocksfoot." At any rate, I shall call more evidence on that point, and also to show on that education reserve, which was unfeuced, that there was excellent feed, and that sheep habitually camped there. It might very well have been a camping-place for the strays from both hostile parties. However, there is the position as plain as it can be. There was no gate there or near", your Honours, but the two creeks met, and the sheep could not get beyond. They were cornered there, but they could leak out either north or south over on to company's land or on to mv client's land. Then, with regard to the state of the fences, I shall call one witness, Connor, who has been in Mr. Meikle's emnlov, but who was not called at the previous trial. He freqnentlv put the company's sheep off Meikle's land. He had left about a month before this crime is supposed to have taken place. So much with regard to the fences. Then His Honour refers to Mr. Meikle's land as poor pasture, where sheep could not possibly have fattened. Well. I have searched this evidence —and though my friend has not been searching it with the same de<dre as I have, probably, still, I will, of course, have his help before this Commission is over—and I have been unable to find any vestige of evidence that Mr. Meikle's land only grew poor pasture where sheep could not possibly fatten. So far as I have read the evidence, the only admitted poor land jn the block is the company's leasehold to the east, but I have not seen any evidence that Mr.
H.—2l
8
Meikle's land was poor pasture. There was some slight evidence, as I shall put to your Honours, to the contrary, and this was obtained from the witnesses for the prosecution, because it was hardly likely for counsel for the prisoner to anticipate a point like that being laid stress upon to taKe away any man's liberty, assuming the evidence otherwise to be fairly balanced. The position is this: We have the company's turnips with the gap in the fence, and then the company's tussock land, and then on the southern and eastern boundaries we have Mr. Meikle's land which was ploughed. Ploughed land is clearly not a direct inducement for sheep to break through that fence, though these witnesses to whom I have already referred show that, without any direct and immediate inducement, sheep, like other creatures, both man and animals of the lower orders, do certain things without any immediate obvious inducement. They have some scheme of life we cannot fathom, and they wander off. Let it be conceded, your Honours, that Meikle's land was ploughed there and there was tussock on the other side, but there is not a syllable to show that the land is poor. Now, I think I can prove by independent statements elicited from witnesses for the prosecution that Meikle's land, or a great deal of it, was in excellent order to attract sheep. Stuart says, on page 21 of the evidence, at the beginning of the cross-examination, — " I went back to prisoner's land on the 3rd. Two more sheep found there on rough ground. Others found there on English grass." That, I take it, your Honours, is a judicial abbreviation for " the others, otherwise the investigation would have been pursued to see if there was any of the remainder, and where that remainder was found. However, I shall put the point beyond doubt by direct evidence. But Mr. Stuart makes it plain that there was English grass on some of Meikle's land, and that that was where the twenty-five sheep were found in one paddock. Turnips, I suppose, may be the best feed in the world for sheep, but there is such a thing as satiety in the case of sheep, I suppose, as in the case of men, and in "wet weather, I understand, sheep will leave turnips habitually because they prefer a better camping-ground in such circumstances. But I need not worry your Honours with the opinion of sheep experts on a point like that. Your Honours will take notice of the fact that English grass is about the finest that could be desired for the food of sheep, yet His Honour Judge Ward has formed the idea that Meikle's land is very poor pasture, on which sheep could not possibly fatten There is a further point in the evidence of Constable Leece, who was called in Lambert's defence in 1895, and I think his statement alongside of that of Mr. Stuart will surely settle the matter, because they are not witnesses prejudiced in favour of my client at all. Constable Leece Sa *' '" The sheep were rounded up and brought in. I think the total number was below fifty. It was a large paddock; I should say over 200 acres." Well I submit, putting that statement alongside the evidence of Mr. btuart, it is a fair inference to say there were 200 acres in English grass on Meikle's property, and that paddock is the very place where these sheep were found. Well, that estimate of 200 acres was, I think, substantially correct. I put it "to your Honours in opening, it was estimated at that time that there were 250 acres in grass and 200 acres in oats. Then I shall call direct testimony to prove that what I say as an inference is a fact. Then your Honours will find that Urquhart, in his evidence in the depositions on the original information against Lambert in 1895, at page 5, refers to Meikle's land as being in English grass. Then Connor refers in the same depositions to Mr. Meikle's land in the same year as he left being in young oats and English grass; and Mr Meikle himself will give direct testimony now. Well, if the company's land was undoubtedly the best, it seems none the less astonishing that any prosecution for a criminal purpose could possibly be based on the fact that sheep had wandered from good pasture on to bad. Nevertheless, Ido not want to lose anything, and"l shall prove that the pasture was excellent, and that taking the land as a whole it was picked land. Now, your Honours, where do we come to on the actual results of the case for the prosecution, excluding Lambert's testimony? To sum it up there is the turnipfield on the company's ground; there is the English grass on Meikle's land to the south. There is a gap of several chains in the south boundary of the turnips; there is a creek with good feed in sighti of the gap at a very short distance; lower down the creek there is good feed along its course; and there is a gap wide enough for a dray to enter Meikle's land, and that is the obvious course for sheep to take There is also the fact that the sheep were seen getting through sheep-proof fences by witnesses who were employed by the police to report upon it. Well you may say it is a sheep-proof fence with a big hole in it, a sheep-proof fence where sheep could get through, and a hole where a dray or other things a good deal larger than sheep could get through and it is all in the way of sheep wandering from one run to another. I suppose if there is anything left in he case after Lambert's evidence is excluded it simply means this: if my friend has the misforne to have me for a neighbour-I may be dangerous in some circumstances-and my fowls are found in his garden, and the experts swear that the fence is fowl-proof and that my bulbs and seeds are „ )0 r attractive than his and better worth scratching up than his, then there is a case to answer as to whether or not he has stolen those fowls, Your Honours, it is surely farcical that criminal law should be administered in that way; and I can assure my friend that whatever daSe™ there may be in having me as a neighbour there is no danger in that respect. I would not even '. sleethim of the crime. Well, your Honours, I prefer to leave the matter in that way iSUof speaking in more directly disrespectful terms of this report. I come now to he case for Me kle's defence. The main points were these: First of all, there was Arthur Meikle s illness. w! .«« a lad of seventeen—a sickly lad who was suffering from pleurisy at the time. The defence w s that on th 17th Octeber he wus seriously ill with pleurisy and that he was not out on that nfiit at aS Even his recovery was doubtful, and for days, if not weeks, on either side of the * for him to be out at night, and especially out on a wet night, as this night proved to be was There was the evidence of various persons that it was a dark arid stormy night _ It Tfortunate thing, dates being difficult to fix, especially in the country, that there are two timerrarks by which the respective witnesses are able to fix upon what happened on the 17th. From
H.—23.
Lambert's point of view it was the day on which McGeorge left, and from the point of view of Meikle's witnesses it was the day of Waters's sale. Of course, in a country neighbourhood the sale of a considerable property would impress the people, and all the witnesses who were called knew about Waters's sale, and knew that it was held on a very bad and squally day, and that it was followed by an exceedingly wild and tempestuous night. It was contended that it would be impossible to drive sheep, especially along an unfenced road-line, on such a night, and especially for a sickly lad with a small mob of sheep. Then there was expert testimony called on both side 3. I do not propose to bother much with that aspect of the case, but perhaps there has been a sufficient quantity of expert evidence in the various Courts to show your Honours how the matter stands. Then there was the other point, en which very little stress was made in 1887 —that is mainly a matter for experts —that it was impossible to drive sheep into a smithy-door as Lambert describes they were driven—through an aperture 18 in. wide. Now, in Judge Ward's report he lays great stress at page 29 on the incredibility and deliberate unveracity of the evidence for the defence. It does not appear to have occurred, nor has His Honour any ground whatever for suspecting Lambert on account of the terms of his employment, and if the jury had the matter put before them with as little emphasis—or, in fact, with no reference whatever—as is the case with this report, one is not surprised that they were assisted to come to a wrong conclusion. But His Honour has a good deal to say upon the credibility of the witnesses for the defence. His conclusion is :— " I have only further to say that, in my opinion, the verdict was fully justified for the evidence for the Crown, and that I have seldom heard harder swearing than that of the witnesses for the prisoner." Then in 1895—and it is convenient to refer to this as the second report, and it is contained in the printed page before your Honours —after Lambert's conviction Judge Ward was asked by the Public Petitions Committee of the House, before whom Meikle's petition for redress then was, to say as to how far—and that is substantially the question that is before your Honours now—the conviction would raise any presumption as to Meikle's innocence in the case Regina v. Meikle tried in 1887. Judge Ward's conclusion, after summarising the evidence, is this: — " Had there been no evidence beyond this, I should certainly not have directed the jury to acquit; but the case for the Crown would have been greatly weakened, and probably the able counsel engaged by Meikle would then have secured his acquittal had it not been for the exposure of the gross perjury committed on Meikle's behalf by the witness Templeton, which might have turned the scale the other way." Well, I submit, in the first place, your Honours —and it is a formal point—that, excluding Lambert's testimony, there was hot even anything to go to the Supreme Court. It would not even have got before the Magistrate's Court. My friend is here representing the Crown and not as a special pleader for an individual, and Ido not expect him to dispute that contention. But, of course, it is a formal point, for this reason : that if Meikle has used perjured evidence to secure his acquittal it raises a strong presumption of his guilt. Even supposing a man to be innocent, but that he reckoned the circumstances of his case to be suspicious, and he wanted to make quite sure of his acquittal, nevertheless it would follow that your Honours might say he was not properly found guilty of sheep-stealing but he was undoubtedly guilty of a greater crime—namely, subornation of perjury in 1887 and on every occasion since. My client's object is not to have his verdict quashed on a technical ground but to clear his character, and he is just as much concerned with the reputation of these witnesses who are assailed in this report as he is with hi* own, because their character reflects on his. Therefore, to acquit him of sheep-stealinw and find him guilty of subornation of perjury is not a thing for which he would trouble the country. I will concede to your Honours with perfect frankness that some of Meikle's witnesses made mistakes, and made some serious mistakes. I will concede that Templeton was a month out in one date, and that Harvey was a month out in one date and a day out in another date, and I shall show presently that the error in regard to the day was unfortunately more serious than both the larger errors, because it "affected the immediate neighbourhood of the time at which the crime was supposed to have been committed. Then Harvey made other serious mistakes, though mostly of a chronological order. There were other minor discrepancies, some of which I shall indicate later on. As against this I shall submit this: that the inaccuracies were honest, and that they are of such a character as to render the possibility of concoction absolutely unbelievable, because no proved inaccuracy can be proved to have been shared by two witnesses, and that surely is the crucial test of concoction. I shall further submit that these minor discrepancies, or many of them, to which I have referred are also of a nature to negative concoction, and our proof of the honesty of the witnesses, even when any mistake was made. Now, it is fortunate for my client, and makes my task much easier, that Mr. Templeton should have been selected by Judge Ward as the arch-villain of the piece, or, rather, I should "say that if the arch-villain was in the dock his understudy was in the witness-box. It is fortunate for me that Mr. Templeton has been selected, in the first place, your Honours, because I think I can satisfy your Honours on the best evidence that Mr. Templeton's error was absolutely innocent, and, secondly, because Mr. Templeton is here, and my friend and your Honours will be able to see him and will be able to test him. Of course, my friend is not here as counsel for an individual. It is clearly part of his duty here to apply every test to the testimony of an alleged perjurer, and I shall certainly not mistake his position if he cross-examines Mr. Templeton with regard to hi 3 supposed perjury as though he was appearing for a private individual. I certainly hope he will do it as thoroughly as his great professional ski" will enable him to do it. In the original report to the Minister of Justice after Meikle's petition had been sent from the gaol, His Honour writes as follows (fourth paragraph):—- -" For the defence, the first witness was one Templeton, who swore to a conversation with Lambert, giving full particulars of time and place; but finding that certain witnesses were prepared to prove an alibi for Lambert, desired Mr. MacGregor, counsel for prisoner, to retract his evidence
2—H. 21.
9
H.—2l
10
next morning by stating that he had been entirely mistaken in both the above particulars; by which retraction he saved himself from being committed for perjury, and enabled the jury to duly appreciate his testimony." Your Honours will, of course, be perfectly familar with the fact that an error as to dates is the easiest thing in the world to occur even in the case of the most accurate witness. For instance, your Honours would not like to be cross-examined without reference to a document as to the date of an ordinary or even an extraordinary event which actually happened during the last few months. Such an error on the part of a witness is obvious and pardonable; but an error as to the place or scene of a conversation between two people on a particular matter, when they had only one conversation, and there was no possibility of confusing the subject-matter —I say such an error would be serious and absolutely unpardonable, and would be only explicable on one of two suppositions —viz., (1) that the man was a "deliberate liar who would not speak the truth, or (2) that he"was a helpless idiot who could not do so. No other explanation is possible for such an error as that. But 1 rejoice—and at the same time I regret —to say that the unpardonable blunder is that not of the witness but of the Judge. As counsel for Mr. Meikle, I rejoice that the character of a witness so closely associated with his own can be completely cleared ; in my general capacity of barrister of the Supreme Court I deplore that so cruel a misstatement should have found its way into a judicial report affecting the liberty, reputation, and happiness of a convicteal prisoner. I am referring to the point as to the place where the conversation between Lambert and Templeton took place. Lambert does not name the place at all. Templeton was never cross-examined with reference to it. The question of the place was never at issue. The facts in regard to it are these: Templeton said that on a certain night—l may say that Mr. Templeton was and still is a storekeeper in Wyndham. He has been subpoenaed, and he lias answered his subpoena. He is a substantial man, and I understand that he bears generally an excellent character. He was called to prove a very simple matter. I refer your Honours to page 24, where the following appears: — " The first witness for the defence was Templeton, of Wyndham, storekeeper: Know Lambert and prisoner. On 24th September, Saturday night, Lambert put his arm round my neck and said, ' Look here, Jack, company wants me to go for poor old Meikle, but I'll stick to Meikle.' I was 'asking no questions about Meikle. Conversation put in interruptedly. I. asked no questions. Lambert left then. I remember night, 17th September. Cross-examined: Saw Lambert in Railway Hotel, Wyndham, about 10 p.m. Fix date by transaction with Malcolm McDonald. Can find plenty of men to prove Lambert was in Wyndham. Saw McGillivray, in employ of company, that night. I will swear he was in Wyndham that night. 1 understood he was company's man,'and was°going to do some inspection at Malcolm McDonald's. I gave him two letters—one, John Livingstone. How should I know where he was going? I believe he was in employment of company. This was Saturday night, 24th September. Should be surprised if it was 24th August. Can't recollect any dates independent of books." ° Dr. Findlay: I think it is due to the Judge whose observations are being attacked here to say that I do not for one moment accede to the statement made by Mr. Atkinson that there was not a deliberate statement as to the place and an alibi as to that place. Mr. Atkinson: I say there is no conflict as to the place, but as to the time of the conversation. Dr. Findlay: I only wish the Court to know that I do not admit this. Judge Ward is not represented here. He has an honourable name, and the inference might be drawn that I acceded to these statements if I did not state the contrary. Mr. Atkinson: Let me take it that the question of place will be disputed now. But in the judicial record of the cross-examination of Templeton with regard to the error in his statement there is nothing to suggest there that the question of place was in dispute. I put it to your Honours that, seeing that an error as to time is an easy thing to make and an error as to place is a difficult thing to make—as I put it, it would be impossible for an innocent witness to make an error in regard to such a matter as that —surely it is an astonishing thing that the error in the cross-examination is reported in all these minutiae, yet there is not a suggestion nor was any question put as to the place being in dispute, and there is nothing in Lambert's evidence —either in 1887 or in 1895 —to suggest that. It is an astonishing omission from His Honour's notes. What I submit to the Commissioners is this: that what His Honour failed to see is that the alibi was only material to disprove the possibility of the conversation. But the fact of a conversation is admitted. Lambert has admitted it in cross-examination. I will call your Honours' attention to page 20, towards the bottom of the page: — " I know Templeton, of Wyndham. Had conversation with him. Can't say date. It was not about Meikle; it was about row in publichouse." He refers to a row in a publichouse, and Templeton referred to it. The fact that those two men were together is admitted by both of them. I would draw your Honours' attention to the second line in Lambert's examination in chief—viz., "Employed by company about beginning of September." The evidence taken just a month before in the lower Court is, "He was appointed two or three months before the date of his examination, which was the 18th November." That is to say, according to the latter's statement it was somewhere between the 18th August and the 18th September, and according to the other statement it was about the beginning of September. I do not think that even after his mistake Templeton need fear the responsibility of being pitted against Lambert; but I submit before he had left the box he had cleared his character. He stated the 24th September as the date, . and he appeared confident in cross-examination. His crossexamination "was a skilful one, but I say that he cleared his character before he left the box. He says he fixed the date of one point, but he cannot recollect any other date independently of his books, and he had not got his books in Court. It is not disputed that it was part of the prosecution's case that every one of the=e facts applied to the 24th August. It is admitted that every statement he made was correct, but they applied to the wrong dates. It leaves the matter in this
11
S.—2l
position: that he mado an incorrect statement; that he showed before leaving the box that it was an incorrect inference from admitted facts, and not a misrepresentation of fact. Could such a mistake possibly make him guilty of perjury? A further point is the credibility of the statement deposed to. The alleged remark was: — " Look here, Jack, the company wants me to go back on poor old Meikle, but I shall stick to Meikle." That does not prove anything to the discredit of Lambert. If it proves anything at all, it is that he was to deviate from his duty to his employers in order to screen Meikle, assuming that the company suspected Meikle, as no doubt they did. lam astonished that so much has been made out of so harmless a remark. I may further point out that if Mr. Templeton wished to commit perjury and to help Meikle surely be would have sworn to something that would have done him some good, and not to so colourless a statement. I submit that it is perfectly clear that the mistake was an innocent one. On the case coming on next morning Mr. MacGregor, counsel for Meikle, stated that Templeton had made a mistake as to the date. You will find on page 28 that, notwithstanding this withdrawal, witnesses were called by the Crown to confirm the withdrawal, and to make what I submit was a somewhat dramatic parade to the jury so as to give the impression to the jury that Templeton's evidence was not reliable. Mr. Justice Edwards: After Templeton's statement that he had made a mistake, was he not recalled ? Mr. Atkinson: Mr. MacGregor made the statement, and he was in Court. Mr. Justice Edwards: The usual course is to recall the witness. Mr. Justice Cooper: Where is the rebutting evidence called by the Crown? Mr. Atkinson: The last four names on page 28. Mr. Justice Edwards: There is nothing to indicate that. If looks as if they were all the prisoner's witnesses. Who does the rebutting evidence begin with? Mr. Atkinson: With Burgess; and Gregg also gives evidence as to the date. Mr. Justice Cooper: What is the proper date from your point of view? Mr. Atkinson: 24th August. Mr. Justice Edwards: Do you mean to say that the evidence can be corrected by altering the dates? Mr. Atkinson: That is one misprint; the " 17th September " is a misprint for " 17th October," but " 24th September "is Templeton's own mistake for " 24th August." I was just calling your Honours' attention to portion of Mr. Justice Ward's strictures on the witness Templeton. I have only two points to make in conclusion. In the first place, his evidence was so little relevant to the original inquiry that I should not hove thought of calling him only for these aspersions—to reply to whatever mistakes he made in 1887. You will find his evidence in the prosecution of Lambert. He was called upon that occasion and he repeated iiis statement, admitting that he had originally given another date, that he was confident about the date, and that he was proved to be wrong. Mr. Justice Edwards: In his first examination he seems to have said, " I can only speak from my book." Ido not see much in it. Mr. Justice Cooper: I suppose the only reason he was called was to throw some doubt on Lambert's testimony. Mr. Atkinson : There was no discredit for him to throw on Lambert's employment. Mr. Justice Cooper: I mean called in the original case because Lambert had been crossexamined on the original conversation and denied it; and he was called upon to contradict that. Mr. Justice Edwards: I cannot see much in it. He says it was Saturday night, independently of books. Mr. Atkinson: As I put it to your Honours, I was at a loss to understand how so much had been made about it, but it is apparent to your Honours there is not so much in it as appeared then. I refer your Honours first to page 40 because he did not admit the statement as to the date. If Templeton's evidence as to place was withdrawn in 1887—you will find in page 40 that he swears to the same place: — "John Templeton: I live at Wyndham. Formerly storekeeper and butcher. I remember Meikle's trial for sheep-stealing in 1887. I know Lambert. I remember seeing him before that trial. He had some conversation with me about it. Conversation was in the street at Wyndham." That was the same place, and how my learned friend will be able to persist that there was any withdrawal as to the place of the conversation after this I do not know. The conversation was somewhere in Wyndham. He repeats the place in cross-examination—Boyd's Hotel. That is the hotel out of which Lambert complained of having been "chucked." Anyhow, Templeton will be produced to answer his sins, whatever they are, and if I satisfy you he did not commit gross perjury, then, on the holding of Judge Ward in his second report, Meikle would probably have been acquitted on the rest of the case, and that is something to have got. The second important witness whom Judge Ward asperses is Harvey. lam very glad Templeton has been given first place. On the face of the record it was so easy to clear him, but Harvey's blunder is not susceptible of the same simple explanation. It seems he has not impressed Judge Ward as quite as hardened and deliberate a perjurer as Templeton, though I. shall show that Harvey's mistakes go irfinitely nearer to the root of the matter than the mistake of Templeton. In the first report Harvey's testimony is referred to as "most unreliable": "He swore to several conversations with Lambert, but his testimony was most unreliable throughout." I shall certainly concede that in one respect Harvey deserves the Judge's strictures to the fullest extent. He is hopeless on the subject of chronology, although in one date it was more than a day different; it was as to the month. He confuses the 9th November with the 9th'October; he makes that mistake in his examination in chief, and goes two or three times over it in cross-examination before he discovers it. Of course, possibly it may have been pointed out to him by counsel before he could see it. On page 24 he states : —
H.—2l
12
"He used to be talking (with Lambert) about this affair every time he was over. On the 9th November he was over—a Sunday." The 9th November was not a Sunday, but the 9th October was. It comes out in cross-examina-tion that it was a mistake —near the bottom or page 25, — " Mr. Meikle was at meeting on Bth November, so I recollect conversation with Lambert on 9th. I made mistake in month ; it was October. That, of course, is not much in the case of an ordinary witness, but in the case of Harvey it means a good deal as to absolute bona fide incapacity in point of time, because the Meikles had been arrested in the first week in November, and Harvey puts this conversation subsequent to their arrest. Of course, it saves his bona fides to admit his error as to the date, but renders it utterly impossible to place any reliance on him in point of time. The second is undoubtedly an error much more serious, because he puts certain events on the 17th October, when the crime is supposed to have been committed, and they undoubtedly did not happen upon that date. His inaccuracy is not so general and thorough as Judge Ward says on some points, although I have very little exception to take to the strictures in general, lie says (page 29; : — "Harvey swore that Lambert did not leave Meikle's house on the lith October till 10 p.m. (in which he was contradicted both by Lambert and Gregg), and that he (Lambert) was at Meikle's every other night, and sometimes two nights running (in which he was contradicted by Arthur Meikle and Mrs. Shiels, both witnesses for the defence)." That is not so. His Honour has there made a general statement which is not quite correct. On page 24 he says he was there "every other night and sometimes two nights running until just a few days before Arthur was arrested." That is a different thing from stating that he was there every night and sometimes two nights running during the whole period. He did not know he was there on the 17th October, and states that for some few days he had not been so regular. What I submit to your Honours with regard to Harvey's mistake is this—that which is plain : that the most relevant matter which he swore to as taking place on the 17th really occurred on the 18th, and the calendar being nothing to him—he not being able to distinguish month from month —his testimony must be regarded as valueless on any question as regards a date. It was subsequently explained by him. The question was gone into very fully before Mr. Hawkins, S.M., in 1895, and a curious thing about it is that the Magistrate delivered a written judgment, in which he stated Harvey was the most careful and conscientious witness, and confessed to making a gross mistake as to the date, having referred to the 17th what really occurred on the 18th. In March, 1895, there was an information before Mr. Hawkins which was dismissed. Unfortunately we have not got the depositions, but my friend may possibly be able to secure them. The meagre report, which is all that I have seen, does not explain. Mr. Justice Cooper: Was that the judgment Mr. Hawkins gave when he dismissed the information ? Mr. Atkinson: Yes, your Honour; that is the reason we have not the depositions here. The important point is that Harvey is dead and cannot be produced. Mr. Justice Cooper: I suppose he was examined on the second occasion before Mr. Hawkins also? Mr. Atkinson: He was in the Supreme Court too. I do not know whether the same counsel were engaged, but I presume when the matter came before Mr. Hawkins two months later Harvey's explanation had been accepted, and the matter was not threshed out again. He does not explain on the deposition on which Lambert was committed nor on Lambert's trial. What I understand from the evidence, independent from the depositions or papers, is that the witness's parents are in Scotland, that he wrote a ietter to Scotland and found out, three months after Meikle was in gaol, that he had sworn to the 17th what really occurred on the 18th. lam only suggesting reasons, of which Mr. Hawkins's judgment is perhaps most conclusive, as to the bona fides of the witness. There was a stronger point against Harvey, because he swore to one conversation on that date which could not have happened, and he ought to have known by that reference that he was speaking of the wrong date. However, I will leave that matter there. I dare say my learned friend will be prepared to give direct evidence as to what Harvey said, or he will be free to cross-examine Meikle. What I wish to put with regard to Harvey's mistake, Templeton's mistake, and the other case is that there is nothing in Harvey's evidence to suggest that he is wilfully misleading, and that Meikle had no part in his errors, for the reason that neither in this error or in any other is there any confirmation of one witness by another on a point that is proved to be erroneous Then, there is Judge Ward's statement that Harvey swore that he saw young Meikle at tea in the kitchen at 5 o'clock that afternoon. Young Meikle was too ill to be out that night, but Harvey swore that ho saw him at tea, and he was not at tea that night. What His Honour says about Mrs. Shiels is very slight. She had been a servant to the Meikles just before he was committed, and she left shortly before he was committed. Judge Ward says: — "Mrs. Shiels, another servant of the prisoner's, swore that Lambert told her that he was to get £50 for putting sheep-skins of the company's on Meikle's land; but her account of the conversation as given before the jury varied most materially from that given in the R.M. Court." I am not going to labour the point, as I may have an opportunity of replying if my friend attaches weight to that. The prisoner was not represented by counsel at that stage in the lower Court. Mrs. Shiels made a statement; she does not say £50, but '''money," and she names Cameron and Stuart as the persons who were to give it, instead of Cameron and Troup. The report proceeds: "Arthur Meikle, of course, contradicted Lambert's account." That "of course" is, I submit, somewhat hard on the young fellow, who is not here, by the way, to answer for himself, as he died while Mr. Meikle was in gaol in 1890 from some chest ailment he suffered from. The contradiction of Harvey has been contradicted by the latter's error as to date. Somewhat remarkably, Harvey is first shown to be worthless in his chronology, and then Arthur Meikle is blamed for disagreeing." At any rate, Mr. and Mrs. Meikle are here, and what he swore to in 1887 they are
H.-21
13
prepared to swear to now. But in 1887 the contradictions between Harvey and young Meikle were very serious; the attempt to set up an alibi for Arthur Meikle broke down and discredited the case accordingly. But it must have been established to the satisfaction of the jury in the trial of 1895, and I shall call all the witnesses who are alive to prove it for your Honours' satisfaction. Lambert's admissions constituted the second important branch of the case, and on this point the evidence was very strong. Of course, the whole atmosphere is very singular. The stories Lambert was telling to these people, according to their own evidence, were very remarkable. They evidently attached a large amount of credence to them. There is also the fact that Lambert repeatedly spoke on the subject of this £50, and of the arrangement made with the company. The evidence of that was voluminous, and it seems to me that it is beyond the possibility of concoction. There are two sets of witnesses, those in Meikle's household and independent witnesses outside. There is Harvey's statement (page 24), and the most important part was dealing on this point: — " Know Lambert. Often seen him at Meikle's since September until just a few days before arrested. He would be there every other night; sometimes two nights running. Heard him at end of September in Meikle's small kitchen, before Mrs. Meikle, Jane Geary (now Mrs. Shiels —she married shortly afterwards), and myself, Arthur, and Mr. Meikle, say that company had either offered or promised him £50 if he could get Meikle arrested. ' They want me to put things on to your property to get you into trouble.' He said he could not do it, and it was better to tell him what they were going to do. He said they were to put sheep-skins on the property; everj-thing to get him into trouble, so that he would not get to Wellington about this petition. He used to be talking about this affair every time he was over." Of course, there is no direct evidence in that and similar conversations deposed to by other inmates of the Meikle household. There is no evidence of Lambert's guilt. There is Lambert's own statement that he was acting for the company to get a conviction, and the way to go about it was to get on terms with Meikle and win his confidence, so that Meikle would not mind letting him see things that he would not let a person see not in his confidence. In some respects there is corroboration here of the graver statements of independent witnesses, but there is nothing in the conversation of Lambert with Meikle's servants and his son that gives direct evidence of his guilt. Mrs. Shiels, on page 26, says: — " Was servant at Meikle's two years and eight months. Left in beginning of October. I know Lambert. Saw him first at Meikle's about twelve months ago; also in September last. He said to Meikle, in kitchen, middle September, before Mrs. Meikle, Arthur Meikle, James Meikle, and myself that Cameron and Troup were to give him £50 to put sheep and skins on Meikle's property to get him convicted before going to Wellington. Heard him say so several times after. I heard him say he would get £50 for being a good boy. I remember nothing else." Cross-examined, the discrepancy comes out to which His Honour Judge Ward refers, — "Quite sure he said ' Cameron and Troup,' &c. Cannot fix date. Was examined in lower Court. I think I said about Cameron and Troup and the £50. (In depositions: ' Cameron and Stuart ' and nothing about the £50.) Had no conversation about case since." Then Arthur Meikle's statement is very similar on page 27: — "He spoke of Cameron and Troup. Said he was to get £50 to arrest father; to put sheep and skins on property. He said he would not do it. He said a man named Stuart had come to do it, a cleverer buck than him." I say the evidence has very little direct bearing upon Meikle's guilt, but a very direct bearing upon Lambert's guilt for the offence of perjury, for the reason that Lambert is contradicted over certain statements that all these witnesses have remembered with regard to the mention of the £50. So they were relevant to the second matter—the matter of Lambert's veracity, which, as I have already put to your Honours, cannot really be separated from the question of Meikle's innocence or guilt. And, of course, they afford some slight corroboration, at any rate, of the very damning statements which Lambert made to outsiders. I forget whether I have informed your Honours, but Mrs. Shiels was unable to give evidence in the trial of 1895—she was ill; but she is'subpoenaed now, and she will be here. Then the second class of witnesses, your Honours, are outsiders, and their evidence is of far greater importance, for two reasons—first, the witnesses are absolutely independent of Meikle's control, and, secondly, that the statements have a direct relevance to his guilt. First of all there is George Davie, on page 26—his name is printed as " Davis," but that is an error. Unfortunately, he also is dead, your Honours. It is a very circumstantial statement: — "Know Meikle. Worked for him. I know Lambert well; fourteen years. Seen Lambert on Sunday, 9th October, at his hut between 2 and 3 p.m. He was not in; waited until he came. I asked how he was getting on. He :'I am going to get sack. You see those fellows on horse; they have been brought up in my place. 1 suppose they think he is smarter than me.' I asked what he wanted to see me for. He said, in reference to Meikle. He was to get £50 to trap him; that they had been blaming Meikle for taking away sheep, and he was to catch him if he could, or he did not get the £50. 1 said, ' Which way do you intend to do it?' He: ' That is what I wanted to see you about.' He said something about putting skins or sheep on the place. I said, ' Did Meikle ever do you any harm?' He said, ' No, he did not.' 1 said, ' Don't you interfere; let them do their dirty work themselves, or you will be getting into trouble.' I asked how much a week he was getting. He said, a quid and mutton, and what rabbit-skins he could catch. ' I must have something out of them.' I advised him to have nothing to do with it. He said there was three or four coils of barbed wire lying in gully. I said he had better leave it alone, or barbed wire is likely to stick to any one. He said, ' I have 100 lb. grass-seed in hut. You might do something with it.' He asked how much per pound. I said, ' 1 know nothing of grass-seed.' He said, ' If you take that with you, you might get a quid for it, and you can give me half when I see you.' I said he had better do it himself. I would have nothing to do with it."
H.—2l.
If that is all imaginary I must say he certainly has a remarkable power of romance. We cannot have him here to see him. The cross-examination elicited that he had two bad marks against him. It is on page 27 : — " On the Bth April, 1885, got two months for stealing a saddle; 9th June, 1888, got three months for stealing wheel of threshing-machine." He was cross-examined on the details of this offence, and the second was evidently rather a question of disputed title to property. I am sorry Mr. Davie is not here to testify. He had repaired somebody's wheel, but held it against payment. It was taken away and he went and recovered it himself, and for the recovery of the wheel he got his sentence. Well, assuming his record cannot be said to be worse than Lambert's as it stands to date, we know at least Mr. Lambert had a direct pecuniary motive, and Davie, as an independent man, had nothing. But the witness who cannot be shaken either in his testimony or his credit is Alexander McDonald. He is a farmer in the Wyndham Valley. He is another independent witness, who, fortunately, is here to answer to his subpoena. His evidence is on page 27 : — " Know Meikle and Lambert. Had conversation with Lambert in Esk Street on the sth November. He asked if I knew that company were going to pull Meikle for stealing sheep. I: ' No; I noticed in papers they were pulling his son.' He : ' Meikle had nothing to do with sheep or skins; I could clear them of it if I liked.' That is all. Believe I asked him, 'What about skins and sheep?' He said, 'It is not much altogether.' Saw Lambert afterwards in Hewitt's Hotel, on the Bth November. Brother and Meikle with me. Meikle shouted. Six in room altogether. Morris Evans was one. Meikle and Lambert came out together into passage. Brother was outside. Meikle said, 'Be truthful, Lambert, and tell the truth on both sides.' Lambert said, ' Yes; I am waiting to get £10 blood-money from Stuart.' " The cross-examination was mainly in regard to the matter cf a horse of McDonald's, of which we shall hear something later on. There is nothing in the cross-examination that in any way, as it appears in the Judge's notes, shook Mr. McDonald's credit, and I say your Honours will be able to judge as to his credibility from the way he tells his story here to-morrow. Now, I would urge again in regard to these witnesses that the great concern of my client is to be free of the Judge's strong impression that he was guilty of procuring this false evidence, and I again point out that, so far as the servants are concerned, there is a general agreement as to the vague statements made about the £50, but there is nothing indicating Lambert's guilt, and no precise correspondence there suggesting concoction in regard to these outside witnesses. Even assuming Davie and McDonald had agreed at Mr. Meikle's request to swear falsely, they might, at any rate, have sworn to something on which there could have been some mutual corroboration by themselves or somebody else—l suppose, by Mr. Templeton for choice, according to the character he has been given. Therefore, I say, there is no possibility of suggesting concotion in regard to the evidence given by this set of witnesses. The minor points for the defence were the nature of the night. It was the night of Waters's sale, which everybody was familiar with in the country district, and which everybody remembered. It was stormy weather and a dark and very tempestuous night, and for an invalid lad, or even for a man who was not an invalid, it was obviously no light task to drive a small mob of sheep collected in the open country and bring them along a road-line, fenced on one side only, in the manner described by Lambert, and then put them in. Mr. Waters himself was called on that occasion, and his evidence is found on page 27 : — "Andrew" Waters, farmer, Wyndham: Sold off 17th October. Remembered day very wet and stormy. Very dark night; showery. Have experience of sheep—fourteen years. Difficult to have driven sheep that night, especially small mob. Cross-examined: Would not like to take it in hand. Cannot say how I might do with experience. Very difficult to drive small mob — almost impossible. Was in Wyndham that night—in and out of my house. AVas out at 10, and several times. Re-examined: Went out of stable to see friend off that night. Do not think lad of seventeen could drive sheep that night." Apart from the question of the difficulty of driving sheep was the fact that Lambert said there might have been a shower or two through the day, but it was not a wet night. Mr. Waters is dead. As to the point of the difficulty of entrance into this smithy, there was no direct evidence upon it in Meikle's defence, and so it was not very much pressed in cross-examination. The evidence in regard to the fences I have already dealt with, and I shall not add another word to that at this stage. Well, the result of it was that Mr. Meikle was found guilty, as I put it first of all so far as the evidence for the prosecution goes, on the sole testimony of Mr. Lambert, and that was undoubtedly aided by the failure of the alibi for Arthur Meikle. Mr. Justice Cooper: You say, on the sole evidence of Lambert plus the discrepancy as to the sheep-skins, which you say falls to the ground with Lambert's conviction. Mr. Atkinson: Yes. Mr. Justice Cooper: I might properly call it extrinsic corroborative testimom'. Mr. Atkinson: It was extrinsic then, but the conviction of Lambert for perjury proves the suggestion that he put the sheep there. Mr. Justice Cooper: Yes, it is exceedingly difficult to keep the two things apart; the two things merge. Mr. Atkinson: Then Mr. Meikle got a sentence of seven years, which, I submit to your Honours, was a terribly severe sentence of itself, and it was accompanied by words still more terrible to a man who values his reputation and that of his family—words about training " his son to perjury and his servants to plunder." Mr. Meikle protested his innocence in a long statement from the dock, a statement which could not be put ill evidence if we wanted to. These statements, I am instructed, were put into a petition to His Excellency the Governor from the gaol three months later, and in all material facts were found to represent the truth by the jury who convicted Lambert when Meikle came out of gaol. Mr. Meikle's communications from the gaol, so he was told by the officials there, could not reach headquarters because they were disrespectful in
14
15
H.—2l
language. This statement was not communicated to the prisoner, but to Mrs. Meikle. Ido not suggest tnat officially the correct course was not taken, but I would like to be allowed to make a statement here, your Honours, in regard to the disrespectful or violent language which might from time to time have discredited my client in the eyes of people in general. 1 only ask, and it is hardly necessary for me to ask, your Honours to remember that a man who has passed through what Meikle has passed through, assuming he is innocent, is not a man to be judged by any normal or abstract standard of decorum or good taste. If the man is innocent your Honours will not require to be reminded of what the shock must have been. It would work like madness in the brain, and sometimes these things result in actual madness. It is of such suffering and wrongs as that that lunatics are made, and anarchists, who are really moral lunatics, are made. I suppose most men would have gone to the asylum or the grave before the twenty years ware up, and I need not ask your Honours to overlook what to a man in an ordinary position might appear discrediting on that account. I submit this, further, to your Honours: that, so far from discrediting the substantial justice to my client's claim, any aberrations of that sort rather tend to support it than otherwise, because an impostor in the same position would have made infinitely better progress by going steadily, smoothly, and quietly to work, instead of making people regard him as a man with a grievance or a bee in iiis bonnet, and think that owing to his talking wildly he is not be believed. In my contention, your Honours, such behaviour is the natural outcome of the tragedy in Meikle's case if he is innocent. On my friend's hypothesis, which he may have to support, it is a very clumsy blunder which mars an otherwise most elaborate and sustained imposture. Now, with regard to Mr. Meikle's first petition from the gaol, dated the 26th March, 1888, the whole purport of which was to the effect which I have stated, there is no necessity for putting it in, though I shall submit it to my friend in case he should like to look at it and test the general statement I have made, but the sole quotation which seems to be relevant to put before your Honours is this statement: " That }-our petitioner strongly believes that Lambert put the sheep-skins in the buildings." I submit that was proved in 1895. Then he asks for a " sifting inquire' " into the whole matter, and that, your Honours, he did not get then, but he is getting vow. In one petition he asked for counsel and for the privilege of four sheets of paper—the normal gaol regulations only allowing for one —in order to communicate with counsel in Wellington. That was contrary to the regulations, and was not acceded to. Well, the immediate result of one of these petitions was the report of Mr. Judge Ward, most parts of which have already been considered, dated the 28th April, 1888. The prisoner's petition had been dated the 26th March, 1888. I submit confidently with regard to that report that it is neither so accurate in its statements of fact nor so judicial in its comments and inferences as such a document should be. I am not going to traverse the ground already incidentally covered in anatysing the evidence, but there are one or two points in the summary of facts contained in the first two paragraphs which are worth pointing out. For instance, there is the statement in the report that Lambert " saw the prisoner kill and dress two of them "•—that is, the company's sheep. Lambert's only evidence on the point was, — " After fat sheep were drafted out Arthur Meikle caught one and killed it. Elder prisoner had gone over to the house. After sheep was dressed he returned." That is to say, the report states that the prisoner kilted two sheep; the evidence and the notes show it was the young fellow who killed one. Then, reading from the report, — " He (Lambert) could see by the light of the lantern used the brands and earmarks of the sheep." That is, the brands of the sheep killed. But the evidence on page 19 of the printed report before your Honours, according to Lambert's statement, is, — " I did not see brand on sheep that was killed. ... I only saw earmark on that sheep." I would point out here that Lambert in the lower Court stated that he had not seen either. That is an exceedingly material contradiction, I submit, and the contradiction is a good deal more damaging than appears from that summary. Lambert's statement in the lower Court, in the depositions of 1887, in cross-examination by Mr. Wade, who was appearing for the prisoner, is this : — " There was no secrecy. The sheep was killed in my presence. I cannot say what brands were on it. For all I know it might have been cne of Meikle's. I supposed it was one of the company's sheep, but I did not look at the brand. I did not notice the earmarks. I thought it was the company's because it was in the mob he took off the turnips." Well, it is a most extraordinary position at which we arrive between Mr. Lambert and His Honour Judge Ward. Between them they exhaust all the varieties possible in dealing with these two things. Lambert, in the depositions, saw neither the earmarks nor the brands; in the Supreme Court he saw the brand ; and, according to Judge Ward in his report, he saw both. I submit that a contradiction of that sort is very serious. Dealing with matters after this lapse of time it might not be unnatural to find some contradiction in the evidence after the lapse of eighteen years and a half; but a witness who saw every detail of what happened and testified to it within a month after it happened would hardly go wrong in a really important point like that. Well, your Honours, I have already disposed of the ex post facto coincidence in the number of sheep/and also in regard to the amendment of the original information based on Lambert's report to fit the number found on search. I have aho disposed of the suspicion arising from the sheep being on Meikle's land, and the confirmation from the fences and pasture. "It would be difficult to form a clearer case for the Crown," says Judge Ward in his report. I submit that the case, excluding the two sheep-skins, which can no-longer be regarded as extrinsic evidence, was dependent on a single witness who was paid by results and is in contradiction with himself on vital points. Then Judge Ward at the end of his first report says, " I have seldom heard harder swearing than that of the witnesses for the prisoner." Now. what lam entitled to complain of in regard to that report are the omissions. The evidence of Mr. Meikle's servants and the evidence of Templeton are first dealt with. The witnesses are named, and reasons more or less sufficient are put aside, but the fact
16
H.—2l
that there was any evidence at all outside this —evidence that was not impugned at all—is not mentioned. Secondly, the contradictions of Mr. Meikle's witnesses with one another is very properly indicated, and also one or two minute points, such as Mrs. Shiels's discrepancy, are fully indicated; but as to Mr. Lambert himself, the man on whom the whole case rested, there is no suggestion, there is no word of warning as to the bias created in an impecunious man by such an offer, and no microscope turned at all on the improbability of his story, or on the glaring contradictions between the evidence given before the Justices and the evidence he gave in the Supreme Court. Then, your Honours, the report closed with some references I should rather not have dealt with. For prudential reasons they are not printed in the copy before your Honours. There is a note appeuded explaining their absence. 1 suppose my friend has the original report. I have here a copy of it with the Government Printer's imprint. Mr. Justice Cooper: They were in the New Zealand Times; that is where I saw them. Mr. Atkinson: The general charge is there, your Honour, in the very last sentence, — " The crime of sheep-stealing has long been rife in the Wyndham district, and it is fortunate that an example has been made of the central criminal." There was not a tittle of evidence upon the point. There was something, therefore, extra judicial in that. " Referring to the case Regina v. Scott " says the report. But why refer to it? I should have thought that this point was outside the scope of the report as much as of this Commission. It seems to come to this: " that if there is any doubt in regard to the stealing of those sheep, at any rate I am pretty sure he stole a horse." If after this lapse of time there is a desire to accuse my client of stealing a horse, then, we say, let Lambert or anybody else be produced; we are prepared to face them. With regard to this paragraph, lam absolutely indifferent as to its going in, but I wish to state on behalf of my client that there is not a syllable of truth in any of these inferences. Fortunately, Mr. Alexander McDonald is here and can be examined. I submit from the judicial point of view it is regrettable that an absolutely expert judicial statement of that sort should get into the report —a statement which was never heard" of, and which there was never any chance of dealing with until to-day. Dr. Findlay: Ido not know whether it will save time, but I would like to say this: My friend has occupied a good deal of time in attacking this report of Judge Ward's. I understand that the scope and purpose of this Commission is to answer the questions contained in it. I am not relying on anything Judge Ward says in these reports. I think that this Court will not accept these statements in face of the fact that you have the witnesses themselves here—that you have the direct material from which to come to a decision. I simply desire to remind my learned friend that it is not necessary to labour this part of the case, because I am not relying on it. Mr. Atkinson: It is unfortunate that my learned friend did not make that statement at an earlier period, because I have now done with the report. That was my last point. Dr. Findlay: The Judge himself will be called. Mr. Atkinson: So much the better. In that case how can you say that his statements are irrelevant to the inquiry? What lam going to say now is relevant to the fourth issue: — " As to the circumstances which led to the prosecution of the said William Lambert for perjury, and whether there was any understanding on the part of the said John James Meikle in taking proceedings for perjury against the said William Lambert." Meikle was discharged from the Nelson Gaol on the 10th November, 1892. On the Monday following he was in the office of the Minister of Justice in Wellington, and applied to him for assistance in the prosecution of Lambert. He did not get that assistance. He had a brief illness after getting home, and perhaps that might justify his inaction for the space of a month. On the 10th December, 1892, he addressed a public meeting at Wyndham on the whole subject—on his conviction and on his wrongs, as he alleged them —and he invited his friends to help him to get his wrongs redressed, and he invited anybody who had got any information bearing upon the case to apply to him. Mr. Justice Edwards: When was he discharged? Mr. Atkinson: On the 10th November, 1892. There was the usual remission for good conduct. Mr. Justice Cooper: He served the whole of his sentence? Mr. Atkinson: Yes. He repeated his request to the Justice Department from time to time in writing—requests for help for the prosecution of the man he alleged to be a perjurer. But the Crown authorities did not see their way to interfere. Meikle then turned and faced the task alone. Your Honours will realise that his money was gone and that his character was gone. You will realise the difficult task he had under those circumstances in tracking down a perjurer—after a lapse of five years, and during the whole of that time he had been lost to the outer world. His boy was dead; other important witnesses were dead; others were scattered abroad —some in Australia and others in different parts of New Zealand. Others were not very far off, but they were far enough away to elude his vigilance for months. He took legal advice from time to time. The first legal advice he took was in December —a month after he came out of gaol. He consulted Mr. Neave, of Gore, and he had advice from time to time as he went on, but he could not write a cheque for Mr. Neave or anybody else from time to time to depute them to see the case through. Every investigation had practically to be made by Meikle himself. He got on to scores of false scents at times. He had to take the evidence of witnesses himself, and practically he had himself to prepare the brief on which he got Lambert convicted of perjury. He did not spare shoe-leather or horses in his hunt, and I do not think my friend is likely to make a strong point of the statement as to any undue delay in the taking of proceedings against Lambert. What was perhaps the most important link in this part of the case was the evidence of the man McGeorge—the man referred to by Lambert as having left his hut on the Nth October —that being the date by which Lambert fixed the day on which he alleged he saw the stolen sheep. McGeorge was obviously a
17
H- 21
very important witness, but Meikle did not get hold of him till February, 1895, by chance, and he had two futile prosecutions in the meantime. This witness's evidence is of the utmost importance on the question of date. However, there had been two prosecutions before he got hold of McGeorge and they both failed. I think that Mr. Meikle must congratulate himself that they failed, because if it had not been for the evidence of McGeorge it would have been a much more difficult matter to have convicted Lambert. What Meikle actually did was this: he laid an information—he believes—in June, 1894, but that is a point he cannot swear to. His lawyer in Gore had two fires in this period, and a large number of documents had gone; but it would appear from the papers supplied to me that the date was the 2nd August, 1894. On that date the first information was sworn against Lambert—the first, at any rate, upon which proceedings were taken. It was heard on the 20th August, 1894, by Mr. Rawson, S.M., at Wyndham. In order to show the enormous difficulty in such a case, I may refer to a telegram from the Registrar of the Court at Invercargill, in answer to a request for a copy of the Judge's notes of the evidence at Meikle's trial, to which that officer answered that the associate replied that the note-book was missing, and the telegram continued, " Have written again describing note-book more fully." 'This was signed "A. C. Henderson, Invercargill." That shows that the notes taken in the Supreme Court were not available then. Proceedings were therefore taken for perjury before the Justices on the depositions that were available, and Mr. Rawson, S.M., committed Lambert for trial on a charge of perjury. On the 25th September the grand jury threw out the bill. Then Meikle set to work again and got hold of fresh evidence, and in March, 1895, he laid two more informations, one for perjury alleged to have been committed at Wyndham before Mr. Rawson at Wyndham in 1894, and the other for perjury alleged to have been committed before the Justices on Meikle's committal in 1887. Those proceedings came before Mr. Hawkins, S.M., in March, 1895, and on the 21st March he dismissed the information. The depositions taken on that occasion are the only documents my friend has not supplied me with. I was anxious to see them owing to the difficulty about Harvey's testimony which satisfied the Magistrate, but the details do not appear in the newspaper report. I would like to see those depositions. » Dr. Findlay: You got everything you asked for. Mr. Atkinson: Yes, I have been very well treated in that respect. That is one new material point which ought to be before this Commission—Harvey's explanation with regard to his blunder as to the date. Then, the third information was laid on a charge of perjury alleged to have been committed in the Supreme Court in 1887. Those proceedings were taken by Mr. Hawkins, S.M., and on the 23rd May he committed Lambert for trial. In the following month —June, 1895—Mr. Justice Williams told the grand jury that Lambert's evidence was certainly material to Meikle's conviction, and that without him Meikle would not have been convicted. The grand jury found a true bill and the accuser and accused came face to face again in the Supreme Court in the same place, and with their positions reversed. I need hardly remind your Honours of the enormous difficulties of the prosecution. Obviously the presumption against my client's case was almost overwhelming. His witnesses were discredited, he himself was still more discredited, and the notes of the evidence taken at his trial were not available. Mr. Justice Edwards: They would not have been admissible if they had been available. Mr. Atkinson: No, but they would have been a grand thing to have on a brief. I will summarise the position at that time. Davie, Arthur Meikle, and Waters were dead, Mrs. Shiels was ill, Templeton and Harvey were called, Macdonald was subpoenaed but was not called. He is subpoenaed now and will be called at this inqury. The other witnesses not called were those giving evidence as to the fences, which, obviously, was not a material point in Lambert's case as it had been in Meikle's trial. Then there was a large amount of new evidence called against Lambert, a considerable quantity of which was not previously available. Lambert had one advantage which Meikle had not got in 1887. He was not disqualified on his own trial as Meikle had been, but both Lambert and Mrs. Lambert were witnesses. Eliza Howe was a new witness. She was a nurse in Meikle's house. She gave evidence as to Arthur Meikle's illness. It was pretty material evidence as to his health. The reason I refer to it especially now is that Mrs. Howe is dead, and the only testimony we have from her is the record on page 36 in Mr. Justice Williams's notes! The following is the note: — "Eliza Howe, nurse: Have been to Meikle's on more than one occasion to nurse his wife. I was there when Isabella was born—2Bth September, 1887. I have no interest in the matter. 1 only knew the Meikles nursing. I think I was there about a week before the child was born. At that time I knew Arthur. He was in bad health. He suffered from the throat. He was never out after Bor 9. He was never away from the place at all so far as I know. I remember seeing" Lambert there. I saw him more than once. He said he was to get £50 from Cameron and Troup to put skins in Meikle's place, to catch Meikle. On one occasion he said there were two men coming, and he would let Meikle know the night they were coming; one was to wear dark clothes, the other grey clothes, and Meikle was to fire at the one in grey clothes. I complained. I said such a man should not be allowed about the place. He was talking to Meikle in earnest. I did not hear whether he said he was willing to do it. He made no concealment about it." Ido not think there was anything material about the cross-examination. Then there was the" evidence of Mr. Henderson, Registrar of the Supreme Court in 1887, and Mr. Kelly, foreman of the jury that convicted Meikle, was called to prove generally Lambert's evidence, and especially to fix the date. They appeared as witnesses called at Lambert's trial, beginning on page 31. Then the old alibi that had failed through Harvey's blunder in 1887 was proved, or, at any rate, evidence was called to prove it. Tt will be recalled to-day—all of it that is available will be recalled. Harvey repeated his previous statements with the date amended. Mr. and Mrs. Meikle testified, and they are here to repeat their statements. Then a very extraordinary■ piece of evidence in the case was the proof of another alibi of a very complicated character by Waddell, Barclay Fraser, and McGeorge. I will explain in a moment the nature of that alibi. Barclay ' 3—H. 21 r
H._ 21
18
is dead, but the other three will be here. Muir was called as to the nature of the night and the possibility of driving sheep. He was on the road that night and was stopped, partly because his horse was tired and partly owing to him being too far from home. Ryder and Henderson gave evidence as to Lambert's admissions, which were in every way as precise as the evidence of Davie and McDonald, who were not believed by the jury in 1887. Forsaith and Connor gave evidence as to sheep getting through the fences, and then the most remarkable point of all was the finding of McGeorge, who had handed some sheep-skins to Lambert a few days before he left. Now, your Honours, the strongest point in Lambert's defence has been the endeavour to cast doubts on his precise fixing of the date on which the sheep were said to have been stolen —the question as to whether or not it was the 17th October on -which he saw Arthur Meikle driving sheep off the turnips. In the first place, you will remember that he fixed in the Supreme Court, as the 17th with reference to McGeorge's leaving. And Gregg, who supplied the only point of confirmation, was also clear it was on the night McGeorge left. The 17th, I put it, was fixed with reference to Waters's sale. Neither of these points was in dispute —as to McGeorge's leaving and Waters's sale. Mr. Henderson, the Registrar, and Mr. Kelly swore to the 17th as having been positively fixed by Lambert as to date. There had been vagueness in his previous testimony—in one part of his previous evidence —before the committing Justices. He said, " about the 17th." At that time about eight weeks had been given as the period of a series of crimes in the information before the Justices. The thing was narrowed in time until it came down to twenty-seven sheep and one ram on the 17th October. McGeorge was produced, and will be produced again. He did not know much about the date. His evidence will be found (page 39): — "lam a farming man ; was so in 1887. In employment of Mortgage Company. Meikle lived close by. I remember when Meikle was charged with sheep-stealing. I left that particular station of company and went to another station in 1887. I would not like to say I know date I left that station. I know Roderick Barclay. I saw Barclay the day I left that station. I had known him a long time, meeting him backward and forward. I am sure I met him that day. I know a man Frank Fraser. I met him that day. I had not seen Frank Fraser for two or three years before that. I have not seen him again since. I saw him at Gore about two months ago. I met Fraser at Hugh Cameron's, at Mataura Bridge. About perhaps half past 11. I know Lambert. He was in employ of company also. He slept in same hut as me. He would know I had gonr\ Before I left —maybe a week or a fortnight—Lambert said he wanted a couple of sheep-skins for mats. I left them for him on the fences. I expect it would be last trip I went to station on Saturday. I know I left station on the Monday. On two different occasions I brought skins in from station. The skins were there left; he could see for himself. They were the company's skins." The only point material is in cross-examination, — " I left the two skins hanging on the wire fence alongside Lambert's hut. I could not tell whether they were fresh or old skins, or whether they were branded or not. I could not be sure whether they were hanging on the fence when I left on the Monday. I was not a witness in the Supreme Court when Meikle tried. There were sheep where the turnips were. There were some old ones when I left; more than twenty or thirty—perhaps three or four hundred. While I was there sheep could not have been taken past hut without my knowing. Dogs would have barked. I did not see Lambert the day I left. Re-examined: 1 have no friendship with Meikle. Only met him once or twice. The night I left station was very wet. I was pretty well wet through. It was a very dark night. I had three horses and a dray with me." So McGeorge could not fix a date in the calendar, but he could fix the day of the week. Then Fraser, who had not met McGeorge for many years—sixteen years—remembers meeting McGeorge on a very wet day at Mataura Bridge. He saw Lambert the same night at Humphries's Hotel at Mataura. Lambert said, "For God's sake keep me away from that constable," meaning Leece. and they parted company between 8 and 9 o'clock that evening. Then there is the evidence of Barclay, who states: — ." I geld horses. I have done that for Waddell. I have done it for twenty-eight years. For Waddell for some years—ten or twelve. I remember that year Meikle was charged with sheepstealing. I cut for Waddell that year a yearling and a two-year-old. I do not know the date. September, October, November, and December are the months I travelled. This was about the middle of season. I remember the day. I remember leaving McGeorge that day. He was an old chum of mine. Had not seen him for years. Cross-examined by McAllister: Meikle and T have not been friends since he came to the district. I have met him often since. It was a fine forenoon. It came on fearfully in the afternoon. Lambert was at Waddell's that day. I went to Otira that night. I could not say what time I left Waddell's. He had lunched there. Otira is fifteen miles away. I was riding. It was a wet and boisterous night. It was raininc when we started." So that his knowledge there was of no help. He remembers it as a wet and boisterous night. Remembers meeting Lambert at Waddell's that day, and that they lunched there together. Waddell, who is an entire stranger to Meikle until the same month as he met McGeorge in 1895, asked if he had any memorandum as to the employment of Barclay, looked it up and found tha* Barclay had performed certain work and that Lambert was with him on the 17th October. He says probably in the forenoon He says:.— " It would take a man in no particular hurry two hours and a half or three hours going from Mataura to Lambert's." Muir, at page 36, testifies to the character of the night. Ido not think Muir's evidence was sufficient to call it important. He says: — "Farmer, Wyndham Valley: I remember 17th October, 1887. Day of Waters's sale. It was a stormy day; rainy, dark night. I had experience with sheep. I have had ten years' experience, and beyond that other experience in sheep. I was on the road that night, coming horn Wyndham to my own home, I stopped seven miles from home at Mr. Benjie's. Stopped
19
H.—2l
partly with reference to night and darkness, and fatigue of horse. It was not in my experience fit night to drive sheep. Not possible to drive them in rough country. Once been past Meikle's place. It is rough country. Could not drive sheep there. If you had them in control between fences you would possibly be able to do so. To go from Mataura to Meikle's would take me about two hours' riding in the dark. Cross-examined: A good deal depends on the dog." That is important to fix both the driving of these sheep and for expeditious travelling, but 1 submit, with regard to the proof of that alibi, that no evidence could possibly have been more conclusive. It was astonishing to be able to get it, and a man was entitled to take so many months to get it after the lapse of that time. They are independent witnesses—some substantial men — and no one witness knew enough to help Meikle or damage Lambert. Waddell remembers them being there. Barclay remembers that he met Lambert there and met McGeorge. McGeorge remembers it was the day he left the station, and Fraser and he met McGeorge, whom he had not seen for years, and saw Lambert the same evening at Humphries's Hotel at Mataura. Now, the estimate of two hours and a half to cover the distance between Mataura and Lambert's place is given. Lambert in his original testimony stated that on the night of the 17th October he left Gregg's at between 9 and 10 o'clock after having previously been at Meikle's house. He says: — "On night 17th October was at Meikle's first; then went over to Gregg's. . . . Saw Gregg at fence when I got over to his place I was speaking to him for a few minutes, and then he came half-way to hut with. me. Left Gregg's between 9 and 10. He left me half-way between hut and his house. Shortly after—l had just got across fence and on to road-line—l met Arthur Meikle with a mob of sheep. It was not very dark." I submit that in two senses these witnesses are independent; they are independent of any obligation to Meikle —Waddell swore that in 1895 Meikle was an entire stranger to him—and in their testimony they are independent of one another. The inability of each to supply any testimony which in itself went to establish the alibi was coercive proof as to the bona fides and correctness of the evidence. It is impossible, if these men spoke the truth, that Lambert was at Meikle's, Gregg's, or the turnip-field at the time he says he saw young Meikle driving the sheep there. As to Lambert's reply regarding the date, I may say, with regard to Lambert's defence, which stood in 1895 in the precise position that the prosecution of Meikle stood in in 1887, it rested on Lambert alone. He won his money in 1887, and paid the penalty in 1895. There were serious contradictory statements to discredit him. In his defence he says he only said "about the 17th." I shall quote his reference to the date. He only said " about the day." Then he said it was that night or the next night. Then there were, in addition to the evidence I have cited which was not local evidence and some of which was not available there, the indictment. Meikle was the chief witness to the alibi that failed in 1887. His evidence on the alibi was as to what happened on the Nth October, and also as*to Lambert's important visit on the Ist November, the night before the police came to search. Then there is Mrs. Meikle as to Arthur's illness, and that night and for several days and weeks at the same period as to Lambert's conversation. Then there are two extraordinary and remarkable witnesses, one of whom had a bad mark against him (Ryder), and one of whom (Mr. Henderson) is entirely without suspicion. There is Ryder's evidence, on page 40, as to admissions made by Lambert of a very similar kind to that testified to by Mr. McDonald, and disbelieved in 1887. Ryder says: — " Labourer, now working on the railway. On two occasions got convicted of larceny. I have seen Lambert. I only knew him knocking about. I have seen Meikle a few times. Not spoken to him very often. I know his son Arthur very well. I remember meeting Lambert at hotel in Wyndham after Meikle was convicted of sheep-stealing. He might have been a little elevated. I think it was about five years ago. Meikle's trial was mentioned. I think Lambert mentioned it. We were having a few drinks at the hotel. Lambert said he was sorry he had anything to do with it. He said, ' The money I have received has done me no good.' He says, ' I put them there all right.' I understood him to mean the skins. Ido not know what I said. I said, "It is an awful thing for a man like him to put another man away that was innocent.' He made a rush at me. I bolted. I went to tell Meikle. I only knew Meikle by speaking to him in the street. This happened long before I got into any trouble. It was long before I got into any trouble I made Meikle acquainted with it." There is nothing in the cross-examination, I think, to shake the testimony or add to it. Lambert called one witness on the point. Lambert admitted the conversation (pages 46 and 47 of hi 3 testimony); and he says there was some row on account of Ryder accusing him of the crime, and he resented it. Benjamin Sherwill gives evidence, at the bottom of page 46 and on page 47. He says: — " I saw Ryder when he was giving his evidence at Wyndham. I remember Ryder and Lambert being in billiard-room. They were intoxicated and annoying my customers. I heard Ryder make use of bad language. He accused Lambert of having put Meikle away. Lambert made a rush at Ryder and Ryder went away. Cross-examined: I heard nothing about sheep-skins before that. There was conversation before that." Then I gave all the testimony there is on that point on Lambert's side. With regard to Henderson, who was a witness on Lambert's trial (page 31), he gives evidence of a very remarkable conversation of similar purport. Henderson is dead, and we can only rely on what appears on page 31 of these notes. The main part of his testimony refers to the fixing of the dates: — " I saw Lambert at Otautau. About eight months ago, while he was waiting trial on a similar charge to this. I did not know him while conversation was going on. I made inquiries and found out who he was afterwards. The man with whom I had a conversation at Otautau was prisoner. I was standing at door of hotel. lam sure he knew me. He referred first to Meikle's case. I made the remark, 'It was a dreadful thing that a man could be found for fifty notes to swear another man's life away.' I can only give the gist of his answer. It was something to the effect that Meikle was no good. He said that he was a bad b , and that he would give him mor<>
H.—2l.
yet. He looked past me and saw some man making a sign to him, and he left me. I then inquired and found out who he was." Lambert's reply to that is to deny it (page 46) : — " After I was committed for trial I saw Henderson at Otautau. He said he was sorry for me; he thought I could get a better counsel. He said he was better than McAllister. He did not come again. I think I told him to go to a warm place. The evidence I gave in Supreme Court is what I believe to be ture." So that the subject was not even touched as far as one can gather from Lambert's story there, but, of course, he will be here to tell it first hand to this Commission. Mr. Justice Edwards: Was Mr. Henderson in practice at that time? Mr. Atkinson: He was Registrar of the Supreme Court in 1887, and a private practitioner in 1895. Mr. Justice Edwards: He appears on these notes as "Arthur Chillas Henderson, solicitor, Supreme Court of New Zealand, formerly Registrar Supreme Court, Invercargill." Mr. Atkinson: Then, the last, perhaps the strongest, single witness of all the new witnesses was McGeorge, whose testimony I have already quoted, your Honours, on the question of chronology, and also on the question of the loan of these skins. It was at page 39 of that evidence, which your Honours may have noticed. His cross-examination contains an important point for Meikle. The witness's remark that he left two skins hanging on the wire fence alongside Lambert's hut is very material to my client's case. It was stated by Lambert in 1887 that the skins were spread on bags in the smithy. It was stated by the police and company's servants that the skins were found in the middle of a pile of Meikle's skins, about fifteen of which were stretched on a beam or rafter in the smithy. They were laid along there all together. Mr. Justice Edwards: Not one on top of another? Mr. Atkinson: Yes, your Honour. As I read the evidence, they were laid along one on top of the other. There was some attempt made in 1887 to indicate the marks on these. There were special marks on them. That was the manner in which the skins produced had been treated in order to produce the marks that had been on them. I need not go into that point, because it was a small point then, but it became an exceedingly material point in 1895 with McGeorge's evidence to support it. Alexander Grieves evidence (page 41) states that he was manager of Pine Bush Station, and had a good deal of experience with sheep. I am instructed that he was an entire stranger to Meikle at the time of his trial. Apparently he was down to see what was on at the trial. He says: — "If sheep-skins are dried on a wire fence they show the wire mark. I inspected two skins produced at Police Court at Wyndham in connection with this matter. They had indications of having been dried on the wire. The wire mark was on them." At this stage the Commission adjourned until 10.30 a.m. the following day.
Dunedin, Wednesday, 2nd May, 1906. Dr. Findlay: If your Honours please, I desire to bring before you what technically, I take it, is a contempt of this Court. Mr. Meikle last night, between the hours of 7 and 8 o'clock, grossly insulted Mr. Fleming, a respectable man, and a witness I have brought from Invercargill. He happens to be staying at the Grand Hotel, and outside that hotel Meikle told him that he was in conspiracy with Mr. Mac Donald, who sits besides me here, and Judge Ward to injure him, and that he (Mr. Meikle) and Mr. Meikle's family would hound Mr. Fleming as long as he lived. This was said in a very high tone, with the utmost threat and violence of demeanour, and Mr. Fleming is very much upset by it, this having taken place in a public street. I can establish that by calling Mr.. Fleming and witnesses who heard it. I ask your Honours to protect us from that kind of conduct on the part of Meikle. Mr. Atkinson: I can only say my friend mentioned to me a moment ago that he was going to mention the matter to your Honours, and I had only time to consult my client while my friend was speaking. I can only say, your Honours, that I entreated my client yesterday to leave the otherwitnesses absolutely alone, and hold no conversation of any kind with them. It does not appear he sought out this man —it was in the street —and, though iam not in a position now to challenge my friend's statement, I can only say, so far as I am concerned, I deeply regret there was any conversation at all, and it will not be with my consent that there will be conversation of any kind whatever. Mr. Justice Edwards: We shall call upon Mr. Meikle to show cause at 10.30 a.m. to-morrow. Address by counsel continued. Mr. Atkinson: Your Honours will understand from some remarks in my opening yesterday the difficulty I have in respect to the matter just mentioned. I refer to the way my client is overcome by his troubles. lam glad your Honours have given us time to look into the matter between now and to-morrow morning. The point I was at yesterday, your Honours, when the adjournment was taken was as to McGeorge's evidence, and as to his gift of these skins to Lambert a few days before he left. I pass McGeorge's evidence, but I shall put it to your Honours that McGeorge's evidence and cross-examination as to his leaving skins hanging upon the wire fence was confirmation of the point of which something had been endeavoured to be made in the cross-examination of 1887, and also of direct evidence that was called upon the point to supplement Mr. Meikle's case against Lambert in 1895. Lambert's statement, as your Honours may remember, was that the skin was left on some bags of lime in the smithy, and the statement of the police and those with them at the search was that the skin was found among a bundle of a dozen or so of the
20
H.—2l.
prisoner's lying in a heap on a beam in the smithy. The first evidence called upon the .point as to whether the skins which were produced at the Court in 1887 corresponded with the skins which had been hung up as McGeorge said, or with the skin which had been placed as Lambert said he saw the skin of a dead sheep placed on.the night of the 17th, and with the skins as found by the police when they made search—the first evidence called on that point was that of Mr. Grieve, to be found on page 41 : — "Alexander Grieve, manager, Pine Bush Station" [who, as I am instructed, your Honours, was a stranger to Mr. Meikle, but who was down at the inquiry before the Magistrate at Wyndham, and saw the skins produced there]: " Had a good deal of experience with sheep. If sheep-skins are dried on a wire fence they show the wire mark. I inspected two skins produced at Police Court at Wyndham in connection with this matter. They had indications of having been dried on a wire. The wire mark was on them." That was a man whose attention neither party at that time directed to the skins. Then Mr. Westacote, on the same page of the evidence, says: — "My attention was drawn to two skins outside the Court. I never saw the skins in the Court. The skins I saw looked as if they had been dried on a wire fence. Skins present the appearance of being dead wool —sheep that had died on the run." Then even one of Lambert's witnesses, on the following page, about half-way down —William Stuart—in his cross-examination, says: — " I did not think the skins would show mark of wire. I did not think the skins were newly taken off. If they were'taken off a week or two before they would be fresh skins. These skins did not look like skins that hacLbeen taken from sheep on the 17th of October. They might." That is not corroboration as to the wire marks, but is is as to the appearance as to the skins, and as to his inference as to age, and as to the improbability of the skins corresponding with the date to which Lambert refers, assuming this might be taken as a skin that came off a sheep killed on the Nth October. Well, as my friend in one of his interruptions yesterday remarked, of course this is not an essential part of the case for the prosecution in 1887, but it certainly appears to be a part of Mr. Lambert's case, because he contradicts the statements on this point just as strongly as he contradicts all the witnesses for Mr. Meikle —that is to say T , he is perfectly satisfied that the appearance of the skin which the police found corresponds with the appearance of the skin of a sheep killed on the Nth October. On page 46, about half-way down, he says: — " The skins were not six weeks old. I say they were not older than fifteen days." Well, that was the exact interval from the 17th October to the Ist November, when the search was made, so that Lambert, at any rate, was prepared to swear that, and his theory was that one of the skins which was produced was a skin taken from the sheep he saw killed. Just one more point with regard to the evidence in Lambert's prosecution, and the iinding of McGeorge, and the consequential fixing of the alibi of Lambert at Mataura on the night in question, which was one of the most important of the new features introduced in the case in 1895. There was one other wdiich, I submit, was scarcely, if at all, of secondary importance—namely, the circumstance that fourteen days before Mr. Meikle is alleged to have stolen these sheep he told the police that a trap was to be laid for him of the exact kind into which he fell. A most extraordinary circumstance, your Honours. If your Honours will turn to the original depositions of 1887, page 11, at the beginning of Detective Ede's cross-examination by the accused you will find this: — " I saw you at Invercargill on the 3rd or 4th of last mouth." [The depositions were taken in November, and this refers therefore to the 3rd or 4th October.] "We had a conversation. You told me you expected there would be a spree and that I would have a job. You said you had been informed that sheep and sheep-skins were to be put on your land by the company. You told me that two men were to get £50 each as soon as you were arrested." That was a statement by ihe prisoner to the police fourteen days before the date of the alleged crime was to be fathered on him in the exact manner in which it has been fathered on him. As was said yesterday, my friend is not here as Lambert's counsel, but he is certainly here, I maintain, to prosecute the case made for the prosecution of Meikle in 1887, and I am only anxious that he shall exercise all his well-known ingenuity to explain that circumstance consistently with the guilt of my client. Now, your Honours, one of the most tragical incidents in the whole position is that that evidence was tendered in the Supreme Court at Invercargill and ruled out by Judge Ward. Of course, there were only two persons who could have tendered it. It was impossible by law for Mr. Meikle to tender it, but Detective Ede was in the box as a witness for the Crown, and it was in cross-examination by Mr. MacGregor that the point arose. Well, the question was disallowed, but, unfortunately, your Honours, on the notes it does not appear at all even that the point was raised, but I think, if necessary, I can satisfy your Honours upon that. I might point out to your Honours that the matter did get in in Lambert's prosecution in 1895. It appears on page 34 of the printed evidence, though, of course, not in detail. Mr. Meikle was in the box, — " I made a complaint on 3rd October, 1887, to Detective Ede, at Invercargill, in consequence of what Lambert had told me." Mr. Justice Cooper: Well, that was admissible; but the particulars were not given in evidence. Mr. Atkinson: Apparently, your Honour, they were given in the box but they were not taken down by His Honour. However, it is sufficient for me to point out there is the fact of the complaint appearing there, and there is the substance of what was said appearing in the depositions in 1887. Well, your Honours, lam pleased to have that circumstance, in the first place because, whatever the technicalities of the law may be —and this Court is not so tied in reviewing the whole position—l cannot imagine any single circumstance that is more conspicuously eloquent of innocence than that particular circumstance. I am glad, your Honours, also, for the reason that even if your Honours or my friend can suggest some deep design that negatives such inference, there is also this feature in it very satisfactory to my case: As I was saying yesterday, the whole atmosphere surrounding Lambert on any theory whatever abounds in improbabilities. In regard
21
H.—2l.
to the cock-and-bull story he told about the night of the Nth—l have not dealt with it in detail but only in the most striking contradiction —your Honours, on reading the evidence, can find all sorts of improbable incidents. On the other hand, the whole of Lambert's behaviour in the house, as alleged by the defence, was wildly extravagant and improbable. But this inference is surely a confirmation of the statements, which Judge Ward failed to credit, and, I presume, the jury failed to credit, of a number of Mr. Meikle's witnesses as to what Lambert was saying about the £50. It is surely absolute confirmation on that point that such statements were made, or were believed by Meikle to have been made, before the date of the alleged crime. Of course, there may be a case—and the rule of law is no doubt founded on the generality of such cases —I can easily imagine a case where a prisoner contemplating a crime might, by way of bluff or putting the authorities on a false scent, assume the position of a probable victim in order to increase the probability of acquittal, after he himself in the meantime had committed the crime which he said somebody else was going to commit. But I submit, your Honours, that theory could not apply to a case like this, where, if Mr. Meikle was a criminal, the skins which were fouud could have been put out of the road in five minutes. How is it compatible with any theory of ingenious artifice to put suspicion on any one else when the whole of the traces could have been put so out of the way that there need be no suspicion on anybody? That, it seems to me, is the difficulty of any attempt, however ingenious, to construe that communication to the police as anything but evidence of innocence. Well, I submit, your Honours, that such a statement, if proved before any tribunal that is competent to receive it, in an ordinarily doubtful case would turn the balance easily enough. I submit that in this case it simply throws the light of absolute certitude upon a case which has an overwhelming probability in its favour already. Now, surely my client is also entitled to complain—l do not know, your Honours, what rule there may be on the subject, or what is the understanding of the Judges as to their duty in reporting to the Crown in these cases, and whether they go outside the sworn evidence before them; but whatever the rule is, if the narrow construction is the normal one, Judge Ward did not observe it in that report. He put in a good deal of extraneous, not to say rhetorical, matter, and surely the one extraneous matter which was inadmissible in the Court but should have gone into that report was the statement of Detective Ede as to wdiat the prisoner had said to him on the 3rd or 4th October. That surely is another deplorable omission from that report. Mr. Justice Cooper: Ido not understand there is any rule on the matter. When lam asked to report by the Executive I do report, and give my opinion as to whether the conviction was justified by the evidence. Mr. Atkinson: The theory of the Executive revising a judicial proceeding at all—or a large part of the theory—is based upon the presumption that there may be in certain special case-; certain evidence technically inadmissible which nevertheless may properly influence the mind of the Executive. Mr. Justice Edwards: It is difficult to see how you can ask the Executive to reverse the finding of a jury upon a question of fact. When was the report made? Mr. Atkinson: April, 1888. Mr. Justice Edwards: When was the trial? Mr. Atkinson: The trial was in December, 1887; the prisoner's petition was forwarded in March. Coming now to Lambert's defence at his trial. It is an exceedingly simple matter with regard to all the evidence except his own. The evidence for Lambert's defence in 1895 is confined, I think, to six witnesses, exclusive of himself, and it is very difficult indeed to find a single fact in the testimony of any of the six witnesses which is really relevant to the issue. There is Mr. Stuart, one of the company's employees, and Constable Leece. They simply swore as to the search and discovery on the occasion of the original information against Meikle. Then there is Mr. Harvey, solicitor for the company, who was called apparently in the hope of proving a date, but he could not fix the date. There was Mr. Carrick, a reporter, who was called for the same purpose, but he also could not recollect it. Then there were two witnesses, but they are expert witnesses, who are not dealing directly with the res gestw at all. I suggested yesterday, and I did not understand your Honours to dissent, that to interpret " experlo crede " as meaning " trust an expert " would be to cast a very underserved slur upon the popular wisdom summed up in these maxims. But I venture now to give the following definition of an expert: — " An expert is a person of unimpeachable veracity who is qualified by the profession of special knowledge to draw a special fee for making any general statement calculated to be of service to the party who calls him." Mr. Justice Cooper: Is that a technical definition laid down by a competent authority? Mr. Atkinson: Not a judicial authority as yet, your Honour. Mr. Justice Cooper: You will find another definition given by Sir George Jessell. Dr. Findlay: Or in " Taylor on Evidence." Mr. Justice Edwards: The gentleman who prepared that definition has not presided in a Compensation Court. You will get plenty of respectable witnesses—men whom you know are respectable —as we had in the Hatuma case, saying that certain land was worth, say, a quarter of a million, whereas other witnesses —highly respectable sheep-farmers and others —give a wholly different valuation. But even as regards scientific men it is wonderful how easy it is to get the class of evidence you require. Mr. Atkinson: Yes, the natural bias comes in. Several witnesses were called relative to the fences in 1887, and one of them -was called relative to the question I am coming to now —viz., the question of the possibility of navigating a mob of sheep through the smithy-door through which those sheep were supposed to have been taken. Mr. Justice Cooper: This is what Sir George Jessell says in reference to an expert:— " Now, I will consider the evidence on this point, but before doing so I must say how the
22
H.—2l
23
plaintiffs contest it. They contest it by producing the evidence of some experts, whose evidence was met by at least as many experts on the part of the defendants. As to this, I may say what I think I have said before, that in matters of opinion I very much distrust expert evidence, for several reasons. In the first place, although the evidence is given upon oath, in point of fact the person knows he cannot be indicted for perjury, because it is only evidence as to a matter of opinion. So you have not the authority of legal sanction. A dishonest man, knowing he could not be punished, might be inclined to indulge in extravagant assertions on an occasion that required it. But that is not all. Expert evidence of this kind is evidence of persons who sometimes live by their business, but in all cases are remunerated for their evidence. An expert is not like an ordinary witness, who hopes to get his expenses, but he is employed and paid in the sense of gain, being employed by the person who calls him. Now, it is natural that his mind, however honest he may be, should be biassed in favour of the person employing him, and accordingly we do find such bias. I have known the same thing apply to other professional men, and have warned young counsel against that bias in advising on an ordinary case. Undoubtedly, there is a natural bias to do something serviceable for those who employ you and adequately remunerate you. It is very natural, and is so effectual, that we constantly see persons, instead of considering themselves witnesses, rather consider themselves as the paid agents of the person who employs them." —Jessel, M.R., in Lord Abinger v. Ashton, 17 Eg. 375. He says further: — " Suppose a man wants to sell a house, and he wants a very high value put upon it, he sends to ten valuers, and out of these he selects the three who have put the highest value on the house. The purchaser wants a very low-value, and selects out of a number of valuers three of the lowest. Each set of valuers values high or low according to the requirements of the person who employs them."—Page 375. Mr. Atkinson: The last observation with regard to valuations is very apt. I was unable to give yesterday the statement that I knew was in the notes of evidence somewhere, that not only were these men instructed by the police —that is not denied—but they were actually in the employ of the company at the time they were asked to make the examination. With regard to the expert testimony as to the possibility of getting sheep through the narrow door, your Honours have photographs of both sides of the smithy, which may assist you. The front door of the smithy was a 4 ft. door and the side door was an 18 in. door. Lambert's story, which he has stuck to consistently through all his examinations, is that young Meikle and his father drove the sheep into the yard, and subsequently drove them through the narrow door into the smithy, and he says that it took them about twenty minutes to do it. As I have said, there was little made of the point in 1887, but one or two experts were called on both sides in 1895. The witness Urquhart gave evidence before Mr. Rawson, S.M., in 1894, when Lambert was first committed. He says on page 5 of the 1894 depositions: — " T know the opening through which the sheep are alleged to have been driven—about 18 in. wide, and immediately adjoining the blacksmith's shop. I do not think it possible for sheep to be driven through there on a dark night. I attempted with two men and two dogs to do this about a month ago. We had twenty-nine sheep. We attempted in the daytime to drive them through this opening into the yard. We got some in by catching them and throwing them in." Then in answer to the Court he said, — " I have been amongst sheep eight or ten years. I found no difficulty in getting the sheep into the yard. The 18 in. opening is a door opening from smithy into the yard. The door is 8 ft. high and 18 in. between the door-posts." So that that expert tried to drive the sheep through with the assistance of two dogs, and Meikle and his son are supposed to have done it with one dog on a very dark night. This man with two dogs could not do it in daylight except by catching the sheep and throwing them in. Then at the bottom of page 26 there appears the following evidence, given by Forsaith: — . "If sheep were brought to the smithy at night, they would be put in at the 4ft. door. It would be very easy to put them in at that door. Ido not think they would be able to put them in with a dog in narrow door. No person having experience with sheep would put them into yard, and then put them through narrow door." Then Waddell, who was not called on that point, but on the question of chronology, said (at page 38): — " A person putting sheep into smithy would put them in by wide door. He would make use of the fence. It would not at night be an easy job to drive sheep into narrow door." Then, on cross-examination, he said, — " If one or two sheep were put into the door the others would draw better." Those are the two experts on one side. Then there are two on the other. Mr. Gould, at page 42, says, — " Had a good deal of experience among sheep. . . . There would be a slight difficulty in putting them through the narrow opening; with a fairly good dog I think it could be done." In cross-examination he said, "It might be done in an hour." Mr. James Walker said, — "A good many years experience with sheep—over twenty-five years. ... Ido not think there would be much difficulty in getting sheep into the narrow door of the smithy: with a very good dog none at all." Then, on cross-examination, he said, — " Any one that put them in at the narrow door when the wide door was open would be pretty nearly mad." So that, according to Lambert's witnesses —at least, one of his two experts—a man who knew anything about sheep would be mad to drive them through the narrow door. I submit, after taking the two experts, the net balance of their evidence is unfavourable to Lambert on the question of the smithy-door. The whole case rests on Lambert, and, as I submit, a considerable
H.—2l.
part of Lambert's testimony is against himself on account of his repeated contradictions of himself on the most material points of the story. Of course it would not be fair to insist too much upon minor discrepancies in evidence after a lapse of seven or eight years, and still less after _an interval of eighteen and a half years; and I have no doubt that my friend's witnesses will need just as much charity on that ground as my own. My friend has made a suggestion as to how he is going to put his evidence. Dr. Findlay: I was suggesting to my friend that it would help us both if, instead of taking witnesses over the evidence given nineteen years ago, and asking them to recall again in the ordinary way what happened, that the)- should be asked before they go into the box to read the evidence they gave in 1887, and, if necessary, again in 1895, and that they should be asked whether that'evidence is true. My friend may ask any further questions he has to put, and leave the rest for cross-examination. It would, I think, be unnecessary to ask the witnesses to repeat the evidence given many years ago, because many of them must in a large measure trust to the record of the evidence they have given previously. Mr. Justice Edwards: Whatever counsel may agree to in that respect the Court will follow. Mr. Atkinson: I shall consider the suggestion, and will discuss the question again. Lambert's memory and Meikle's must be alike faulty in some respects; but I do submit with regard to both Lambert and Meikle that there must be some prominent features of this crime—if it was a crime— impressed upon their minds, if they are speaking the truth. Notwithstanding this, your Honours, many essential features of the case*change in Lambert's story, and the change—l do not complain as to some after the lapse of eighteen years —but they change within a month, and I will put before your Honours the chicf —the most radical —contradictions. Now, of course, the shifting of the date was practically Lambert's defence—the question that it was not the Nth; that if he had seen sheep driven in the manner described, that it was not on the Nth, but about that date. I will ask your Honours to look at various points bearing on the chronology, which is exceedingly simple from the standpoint of Meikle and his witnesses. Harvey I have already accounted for as rejected by the Judge generally; and as I submit, and as I conceive, if I may say with perfect justice on questions of chronology. But Lambert is his own chronologist at the original trial. He had one corroborative witness —Gregg—but Dr. Findlay: He was not at Lambert's trial. Every effort was made, I think my friend will agree with me; to find him. If he could have been found he would have been produced. Mr. Atkinson: My client was hunting for him also, but he was out of the country before Lambert was tried. Every effort was apparently made by both parties to find him. However, as I shall put it to your Honours, Gregg has become an important corroborative witness of my client's chronology by the time Lambert has come to his trial, and has had to vary from his original story in the matter of date. Take the different statements made by Lambert with regard to this date. First of all, in the original depositions taken in 1887 (beginning of page 2), he says "about the Nth October" he saw young Meikle driving sheep. Then, in cross-examination, he says, "I remember the Nth—l made a note of it." He says, "I remember it by McGeorge going away." Of course this is a far better criterion in the case of any witness, except a professional man who is keeping a regular record, than the calendar. So that it was definitely fixed by Lambert as the night of McGeorge's departure. Gregg, who alone was brought to corroborate Lambert, heard a voice he thought to be Arthur Meikle's, and remembers that the occasion was also fixed with reference to McGeorge. He refers to it, I think, as the Nth. In Gregg's evidence (page 21), he says,— " I know Lambert. Saw him at my place on Nth October, about 9 p.m. Cross-examined: I was asking Lambert about McGeorge going away that night." So that it is fixed by the only two witnesses who could speak—one directly to the crime, and one in faint corroboration, and suggested circumstances that might be taken as corroboration. The two agreed as to the 17th, and the night of McGeorge's departure. We have had from the witnesses I have already referred to—McGeorge, Waddell, and that string of witnesses—that McGeorge knew he left on a Monday, and Waddell came and fixed the Nth October as the date. McGeorge met Barclay on the day he left the station—the day Barclay went to work for Waddell, which was fixed as the Nth October —so that the connection is altogether perfect as to the date of McGeorge's departure. It is absolutely fixed, and there is no getting away from it. Then it was.fixed on Lambert's trial that it was the Nth October —the day of McGeorge's departure. Lambert was perfectly definite, and the Nth was the day selected on the indictment. He appears to have been definite when it was a case of convicting another man, and only indefinite when it was necessary to save himself. The second of his statements was made in 1894, before Mr. Rawson, and will be found on the depositions. There he says, " About the date McGeorge left the hut," so that immediately there is a difference there between the date of McGeorge's departure and the date that Lambert was at Gregg'.s—a difference between two points, the coincidence of which establishes conclusively for Meikle's prosecution the date of the theft. Dr. Fin ill <ni: Will my friend permit me to correct a somewhat important statement you have gpt" Tn the 'cross-examination of Lambert at the Meikle trial before the Supreme Court" he was asked in cross-examination about the'driving of those sheep, and in the printed copy (page 20) you will see "that was"only night," whereas the words on the Judge's notes were, "that was any night." Mr. Justice Cooper: We had better correct that, I suppose. Dr. Findlay: It makes a very vast difference in "the whole meaning of his cross-examination. Mr. Atkinson: He still remembers the night of McGeorge going away. It is clear from the context still that the night refers to the night of the crime, and he remembers it from McGeorge's departure. In his cross-examination in 1894, he says, "I know the day McGeorge left the hut: I took a note of it.", A little while later he says, —,_
24
H.—2l.
" I took a note of the day, not date, that McGeorge left the hut. I remember the Nth October, when I was at Gregg's. I took a note of it. This is in depositions. It was true 1 took a note of it. The night the sheep were taken it was not a very dark night. Might have rained some time in the night. I never said it was the 17th." I submit it clearly must mean the night the sheep were taken. He says, " I never said Nth; on or about." There surely is no possible question of calendar confusion. He is still satisfied he was at Gregg's on the 17th, but it was only on or about that date that he saw the sheep stolen. That, I submit, is perfectly plain. So that he is actually throwing over Gregg and turning him into an hostile witness because Gregg proves it was the night he went to Gregg's; so that now there is a difference betweeu them. The possibility of the calendar error, I submit, does not intervene at all. On the Nth the substantial point—the means of identification of Meikle —was absolute, and I submit, your Honours, it was so in fact. Then in 1895, in the Supreme Court, there were other important variations; and it is exceedingly intricate to keep them in mind, because there are slight variations—it is a sort of smudging. When giving evidence on his trial in 1895 (page 45), Lambert stated, — " When I was giving the evidence, the Nth was mentioned. I had a note of the day, but not of the date. It was day I went to Gregg's for matches, and I had asked Gregg the date. I always thought it was a Wednesday, but was not sure. From what Gregg told me before I went into Court, I thought it was the 17th. I saw skins produced in Court. They were good skins—merino ewes. They were butcher's skins. I should say they might be ten or twelve days old. I gave evidence in the Supreme Court. I fixed date in the Court as about time McGeorge left the hut." There is a contradiction of-both his previous statements. He has upset the identification of the night he was at Gregg's with the night of the crime. Here he goes back to that statement, but on the other hand blurs the date of McGeorge's departure. He says that if the night he was at Gregg's was the Nth, then it was on the 17th he saw the sheep stolen ; but he is not quite certain as to the identification of the calendar. He is not certain that the identification with McGeorge's departure is correct. The he says, in cross-examination, — " I produced a note in the Supreme Court and referred to it. The day, and not the date. It was either the day or the day after I saw Barclay that Meikle took the sheep." It is a curious thing that he takes note of the day and not he date, and yet it is the date and not the day he has sworn to; and he is absolutely wrong as to the day, because he states it was a Wednesday, while it is an undisputed fact as to McGeorge's departure that it was on Monday. It is very difficult to make the matter absolutely plain, but it seems to me the best way of doing it is by means of a table which I will submit to my friend and your Honours for the purpose of distinguishing. Though I have made it up with as grave a responsibility as if I was on oath, Ido not wish to be charged with perjury if there is any mistake in it. I have taken " Nth" as the calendar date, " G " to represent interview with Gregg, with the character " C " for crime, and " MeG " for McGeorge. You will find that these start as a perfect equation, and wdiich materially varies, as I submit, in the three versions given by Lambert: — 1887, 17 = G = C = MeG 1894, 17 = G = C(abt.) = MeG (abt.) 1895, 17 (abt.) = G = C = MeG (abt.). If that stands in 1887 it simply means that the equation was absolute. At the start there was Gregg Dr. Findlay: Cannot 3'ou extract an x to prove the stolen sheep as well? Mr. Atkinson: My friend may extract that x. I have got ;// to prove my client is innocent. We accept the chronology of Lambert and Gregg at the trial, and say that ours harmonizes with the statement of both of them. On Meikle's side Waters's sale stood out, and appears all through in the notes at the original trial as the event which fixes the Nth. We accept the identification of the Nth with the day that Lambert was at Gregg's, with the day McGeorge departed, with the day Arthur Meikle was ill, with the day Waddell and McGeorge proved Lambert was at Mataura; so that it runs right through. So that taking "W " to represent Waters's sale, and "AT " Arthur Meikle's illness, Mr. Meikle's chronology is brought into line with Lambert's in the following equation: — 17 = W= G=McG= Al. That was the equation in 1887, and I have already admitted that the last essential link snapped. It would have been Al if it had held, but the extraordinary thing is that the proof was insufficient, although the equation was a true one. In 1895, however, the proof was supplied, and Lambert was also proved to be at Mataura on the same night, and therefore the occurrence which he states he witnessed at Meikle's could not have been seen by him. Might I add just the one point as to this which I omitted yesterday, and it might come in here. I put it that Lambert had sworn to seeing the sheep driven off between 9 and 10 o'clock; but I ought to call attention to the fact that he was in Mataura that night between 8 and 9 o'clock, and that Lambert in his crossexamination (page 20) says he was at Meikle's house between 8 and 9 o'clock the same evening. Fraser saw him at Mataura—about sixteen miles distant by road—between 8 and 9 o'clock the same evening. Of course, it is impossible to cover that distance in the time which would leave him at Meikle's house at the hour he stated, and the estimates on the point, I think I am correct in stating, for ordinary travelling were not less than two hours, and Waddell gives it at from two hours and a half to three hours, and apparently he was not referring to extraordinary conditions. Your Honours have it from Muir that he gave up travelling that night partly from the fatigue of his horse, and partly from the nature of the night and his distance from home. Thus, in 1895, not only was the original equation (17 = G = MeG = Al) established, but the further term, " = LM " (i.e., Lambert at Mataura) was also added, When time has been fixed by circum-
4—H. 21,
25
H.—2l.
stances—as it was fixed at the prosecution of Meikle in 1887—then, I submit, the error becomes vital. As to this matter, might I read the direction of Mr. Justice Williams to the jury on the point ? Mr. Justice Cooper: He directed that the error in the date did not make any difference—the material fact to be determined there was whether Lambert did commit perjury in the facts spoken of. Mr. Atkinson: I will just read the statement of His Honour: — " If Lambert swore wrongfully as to the date but rightly to the sheep having been removed, it would be absurd to suggest that fixing the date wrongfully was other than a mistake, if it was true that on some date or other about that time he saw Arthur Meikle drive the sheep. The matter of fixing the date was material in this particular: if he fixed the date positively, and if it was now shown that it could not have been on the date he so positively fixed, the fact of his having fixed an impossible date would show that his evidence as to the sheep having been removed at all was to be distrusted." I submit that the unfortunate Templeton was entitled to the benefit of the same saving clause as His Honour inserted at the opening of these remarks. From the circumstances I have endeavoured to put before you, the error in choronology must surely be regarded as vital. Of course, eiror as to place—that is in ordinary cases a more certain mark than time as marked by the calendar, though here it is to be remembered. Even so, I might point out that Lambert was a detective, made a note of the date, and had special reasons for care. But let me now apply the test of place. He met young Meikle, as he says, on the night of the Nth October. _Now, as I say, Lambert was not a casual passer-by—he was a private detective, out to get his £50—and he says he passed Arthur Meikle on the road. These are the depositions of 1887. He says, " I passed him (Arthur Meikle) on the road." Page 19 of the Supreme Court evidence, he says: — " Shortly after—l had just got across fence and on to a road-line—l met Arthur Meikle with a mob of sheep. It was not very dark. I spoke to Meikle." Then, a little lower down, — " Road they were on was between turnips and Meikle's house. I went past his 30 or 40 yards towards my hut; then turned back and followed him." Then the young fellow, he says, goes on to Meikle's property. That is clear; that agrees with the depositions. Cross-examined (page 20) : — # "Met Arthur Meikle 300 or 400 yards from hut. He was off turnips into road-line, going towards his house, 300 or 400 yards from junction of roads. I could recognise him; spoke to him and passed on ; then turned and followed him 30 yards behind. He went along by gate." That is all perfectly plain. Now, taking first of all the depositions before Mr. Rawson, S.M. (page 32), Lambert states: — " I met Arthur Meikle on the company's ground, on the turnips. It was a large paddock close to road-line." Cross-examined, two pages further on, he states: — "He had to drive the sheep about 300 yards to get to the road. I waited till he came up to fence —about half an hour." . That is pretty clear, your Honours. I think that is all that appears of dates in the 1894 depositions. In 1895 is a similar story to 1894 (page 44): — " Coming away from Gregg's I met Arthur Meikle with some sheep. When I saw him first I was on the turnips. I think it was October anyhow." And further down he says: — " From the turnips he drove them along to the fence, and then along the fence to the corner and up to his father's house." It is surely perfectly plain from these two references that Lambert was on the turnips when he first saw young Meikle, and young Meikle also was on the turnips. I submit, if your Honours have the map there and will remember that Lambert's hut was at the junction of these roads, that the sheep were on the turnips to the north of the road running east-and-west, that the north side of that road was fenced—Lambert describes with circumstantial particularity how he met Arthur Meikle on the turnips, and that he had to drive the sheep about 300 yards to get to the road. He was out there to get his money; the expected hour had arrived. He sees this youngster looming through the darkness, and is'it possible that he can mistake the place where he met him? He describes in 1894 in detail that Arthur Meikle was on the turnips and had to drive the sheep all this wav round, and it took him such a time that, although Lambert met him on the turnips, he had half an hour's wait on the road while the sheep were brought around by the corner at the fence That is what he swears in 1894 and 1895, yet it was on the road-line 300 or 400 yards from the hut that he met him (young Meikle) according to the story told in 1887. The difference in time is also serious, because in the later version Lambert said he waited half an hour for the lad to come up Surely, your Honours, such a discrepancy as that is only to be attributed to improvisation or deliberate invention. The advantage of the improvisation is to get something, however handy for the moment; but it does not stick in the mind as facts really impressed through the vision on the mental retina. I submit it is very natural to account for such an extravagant discrepancy as that on the theory of invention, but it will surpass the ingenuity of Mr. Lambert or anybody else to account for the discrepancy on any other hypothesis. There is another point which is material, but which is not of such high importance, though I submit that these things by the time they are added together are fairly overwhelming in weight—another point is the incident of driving the sheep into the smithy, which, according to the statement of experts, is not the lightest iob in the world As I pointed out, one expert said it was madness to attempt it. However, Lambert stuck to his story that the sheep were driven through the narrow door That must have been an impressive spectacle, seeing that the toils were closing on the game. How do Mr. Lambert s different stories stand the test? It would appear from the notes in 1887 that the point was not
26
27
H.—2l
very closely pressed. The statement is, "It took twenty minutes to get sheep in." Then, in crossexamination, Lambert said: — " Sheep went into yard without any trouble. Width of gate ordinary. Entrance to blacksmith's shop from yard is about yard in width. It took twenty minutes to get sheep in. I stood there watching." Then, the lowest estimate of one of his own experts —I forget whether it was relating to the conditions of darkness or not —was one hour. Then, in 189-1, in the depositions before Mr. Kawson, on page 34, I find this : " They got the sheep up to the door and then shoved one through at a time." Ido not say there is a contradiction, yet he says it took twenty minutes to get the sheep in. I might mention, your Honours, as it does not appear in the Supreme Court evidence, although it is in some of the depositions that your Honours are perusing, that what is called handdrafting is a necessary process, according to some of the experts. I take it that that is something equivalent to being shoved in. In 1895, at page 46 of the evidence, Lambert, under cross-examination, said, "He did not catch hold of the sheep and shove them in." Well, a man who had seen it done could not possibly make a mistake upon such a point, because it was suggested by one of the experts whose testimony I quoted to your Honours that if one sheep was shoved in the rest would have been more easily worked. But it was explicit in 1894 that he shoved them in one by one, and it is explicit in 1895 that he did not do it. Now, as to the marks. I have dealt with the discrepancy there, but 1 will, for the sake of convenience of summary, put it in here briefly. The discrepancy as to the marks only covers im interval of one month between the depositions in 1887 and the evidence in the Supreme Court in the same year. It is in detail in Lambert's cross-examination at the top of page 4 in the 1887 depositions: — "I cannot say what brands were on it" [i.e., the sheep killed]. "For all I know, it might have been one of Meikle's. I suppose it was one of the company's sheep, but I did not look at the brand. I did not notice the earmarks." " Then, in 1887, at page 19, in his examination in chief in the Supreme Court, he said, " I only saw earmark on that sheep." On the following page, under cross-examination, he said, " Saw earmark. Did not say before that I had noticed earmark." So in one month, though these were the very things he was there to see—namely, signs of the company's property upon these sheep—he varied within one month on an essential point in his story, and not, as I put it to your Honours, in the manner in which Mrs. Shiels varied in the lower Courts. She referred to money in the lower Court and £50 in the Supreme Court, and that occurs in the Judge's report as a discrepancy worth indicating; yet here is Lambert, with his attention expressly called to the point, deliberately affirming in the Supreme Court what he had denied in cross-examination a month before. I submit that neither lapse of memory nor anything else could account for such a change in the case of an honest witness. As to the statements in regard to the £50, there is a singular contradiction there. Your Honours will remember this talk about the £50 he was going to get to put poor Meikle away, and the £50 somebody was to get for putting skins on the property; and this general talk about the £50 was testified to by witness after witness from Meikle's household, and disbelieved apparently by the jury in 1887. Well, these were the various statements: In 1887, in the original depositions, under cross-examination by John Meikle, Lambert said: — " I never told any of your family or anybody else that I was to get £50 to get you arrested before you went to Wellington." Then, in 1887, in the Supreme Court, on page 20 of the evidence, he says, in his cross-examina-tion, " I did say I was to get £50 if I got a conviction against any one." That is not material to my purpose, but I mention it so that all the statements on the point may appear in this summary. Then, just below he says: — " Was often at Meikle's —not very often. Never said there I was to get £50 from company. At first that appeared to be a contradiction, but in the previous statement, where he said he never told Meikle's family he was to get £50 before Meikle went to Wellington, the words " before you went to Wellington " might be taken as qualifying, and therefore there is not necessarily a contradiction between the two. But, your Honours, on turning to page 46 of the evidence, Lambert, cross-examined in 1895, says, "I told Meikle I was to get £50 reward." Well, your Honours, the statements attributed to Lambert with regard to this £50 sound so grotesque and extravagant that, though there were half a dozen witnesses against him to his making the statement, their a priori probability was enough probably in the minds of the original Judge and jury to satisfy them his contradiction were to be believed. Well, on this vital point, to which witness after witness had testified right through, Lambert says, " I told Meikle I was to get £50 reward. , ' There is, of course, the possibility of bad memory to account for such a discrepancy at such a time on such an important point. But your Honours will see it is immaterial to my case whether that charitable hypothesis is allowed or not, because if his memory was so bad eight years after the event, of what value is it now if he comes along with any new statements? If in eight years he contradicted a vital part of his statement made in Meikle's trial, how is it to be trusted if it produces any new matter eighteen years and a half afterwards? And so there are a number of minor points, your Honours, and there are the general strong probabilities, which I pass by. But I put all these points now not desiring to keep anything in reserve, partly as I think it would make it easier for the Court to grasp the case fully at this stage, and because Mr. Lambert has told so many stories that it does not matter now which he chooses. Sometimes he has as many as three or four versions, and he may take his choice of them now ; but" surely lie cannot rehabilitate his credit, whichever version he may select. Well, how does the matter stand now with regard to Lambert's testimony? The position in regard to the evidence in his case is Lambert contra mundum. The case against Mr Meikle in 1887 was simply Mr. Lambert plus the sheep-skins plus Mr. Gregg, but in 1895 Mr. Lambert was pitted alone against a vastly reinforced array of witnesses, with Gregg and the sheep-skins also on the other side.' As to the sheep-skins it is clear ;as to Gregg, he was not actually called on the other side, but 1 submit Gregg's chronology is in absolute line with the
H.—2l.
chronology of Meikle's witnesses throughout, and contradicts entirely the attempts of Lambert in the trial of 1895 to blur events deposed to when the facts were fresh in his mind. As to the £50, the witnesses were Arthur Meikle, Harvey, Templeton, McDonald, Davie, and Shiels. Lambert was in conflict with all the six on material points; and on the question of this £50 Lambert himself admitted in 1895 that he had mentioned the £50 business to Meikle. Now, as it stood in 1887, it was Lambert plus the sheep-skins plus Gregg against these six witnesses. I mention these six only as being in specific conflict. That was the position in 1887, and Lambert with his two auxiliaries prevailed. Now, how does the case rest? To speak accurately, in 1895 two experts witnesses testified as to the possibility .of a certain thing having been done which was alleged to be impossible. Well, excluding that, it is not far from precisely accurate to say that Lambert's defence rested on Lambert's testimony alone, and I shall just detail to your Honours the list of witnesses with whom he is in direct conflict, with many of them on vital points, and there is such a variety of points that there is no possibility of concoction. He contradicts first of all Mr. Henderson, Registrar of the Court at Meikle's trial, and a solicitor in private practice since, and, as your Honours will remember, he said Mr. Henderson was touting for a job. Mr. Justice Cooper: Was that the Mr. Henderson who afterwards went north? Mr. Atkinson: No, it was not that Mr. Henderson. The man 1 refer to died at Invercargill. Well, he is in conflict with Mr. Henderson as to the date, and as to the conversation in which Lambert was said to have made an admission of guilt. There were also Mr. Kelly (the foreman of the jury), Meikle himself, Mrs. Meikle, Templeton, Howe, Harvey, Eraser, McGeorge, and Ryder. All these witnesses were called for the prosecution in 1895. In addition, there was Mr. Stuart, one of his own witnesses, whom he contradicted as to the appearance of the skins. Though that is not a perjury point, yet it bears, at. any rate, upon his accuracy of one kind or another. And then his allies', the sheep-skins, have been turned by Mr. McGeorge into one of the most powerful forces against him. And then, as I put it to your Honours, Mr. Gregg —he was called in 1895, but he is not here now —Mr. Gregg's testimony, which was very valuable confirmation of Lambert's in 1887 on the matter of chronology if for no other purpose, is also turned against him, because he comes exactly into line with the date as fixed by the witnesses for the prosecution. There are one or two other witnesses I shall call here who were not before the Supreme Court in 1895, and they will be added to this majority. It makes ten witnesses for the prosecution, and, in addition, there are Stuart and Gregg. Surely, your Honours, Mr. Lambert cannot sustain the conflict against a number like that. It is not worth arguing as to whether these ten conspired to commit perjury on utterly remote and different points when he is in this radical conflict with himself. He is the alpha and omega of the case for his own defence, and now he is the alpha and omega of the case for the prosecution. Well, as a result of the trial in 1895, Mr. Lambert was found guilty, and he was sentenced to four years' imprisonment, which, as Mr. Justice Williams stated in giving sentence, was the maximum term the law then allowed. At this point, your Honours, it may be convenient to meet the objection raised by Mr. Justice Edwards with regard to Mr. Justice Williams's charge, or alleged charge, to the grand jury in 1894. The statement 1 was quoting roughly from the charge to the grand jury with regard to Lambert's prosecution was: — " The evidence that the person now accused then gave was undoubtedly of the highest importance in the case of sheep-stealing, and without it the accused would not have been convicted. The present prosecution is brought by the then accused against this witness, in respect of statements made by him at the preliminary investigation and trial. You will have the witnesses before you, you will see that the point is a most material one, and you will be able to judge for yourselves as to the credibility of the witnesses." The reason why Mr. Justice Williams refers to the materiality of Lambert's evidence to the case against Meikle is that, though Lambert was tried since the Criminal Code came into operation, his offence had been committed previously, and so the old law as to the materiality of the perjury to the matter in dispute applied. Then, your Honours, so far as I know, or so far, I expect, as your Honours will know during the present case, Mr. Lambert has not protested, and it is not at ins.instance that this investigation is being held now. Mr. Meikle, one might suppose, if the whole of the facts had been fully before the public, would have been taken to be cleared in the public estimation by the result of Lambert's trial. He petitioned Parliament immediately after the conviction of Lambert in 1895, asking for £10,000 compensation, and the Committee reported on the 9th October, 1895, as follows: — " That the Committee are of opinion that, after eliminating Lambert's evidence, who has since been convicted and is now serving a sentence for perjury, there was not sufficient evidence adduced at petitioner's trial to warrant his conviction on the charge preferred against him. The Committee are also of opinion that the request of petitioner to have his name removed from the prison record of the colony merits the serious consideration of the Crown. The Committee recommend the Government to make provision on the supplementary estimates for the payment to petitioner of a sum of money by way of compensation for the loss he has sustained " Dr. Findlay: I think I must ask the Court to rule on this matter. A great deal has been said in Parliament and out of Parliament by Committees, by Ministers of the Crown, and by my learned friend. Ido not know whether it is any assistance to the Court, and Ido not know whether it is relevant to the question which this Court has to decide; but if my friend is going to read results of Committee investigations, I would —and I ask not to be put in that position—be called upon to place before the Commission authoritative statements by officials in the Government service who probably are as well able to speak as the Committee. Now I ask your Honours to rule this out. It cannot be suggested that the finding of a parliamentary Committee is any assistance whatever to this Commission in arriving at the conclusions which it is asked to arrive at by this commission. Mr. Justice Edwards: We are to find the facts. The matter has been referred to us for the purpose of finding the facts so far as anybody can find them.
28
H.—2l.
Mr-. Atkinson: I can quite understand and sympathize with the spirit of my friend's objection. Ido not want to put stress on this. lam merely citing this as part of the history of the case. I attach no weight to it. The finding continues, and it is essential to the facts: — '' The Committee recommends the Government to make provision on the supplementary estimates for the payment to petitioner of a sum of money by way of compensation for the loss he has sustained in connection with his business, the legal costs incurred in defending the charge preferred against him and securing the conviction of Lambert for perjury, and also by way of compensation for the imprisonment he has suffered." Of course, 1 submit, your Honours, in substance that was a proper conclusion ; although, from my point of view, the only concession—" after eliminating Lambert's evidence, who has since been convicted, and is now serving a sentence for perjury, there was not sufficient evidence adduced at prisoner's trial to warrant his conviction on the charge preferred against him " —is a somewhat grudging one; and I am contending, at any rate, for something a little more satisfactory from this Commission. My particular reason for mentioning this is to emphasize the conflict which delayed this matter for so long, and finally brings it before this Commission. The Committee, before deciding the matter, had referred the question to his Honour Judge Ward, as he then was, in 1895, and his reply to the Committee I have already dealt with in anticipation. It appears on page 30, headed " Second Report," on the printed file. He reported on the 29th August, 1895. I have dealt with his analysis of the case for the Crown as it remained after the deduction of Lambert; but I had to pass one point then, your Honours, which I think lam entitled to emphasize now : that his Honour Judge Ward, with technical correctness perhaps, but, I submit, with substantial injustice, has treated the sheep-skins as still remaining part of the case against Meikle after the elimination of Lambert. Well, surely, your Honours, as a matter of substance, the sheep-skins when Lambert came to trial were two of the most damning things against him. The fact of how he got into the smithy and borrowed the skins hung on the wire two or three weeks before, and that these skins bore wire-marks, probably carried as much weight in the minds of the jury who tried Lambert as any single circumstance before them. So, I submit, if the sheep-skins are eliminated, as they should be, there was really no ground for suspicion left, though it remains as his Honour's conclusion that Meikle would have probably secured acquittal, even leaving the sheep-skins in, but for Mr. Templeton's gross perjury, which I trust I have sufficiently explained away. Nine issues have been submitted to this Commission for inquiry. I have dealt with the first two issues, and in my opinion they are the substantial issues, because obviously, if they are decided against my client, then all the others fall. The third issue is,— " Whether there is any evidence to show that the said John James Meikle has since his conviction made any admissions or statements inconsistent with his innocence." My friend was good enough to offer me a list of his witnesses, but I have not received them yet. However, as to that, I can do nothing at present; but I will have an opportunity of doing so at the proper stage. The next issue is No. 4: — "As to the circumstances which led to the prosecution of the said William Lambert for perjury, and whether there was an undue delay on the part of the said John James Meikle in taking proceedings for perjury against the said William Lambert." I have already dealt with that issue. The fifth issue is an important one: — "As to the circumstances under which the said John James Meikle accepted the sum of £500 in full settlement of his claims; and whether, apart from legal considerations, the settlement then made should be treated as final." The position with regard to that is this: Nothing came of the report of the Public Petitions Committee in 1895. Meikle petitioned again in 1896. There was a similar report in 1896, pursuant to which a sum of £500 was put upon the estimates on the 14th October, 1896. The then Commissioner of Police wrote to Meikle stating that he was to have the money. The money was not taken, and on the 4th October, 1897, Meikle petitioned again. On the 2nd December, 1897, there was a discussion on the matter in the House, and although your Honours will regard me as equally anxious with my friend to keep any parliamentary questions as far as possible out of this discussion, I submit that it is material to see the circumstances under which this £500 was then offered. In Hansard, Vol. 100; page 275, there is the following Dr. Findlay: Ido not know that that can be used as evidence. Mr. Atkinson: It will probably be admitted. It is only to show why the £500 was to be given to Meikle. It was argued by some members that £500 being on the estimates was ridiculous; that the man was entitled to nothing if he was guilty, or, if he was innocent, he was entitled to thousands. Mr. Seddon, consistently with the view which the Government took of His Honour's report, stated that the payment was not in recognition of Meikle's innocence, but was paid as a contribution towards his expenses in bringing a perjurer to justice. Mr. Justice Edwards: Was it paid on receipt? Mr. Atkinson: Yes, we have the receipt here. Mr. Justice Edwards: There is no legal claim in the present case. Mr. Atkinson: No ;my client, of course, has never had any legal claim. In Hansard, Vol 100, page 275, Mr. Seddon said,— " Of his own motion, and for the purpose of helping himself, Meikle had brought to justice a perjurer, which action had cost him a sum of money, and the Government were asked to compensate him and to recoup his expenses in connection with that prosecution." Although there is this receipt, surely that statement is material in order to show how the money was offered. Mr. Seddon also said, — "He said they must take the whole of the circumstances and look at them. Then, what did the Judge who tried the case say? The Judge still said he was satisfied that Meikle was guilty. Now, a Government was not worthy of the name of a Government, or to be trusted to exercise the functions of Government, if, having referred a case to a Judge who had tried it, and the Judge reported upon
29
H.—2i.
the case, and if it was again referred, and he repeated that he was still satisfied of the guilt of the man, they then said that notwithstanding that, because a Committee had reported two years ago that the man was entitled to some consideration, they would set aside and ignore the Judge's opinion." That fully bears out the statement which I submit—that it was really a conflict between the Petitions Committee and the Government, relying upon His Honour's report. Your Honours will notice that that statement was made on the 2nd December, 1897, and that for fourteen months the money had laid in the Treasury untouched by Meikle. The reason the money remained untouched was that Meikle was asked to sign a receipt in full discharge if he took the money. Then, as to the pecuniary position of Meikle, it may easily be seen in what position a man's farm would be after he had been in gaol for five years, and after having spent two and a half years in hunting down a perjurer, and after the time he had spent in worrying the Legislature and Ministers in Wellington. Fortunately some explanation appears on the face of the receipt. Half of the money was paid to him and half to a Dunedin money-lender, to whom he had been paying 40 per cent. He had to pay £40 interest for six months to George Esther, money-lender, Dunedin. He signed for £250 and got £210, and nobody who considers the nature of the security can say that the rate of interest was excessive. Dr. Findlay: If we are to have a part of Mr. Seddon's statement read, I think it is only right that the following statement by Mr. Seddon should also be read: — " At the interview there was present the then honourable member for Mataura (Mr. McNab), the Minister of Lands (Mr. J. McKenzie), and himself, and it was clearly understood by him (Mr. Seddon) that if the sum of £500 was placed on the estimates in full satisfaction of Meikle's claim the honourable member for Mataura would move no further in the matter." Mr. Atkinson: The receipt which Meikle signed is as follows: — " I, John James Meikle, do hereby acknowledge to have received from the Colonial Treasurer, on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen and the Government of the Colony of New Zealand, the sum of £500 (five hundred pounds), of which the sum of £250 (two hundred and fifty pounds) is about to be paid at my request to George Esther, of Dunedin, in full satisfaction of the release and discharge of all claims and demands, or alleged claims and demands, which I have now or at any time heretofore have had against Her Majesty the Queen or the Government of New Zealand upon or in respect of the prosecution and conviction of myself for sheep-stealing, or the prosecution or conviction at my instance of one William Lambert for perjury, and in respect of any expenses, costs, or charges in or about the said prosecution or either of them, and any losses sustained or alleged to be sustained by me thereby.—John James Meikle, 15th December, 1897.—Witness to signature, J. W. Kelly, M.H.R." You will notice that the receipt was dated within fourteen days after the date of the debate in the House from which I have cited a sentence or two. On the strength of that statement, and the omission in the receipt of any reference to false imprisonment, and on the advice which he received, Meikle took the money, but he protested strongly both before and at the time of signing the receipt. We shall be able to prove the protest. The question for your Honours to consider is whether the colony is cleared by it. Mr. Justice Edwards: Is it clear that he protested ? It would be to a subordinate officer, at all events. Mr. Atkinson: Yes. Mr. Justice Edwards: There is no question of law about it. At the same time there must be some means of getting finality in a claim against the colony. Mr. Atkinson: Unless the colony is deprived of autonomy you can never take away from it the ri<drt to deal with such claims, and it is free to recognise a debt of honour, and to give to any person a sum of money whether he deserves it or not. As your Honour has said, it is not a question of law; but even as a question of politics or of public affairs, I submit that there can be no bar to making any such payment. Of course, precedent does not come in very much in this matter; but I do submit that, assuming a new discovery was made entirely altering the basis on which the receipt was signed, the colony would be in a position to exercise its rights of making a payment or exercising its bounty if it thought right to do so. Then, you have to take into consideration the circumstances under which the receipt was signed, and the protest that was made. Mr. Justice Cooper: We have to find out the circumstances under which the money was paid. We do not know anything about the circumstances until they are placed before us. Dr. Findlay: I understand that Mr. McNab, M.H.R., conducted negotiations between the head of the Government and Meikle, and I told your Honours in Wellington that we would probably have to ask the Commission to take his evidence. lam instructed that it is very important indeed. Mr. Atkinson: When the adjournment was taken I was engaged in the question of the signing of this receipt for £500 which my client signed in 1897. There is, my friend reminds me, another sum, for which I have not got the receipt—it was £294, and covers the same argument and the same consideration. It is a difficult question, being a matter which never was a matter of law—the question being a matter of honour and public policy—as to how far in a matter of this nature the effect of thereceipt would be a release. It is a somewhat novel position your Honours find yourselves in no doubt with regard to this point. The Lord Chancellor is called the keeper of the King's conscience, and your Honours are here temporarily in charge of the people's conscience. Mr. Justice Cooper: We have the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor as far as the Court of Chancery is concerned, but I am'not aware that goes to keeping the King's conscience. Mr. Justice Edwards: We have very much in actual jurisdiction- -very much power. Mr". Atkinson: In the equitable jurisdiction, as in everything else, the practice has become fixed in certain rules and ruts. But in the present matter your Houours are like the original Lord Chancellor, in that you have no precedents to bind you.
30
H.—2l
Mr. Justice Edwards: I would like to know about this other sum—the circumstances in which it was paid. Mr. Justice Cooper: That appears to be costs in the perjury case. It is set out in the commission—£294 16s. Id. Mr. Atkinson: That was paid about two years before. The receipt signed was as follows Mr. Justice Cooper: The £294 was paid before the £500. Mr. Atkinson: That is so, your Honour. I have here what will be quite sufficient for my purpose. It is a receipt for the final instalment of that amount. It is not disputed. The receipt was given for the previous money. Dr. Findlay: There were different solicitors and different bills were paid—the whole costs of the prosecution in Lambert's case and the costs of defending the charge preferred against Meikle in the original case. Mr. Atkinson: It was costs of prosecution on the Crown scale. This is the receipt for that amount: — " I, John James Meikle, do hereby acknowledge to have received from the Colonial Treasurer, on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen and the Government of the Colony of New Zealand, the sum of £500, of which the sum of £250 is now paid to me and the further sum of £250 is about to be paid at my request to George Esther, of Dunedin, in full satisfaction, release, and discharge of all claims and demands, or alleged claims and demands, which I now have or at any time heretofore have had against Her Majesty the Queen or the Government of New Zealand upon or in respect of the prosecution of myself for sheep-stealing, or the prosecution and conviction at my instance of one William Lambert for per jury ,_ and in respect of any expenses, costs, or charges incurred in or about the said prosecution or either of them, and any losses sustained or said to be sustained by me thereby. —John James Meikle. 15th December, 1897." Mr. Justice Edwards: It settles that part of it. At all events, you would not ask for any more about that part of it ? Dr. Findlay: There was another payment then. There was clamour on the ground the Crown scale was not sufficient. It was in connection with Mr. Solomon's bill of costs, I think, and Meikle had an additional sum. .1//-. Justice Edwards: Costs between solicitor and client? Dr. Findlay: The first costs were on the Crown scale. It was represented that that was not sufficient, and it was increased. The first was £83, and it was increased by £211, to cover all costs between solicitor and client. Mr. Atkinson: The other receipt is here, but I have no doubt that my friend's explanation is correct. The other receipt is put second, though it appears on an earlier date, and apparently accounts for the balance of the money : — " I hereby acknowledge having received from J. W. Poynton, Stipendiary Magistrate, at Invercargill, the sum of £211 15s. 10d., being the amounts above set forth, together with my own expenses as a witness in the case Meikle v. Lambert, amounting to £10 17s. 10d., in full satisfaction of all payments by me or any person claiming by, under, or through me against the Government of the Colony of New Zealand for expenses of witnesses in connection with the cases against William Lambert for perjury in the Magistrate's and Supreme Courts. As witness my hand this 19th day of November, 1895. —John James Meikle." I see that is limited for the expenses of witnesses and other law-costs. Mr. Justice Edwards: For prosecution of Lambert? Mr. Atkinson: Yes. His Honour: That is quite enough, as far as I know, for the prosecution of Lambert. Mr. Atkinson: Your Honour will remember all the steps there were. Mr. Justice Cooper: They would be paid between solicitor and client, apparently? Mr. Atkinson: I understand not, but on the Crown scale. His Honour: No doubt the full material will be placed before us. Mr. Atkinson : No doubt, your Honour. Mr. Justice Edwards: The Crown scale would not come to as much as that. Of course, it is a small matter, I should think, that has really been discharged —the costs of the prosecution of Lambert. Nowadays, £200 and odd pounds go a long way. Mr. Atkinson: Although I have taken a great deal of time, I may say that there were about twice as many witnesses summoned as what appear, and the expenses were heavy. Mr. Justice Cooper: The trial took four days. Mr. Atkinson: There was an enormous array of witnesses not put into the box. The substantial point, I submit, at present is guilt or innocence. All the others are subsidiary, except three. All the others are comparatively trivial, and I am not going to press for a review of the taxation of the costs in comparison with the enormous magnitude of the other issues involved, and then all the other pecuniary issues of the great issue we are dealing with now. So far as my friend's reference to Mr. McNab is concerned, I trust I shall be able to come to some arrangement with him that will obviate the postponement of the Commissioners' report. lam perfectly prepared to make this admission so far as the intention of the Government is concerned, and any intention to prove it. lam perfectly prepared to concede that they considered this was a full discharge and that they had seen the last of it. But, despite the terms of my client's receipt, the Government took it without a recognition that he was innocent, though they took it as a full discharge from him whether he had any claims or not. Of course, he was an impecunious man, he was in great trouble of mind, and his sufferings were such as it would be very hard for any one else to imagine. lam not suggesting for a moment anything in the nature of duress on the part of the Government, yet substantially my client was in the same position as though there was; he had practically no option. Mr. Justice Edwards: They are the protectors of the public purse, of course, and have got to be careful of the public money. ' We do not question anything more than that,
31
H—2l.
Mr. Atkinson: And, furthermore, your Honour, they tendered the money and took the receipt with Judge Ward's report in their mind, and the conclusion throughout that the man was still guilty. My friend does not dispute that; and, if he does not, this or some further concession I may make may obviate the postponement of the Commissioners' report until Mr. McNab's return to the colony. The question is whether this receipt is an honourable release. Ido not contend that there was anything dishonourable in anybody taking that release from Meikle at the time it was given. It was drafted and the necessary precaution taken for the protection of the public purse, and under the circumstances, with the judicial opinion which Ministers had as to Meikle's guilt, it would have been a violation of their duty if they had acted in any other way. But I intend to rest the whole of my case upon this: if an entire alteration is made in the entire foundation and the basis on which the Government succeeded in getting that receipt by a moral reversal of the verdict of 1887, is the whole matter thereby set at large again for a court of honour to reconsider? It is certainly not a question to be approached in a pettifogging, huckstering, or litigious spirit, and I am sure neither my friend nor your Honours will so approach it. In 1887 Meikle was convicted —and properly, in the opinion of the Judge who tried the case. He was paid £500 for bringing a perjurer to justice—a perjurer whom the Crown may, oddly enough, at the proceedings here, contend to have been wrongfully convicted. A very curious position which cannot have been in the mind of the Government when that transaction was settled was that if Meikle was a sheep-stealer he was also a perjurer. He had sworn in the prosecution of Lambert that he was innocent of the stealing of the sheep for which he was convicted in 1887. So that is certainly a very singular position. If that fact had been in the minds of the Government, I should be justified in putting the position this way: that in 1807 they had. paid .£5OO to a convicted sheep-stealer and an unconvicted but proved perjurer for running another perjurer to justice. It is a very remarkable situation, and it is quite"clear that the element if my client's responsibility for perjury as well as sheep-stealing at the time cannot have been in the mind of the Government, or the steps which they took could hardly have been taken. However, a sheep-stealer and a perjurer received £500 for running another perjurer to justice. His claim was not a legal claim. He signs a full receipt; he protests his innocence : the years go past; he proves his innocence. Has the position changed or not? Dr. Findlay: You just made a little slip in regard to the second receipt. It expressly says ifc is paid, and Meikle acknowledges to receive it "in discharge of all claims and demands, or alleged claims and demands, which I now have or at any time heretofore have had against Her Majesty the Queen or the Government of New Zealand upon or in respect of the prosecution of myself for sheepstealing." So that the payment was obviously on the assumption that his conviction for sheepstealing was erroneous, otherwise the Crown was not going to pay him a large sum for defending an action of which he was guilty. Mr. Atkinson: However, I have read the whole texts of the receipts. I must say, in defence of my friend's clients, that their whole attitude was based upon and justified by having the conviction that-the man was guilty, or probably guilty. If, Meikle's innocence being in doubt, and more than in doubt —the doubt inclining to the adverse side —the colony under circumstances of that kind pays this money and gets a receipt, is it not bound to pay more if his innocence is established? It is difficult to find precedents and difficult to find a parallel. With reference to your Honours' statement this morning with reference to the finality of these matters, I made such an answer as I could on the spur of the moment. There could be no legal bar. Mr. Justice Edwards: I only made the suggestion to Mr. Atkinson; I did not make a pronouncement. It seems to me to be essential for the public peace that there should be some means for getting to finality. Mr. Atkinson: Until we have a constitution like what they have got in the United States it is difficult to see what limits can be imposed except the sense of the colony with regard to any particular case. A man may come to me with some imaginary claim of a charitable or moral character, and I may give him half a crown and take a full receipt; but, nevertheless, nothing can prevent me from giving him another half-crown on the same account the next day if I still have money enough and anf still free. So with the colony; it is only the intervention of some superior power that could absolutely prevent it from scattering its cash in a similar way. Of course, the risk of establishing precedents has to be carefully watched, but I submit that no definite rule can be laid down except that each case must be carefully weighed on its own merits. If, for instance, a Judge of the Supreme Court Bench served without a salary for some time and the law provided no remedy assuming a man in that position who was not impecunious, who knew exactly what he was doing, and who was perfectly familiar with business to have petitioned Parliament and then to have signed a full receipt for what was never a legal claim, no doubt everybody would say there must be some finality to those proceedings, and such a receipt would be generally recognised as an absolute moral discharge. Yet even in such a case as this I submit that it might be proper to reopen the matter after the receipt had been given, on one condition —viz., that it should be proved that the entire basis on which the full receipt was signed was erroneous. If in such a case —in the case of an absolutely clear-headed and competent suppliant—the principle admits of an exception, then, of course, a fortiori it must be applied in such a case as the present. Mr. Justice Edwards: Was there not a precedent, as far as parliamentary practice is concerned, in some'claim of Sir Julius Vogel's? He got a sum and afterwards petitioned again for more. Mr. Justice Cooper: He got some more. Dr. Findlay: He repeated that a number of times but got no more. His Honour: That could be looked up as a parliamentary precedent. Of course, it does not require argument to show that if a man is wrongly convicted and suffers seven years' penal servitude the sum of £500 is not adequate compensation. With that knowledge—assuming he was wrongfully convicted—did he not discharge the colony from every moral obligation ? That is the pc.nt you have to meet. Mr. Atkinson: Yes.
32
H.—2l.
Mr. Justice Edwards: Of course, Mr. Justice Ward, the Acting-Judge, had reported against him, so that prima facie he should get nothing at all; and then they gave him £500. So you really ought not to get anything at all. They may say, " Not to waste the time of Parliament and bother us any more, take £500 and go." In that position, should he afterwards get any more? lam not saying that he should not. But, assuming that to be the position, should he get any more ? Because, you see, he takes something that otherwise he should not get —assuming that he is guilty. Mr. Atkinson: I was putting it with regard to any case at all. His Honour: Of course, in a matter like this it is essential to walk warily, because it will not do to make a precedent that any claimant can come against the colony, take what he can get on the recommendation of a Committee, and then come back again and again. That would be a bad precedent, I think. Mr. Atkinson: Of course, that power is there. Mr. Justice Edwards: No doubt there is a great responsibility cast upon this Commission, because whatever sum we may recommend, consistently with not being extravagant, the Government and the country may feel bound to make good. It is a very weighty responsibility that is cast upon us. Mr. Atkinson: But what I desire to meet is Mr. Justice Cooper's point: it is quite true that so far as the suppliant was concerned the case was clear. He professed to know he was innocent, and he signed nevertheless; but surely, your Honour, where it is an appeal to bounty, and not to law, the essential element is the mind of the giver. Now, the mind of the giver at the time when that money was allotted was distinctly that the suppliant was not an innocent man. The suppliant was a man who had rendered a public service by running another criminal to gaol. The State said, '' You are entitled on a quantum meruit basis to be reimbursed on what you have spent on what, for, though inspired by private motive, you were really discharging a public service. Mr. Justice Cooper: I did not suggest that your difficulty was by any means an insuperable one. I merely suggested, assuming we find Meikle was wrongfully convicted, that it is absurd to say he is compensated by the sum of £500, or that any such sum as £500 would be adequate compensation for a wrongful conviction involving a sentence of seven years. But the point you have to meet and satisfy us upon—l do not say you cannot do it—is whether a person in that condition and knowing he has been wrongfully convicted chooses to take a sum of money, and voluntarily—you say under pressure of circumstances —and voluntarily discharges the colony from any further demand, has not admitted that his loss is measured by that amount, and whether a precedent ought to be created by which another man who may be unfortunately placed in the same position, and afterwards takes a sum of money, should come back after a number of years and say it is inadequate. It is a question not so much personal to Meikle: it is a question of public policy. Mr. Atkinson: Undoubtedly, in addition to the question of abstract justice, there is the consideration of public policy, and I have to show that the one consideration should be paramount to the other; or, rather, that the strongest consideration of all being the public honour, it is consistent with public policy to concede all the demands made upon it. Mr. Justice Edwards: That is not exactly a breach of contract in which the public honour of the colony is involved. If it is anything, it is unfortunately a miscarriage of justice. Mr. Justice Cooper: By reason of the conduct of a Crown witness for which the Crown was not responsible. Mr. Atkinson: No. Of course, if one looks at it in a general way, it was the law of the colony which was administered erroneously by the Court of the colony to the best of its ability, but misled by a perjured witness, for whose perjury the Crown was not responsible. Mr. Justice Cooper: I should not quite say " administered erroneously." I should say " administered properly by the Courts of the colony, but the basis of the administration was the proper finding of the jury upon perjured evidence." That is the way to put it. I mean this: that assuming that Lambert's evidence was true, then undoubtedly the verdict was fully justified. Mr. Atkinson: Yes: but the verdict of the jury was based upon perjured evidence, and, I submit, it was part of the jury's function to detect that perjury. Mr. Justice Edwards: Of course we know there is such a thing as a miscarriage of justice, but is there any precedent for compensating a person suffering from such a miscarriage? Mr. Atkinson: Yes, there is a very recent one, which I shall quote. Mr. Justice Cooper: Yes, in Beck's case In that case the mistake was the mistake of the executive officers of the Government; —a mistake of the police themselves. Mr. Justice Edwards: And the police did not do all they ought to have done. Mr. Atkinson: Yes; there was some examination which was not allowed. Mr. Justice Cooper: The Judge disallowed certain evidence which the Commission found he ought to have admitted, and which, if admitted, would undoubtedly have resulted in his acquittal. Dr. Findlay: I want to be quite clear on one point. There is a very clear statement as to the £500. The whole argument is proceeding on a false assumption, I submit, because the statement is that that sum of £500 was paid on the understanding that Meikle was to make no further claim. Mr. Atkinson: That is implied in the receipt. Ido not object to that going in Ido not see anything against me which is stronger than that receipt. I think I had admitted, your Honours, just after lunch, that I was perfectly prepared to admit that the Government thought this was a final settlement. Mr. Justice Edwards: But they did that under what circumstances: whether he was guilty or whether he was innocent? Mr. Atkinson: They stated at the time they believed him to be guilty. In reply to the remarks of Mr. Justice Edwards that this is not a breach of a public contract, I submit it is a breach of something just as fundamental as a public contract, because the public honour is concerned in rectifying the mistakes of its officers.
5—H. 21.
33
H.— 21.
Mr. Justice Edwards: This was not a mistake of any officer of the Crown. Mr. Justice Cooper: There is a precedent in that case of Beck's. There is also the previous case in which a man was convicted of burglary and suffered a portion of his sentence. After the conviction it was conclusively proved in a subsequent prosecution of some other person that he was not the burglar. The case was in connection with a burglary at a clergyman's residence. He was released from gaol, but was paid nothing like the sum of money paid to Beck; but he was paid a certain sum of money in consideration of his wrongful conviction. There in no sense was the administration of justice at fault, because there was ample evidence to justify the verdict of the jury ; but, like your suggestion in this case, it was perjured evidence. Mr. Justice Edwards: Upon what ground was the money paid? Was it a gratuity? There is a good deal of difference between giving a man a gratuity and saying, " This is a very hard case, and you have suffered extremely," and saying, " You are entitled to compensation." Mr. Justice Cooper: I think in Beck's case it would appear on the estimates as a compassionate allowance. Mr. Atkinson: It is a mere matter of words. Mr. Justice Edwards: This case is quite different. In Beck's case the suggestion was that the man had been wrongfully convicted by reason of the default of servants and judicial officers of the Crown, and I suppose that whatever was paid was paid upon that view. Mr. Justice Cooper: No doubt we shall be able to get particulars of that case, and there is the ease in regard to the burglary of the clergyman's house. Mr. Atkinson: I did not know, unfortunately, that your Honours would require precedents on this particular case. I have a. few in my mind to supply to your Honours, and I can supply full particulars in Wellington; but I took it as a perfectly clear matter of public policy for which there was well-established precedent that the innocent victims of a miscarriage of justice, whether or not any officers of justice were responsible for the miscarriage, had a claim upon the bounty or compassion of the colony. Mr. Justice Edwards: That is not a general principle in the administration of the criminal law, though, may be, it ought to be. But you see times out of number that a man is prosecuted in a remote country district for a crime which he has not committed. There is sufficient evidence, however, to justify the Justices in committing him for trial, and he is committed for trial. He may be brought many miles distant to be tried in Auckland, say, and perhaps it may cost him £100, and very likely involve the loss of his employment. When he comes before me I tell the jury there is no case against him. I have told them that over and over again. I have frequently stopped the Crown. 1 have said to Mr. Tole, " There is no use going any further. It is quite clear this man should not be prosecuted." In that case the Crown Prosecutor says, " No, your Honour, Ido not propose to proceed with the case." Well, in such a case that unfortunate man may have lost his employment and perhaps been put to £100 expense, yet he receives no compensation whatever. Mr. Atkinson: Of course, your Honour, this world is a human world, and it is not governed by abstract logic that prevails in exact mathematical proportions for injuries represented by £10,000, £1,000, and £1. It cannot be administered proportionately right through, and I am not concerned with trivial wrongs. There are certain grave wrongs which attract a large amount of attention and are considered worthy of a departure from the normal procedure. I can see no legal right on the part of any man, nor am I disturbed by the fact that practically there is no recognised moral right for compensation for every mistake caused by the errors of a Government officer. Mr. Justice Edwards: I should not think it was a trivial wrong if I was committed, say, at the Bay of Islands, and brought in custody to Auckland, where I was unknown and unable to get bail, and perhaps held there in gaol for a couple of months, and then brought to trial and released by direction of the Judge. I might have lost my employment, and raised everything I could, and exhausted the compassion of my friends. In such circumstances 1 should not consider I had suffered a trivial wrong. Mr. Atkinson: If in such a case your Honour applied to Parliament for redress, and I happened to be in charge of the Administration, or even a member of the Public Petitions Committee, 1 venture to say that your Honour's petition would receive the most careful consideration. But quite seriously, your Honour, I certainly think a man in that position, if he took the proper steps, would be entitled to receive some redress for the wrong he had suffered. Mr. Justice Cooper: The only remedy is a petition to the House. Mr. Atkinson: Yes. It must depend, as I put it to your Honours, not on an abstract consideration, but on the broad question of whether there was a serious wrong and whether it had been properly brought forward. In nine cases out of ten people who suffer in that way grumble a good deal about it, but keep their sufferings to themselves. I say that we should proceed on the hypothesis that a wrong so grave as this—putting the £500 out of sight altogether—entitles the man who has suffered it to some very substantial form of compensation for what he had suffered : not that a legal right would be conceded, but a moral right, which it is a matter of public policy and public honour to recognise, would be conceded —a concession for which there are ample precedents. Mr. Justice Cooper: You say the public conscience would suffer if a man in such circumstances did not receive adequate compensation. Mr. Atkinson: Yes, your Honour. Take the case of a Supreme Court Judge being grossly wronged by mistake of law on the part of somebody—we shall not say whether the interpreters of the law, or the makers of the law, or the Executive administering the law—but it was a case in the consideration of which I do not think any technical question ever entered anybody's mind, for obviously there was a grave substantial injury for which the law offered no redress. This was obvious to the sense of fairness and equity of everybody, and nobody set up a rigorous inquiry for precedents.
34
H.—2l.
Mr. Justice Edwards: There was a breach of contract there —not a new contract, but a contract going back to the foundation of the colony-—which resulted in the fact that for many years not a single Judge lawfully sat upon the bench of this colony except the Chief Justice. It was not a new thing. Mr. Atkinson: If it was a breach of contract, your Honour, surely it was open to the person who suffered to sue in the Courts of the colony and not approach Parliament. The fact that he was compelled to petition the House puts the matter, I submit, in just the same position as this: each is a claim which through a defect in the law is not enforceable in Court. Mr. Justice Edwards: I think at an earlier period it was intimated to me that £2,000 was at my disposal. I said that if the Government could not pay more than 6s. Bd. in the pound I would not take it. I did not take it, end I did not come again. That is your difficulty. Mr. Atkinson : I hoped, your Honour, I had met that by the contention that every case must be weighed on its own merits. It is not a matter for exact precedent; it is a matter for the interpretation of particular circumstances; and a specially liberal interpretation is surely needed in an application in which the honour of the colony is involved. I put it to your Honour a little while back that I would concede that a man fully competent, a man in a comfortable position, and not harassed by pecuniary want or worry, or by the sufferings through which my client, if innocent, has undoubtedly had to pass, who signs a receipt might under ordinary circumstances appeal after that to any tribunal in the colony, and they would all say " No." But, I say, if subsequently he can prove some utter reversal of the conditions which were regarded, not by himself, but by the trustees of the public funds, as the foundation upon which the grant was made —if he can prove an entire reversal of that condition, I say even a fully competent man may be entitled, notwithstanding his receipt, to proceed-upon what is tantamount to a fresh consideration. Is not the position this, your Honours: seeing the matter is a matter really of bounty and not of claim, a matter of duty and not of right, if that is correctly stated—and I submit that hypothesis cannot be refuted —then is not the element in the case the mind of the giver, the man to whose bounty the appeal is made, the man to whose sense of duty the appeal is made ? Seeing that the suppliant has no claim, and never had, is not the whole element to be considered the mind of the giver and Ins sense of honour, and, therefore, is it not his psychology we are concerned with and not that of the gentleman who has preferred the claim ? Mr. Justice Edwards: A man who has no claim is much better off than a man who has a claim. Mr. Atkinson: Well, I do not quite understand if your Honour refers to a moral claim or a legal claim. Mr. Justice Edwards: You say a man who has no claim is really much better off than a man who has a legal claim which is disputed. I put it to you: Supposing you wipe out the obstacles in Mr. Meikle's way, and assume Meikle had a right of action. He goes to the Government and says, "1 am going to bring an action against the Crown. I have been wrongfully convicted," and the Crown says, " Well, Mr. Meikle, we do not think so, but we do not want to fight a lawsuit; we will pay you £500." Well, there would be an end to It. Mr. Atkinson: Yes. Mr. Justice Edwards: Well, Mr. Meikle did not do that because of a legal obstacle, but the Crown says, " Let us pay you £500, and have an end to it " ; and you are coming back now notwithstanding that. Therefore I say Meikle is in a much better position if that be so —I am not saying it is, but you must meet these things, you know—than he would have been if the law allowed him to bring an action against the Crown for being misled in the administration of justice. Mr. Atkinson: My answer is this: A legal release of a legal claim may be absolute and indefeasible at law, and yet on wider grounds the settlement may be properly reopened under special conditions and in the light of fresh knowledge. My ingenuity is not equal to putting to your Honour a concrete case on the spur of the moment. But I think it is perfecty clear, assuming the case was settled on a certain basis, and some fact, not known to either party, was subsequently discovered which altered the whole position, there would be no legal claim created, but it might very well be that it established a moral claim, or a claim upon the bounty and compassion, and might be recognised by both parties accordingly. And, as to a legal claim being wiped out by a legal release, I will undertake to say that every day in private business cases are happening where, notwithstanding a settlement, some matter has been overlooked, and simply by reason of the honourable obligations between man and man something extra is paid beyond the letter of the bond. That, surely, is not an uncommon case, and these errors are frequently, of course, without legfl redress. These are cases between private individuals where the legal claim has been legally barred by proper release, and yet a sense of honourable obligation between man and man allows it to be reopened and settled on higher grounds. Mr. Justice Cooper: The strongest way in which you can put it, although perhaps not in the words I am going to use,- is this: Although Meikle when he took the £500 was conscious, as he must have been if we find he was wrongfully convicted, of wrongful conviction, the Government when they paid the £500 paid it without that belief, and that if they had shared with him the belief that he has been wrongfuly convicted they would have been much more liberal in their offer. There was no sum of money recommended by the Public Petitions Committee; the Committee simply recommended the matter to the favourable consideration of the Government. Therefore you may say —I do not say it answers the objection which Dr. Findlay will no doubt urge very forcibly—assuming after this investigation is completed the crucial parts of your oasethat is, that Meikle would not have been convicted if Lambert's evidence had not been given—are sustained, and the general circumstances of the case show Meikle was wrongfully convicted, then you may say that this view of the facts was not present in the mind of the Government when they offered the £500, and that therefore, so far as they are concerned, they did not offer the £500 on that basis at all. That is the way you want to put it. Mr. Atkinson: That is so.
35
H.—2l
36
Mr. Justice Cooper: Of course, Dr. Fiudlay's answer will be: at any rate, the claimant knew it, and chose with that knowledge to discharge the colony from any future obligation. Dr. Findlay: That is so. Mr. Justice Cooper: Again, taking the case of Adolph Beck, which was referred to just now, and which, of course, is public history, it was discovered he was wrongfully convicted. He received the King's pardon, and was discharged from gaol, and the Home Secretary offered him £2,000. Supposing he had taken that £2,000, and given a discharge, the House of Commons would not have considered any further claim for compensation. He refused to take it, and he obtained £5,000. You may differentiate that case from the present case, because you may saythat both parties, when that £2,000 was offered—the Home Secretary oil the one side and Adolph Beck on the other side—were of one mind, and were both satisfied he had been wrongfully convicted. In this case there was only one —namely, the man who receives, and not the man who gives. Mr. Justice Edwards: And you say it is not given on the basis that he is innocent? Mr. Atkinson: I simply quote to your Honour what the Premier said and on the faith of which Meikle signed the receipt, that in the opinion of the Judge who tried the action, and who was still of the same opinion notwithstanding Lambert's conviction, the Government were not justified in dealing with Meikle on the basis of innocence at all. Mr. Justice Cooper: We shall have to weigh the question from Dr. Findlay's point of view on the one side and your point of view on the other. It is a very difficult point. Mr. Atkinson: It is a difficult point. In the case of an appeal to bounty it is a sheer matter of gratuity—in other words, the control of the whole question rests with the person or body to whom the appeal is made. Of course, each case must stand on its own merits, and should be treated in a broad and liberal spirit, the*circumstances surrounding each case being taken into consideration. With regard to one aspect of this case, there are a considerable number of instances in the Old Country. One case 1 had in my mind was that of a Mr. Barber, a London solicitor. The Court which tried him fell into the same mistake practically that has taken place in this case. He was charged with forgery and was transported, and he proved his iunocence in the course of two or three years, and was given £5,000 compensation. That was in the year 1844. I desire now to put to your Honours what, in my opinion, is an exact parallel to this case. Suppose the case of one man who has saved another from drowning. In such a case there would be no law of human salvage on the analogy of the Admiralty procedure, no common-law action upon a quantum meruit, to avail the rescuer; his right to remuneration, if any, would depend entirely upon the honour and generosity of the man he saved. After rescuing the drowning man and pumping the water out of him, the rescuer sends him home in a cab, for which he pays ss. Subsequently, the man who was saved being very wealthy, and his rescuer hard up, the latter asks for some recognition, and receives the following reply: "You are not the man who saved me —you are an impostor ; but, seeing that you did pay ss. on my account for cab-fare, I am prepared to pay you 2s. 6d. if you will sign a full receipt for all possible claims you might have against me." Under pressure of necessity the receipt is accordingly signed, and some months afterwards the man who signed it proves conclusively that he is no impostor, but the actual rescuer. In such circumstances could any man of honour plead the receipt as a bar to a further claim, or, if he did, would any court of honour sustain him in his plea? I submit that in all essential points the parallel is exact. The man who saves another has no legal claim for the work he has done; he is exactly in the same position in which Meikle was when he first approached the Crown. There is no legal obligation, but there is a moral obligation, and any one with a spark of honour would recognise that obligation. In that case a receipt in full discharge was given under what* I submit, are precisely analogous circumstances to the present case. There is conceded in Meikle's case the service of running a perjurer to justice, and there is conceded in the other case the payment for the cab —that it was not a payment on account of the rescue, but on account of cab-hire—and a full receipt for both was got. A month passes and the rescuer becomes importunate; he gets no redress. Some years pass, and then something turns up which re-establishes the identity of the maii who paid the cab-fare with the mail who saved the rich man from drowning. I venture to say that there is not one man in a thousand who would have the slightest doubt that an obligation of honour existed under the circumstances I have stated. I submit that if it is proved that the man is innocent, then the colony must not pay any attention to red tape, sealing-wax, stamps, or receipts, but must simply look at the broad aspect of the question and decide accordingly. Already this case is extraordinary and unprecedented in respect alike of the wrongs my client has suffered, the endurance which he has exhibited, and the pertinacity with which he ran his man down in the case of perjury; but I venture to submit that if the plea of this £500 receipt is allowed to prevail, then another feature will stand out more conspicuously still, and that is the meanness of the country whose institutions unwittingly did him so irreparable a wrong, but which nevertheless when the facts were proved sheltered itself behind that receipt as a full discharge. Now I come to the sixth issue, as to the financial position of Meikle. It is as follows: — "As to the financial position of the said John James Meikle immediately preceding his arrest for the said offence of sheep-stealing, and during his imprisonment, and at the date of his release from prison and since; and whether, having regard to all the circumstances, the said John James Meikle is fairly entitled to further pecuniary compensation in respect of his conviction and imprisonment, or in respect of the loss and suffering alleged to have been maintained upon his family thereby, and, if so, to what amount." The area of Meikle's property .was, in round numbers, 800 acres, and its position is shown on the map before your Honours. It was divided into three sections, of which Sections 22 and 12 were in his own name, and Section 23, according to my instructions, was bought by him in the names of three of his children. The total works out at 588 acres in his own name and 206 acres in his children's names, making in all 794 acres. The value which my client put upon his property
H.—2l.
throughout was £4 10s. per acre —an average of £4 10s. for the whole property —the 206 acres, the children's share, averaging rather more. I would accordingly assess it here on the £4 10s. basis, which, in round figures, makes £3,500, subject to a mortgage to the Government Life Insurance for £1,000 and a second mortgage to J. G. Ward and Co. for £200. Your Honours will see that my estimate is fairly precise, taking the mortgagee's estimate, which is contained in the following telegram from the Government Life Insurance Department: — " Meikle's property valued 1886 Government Life £4 acre —£2,352. Mortgaged £1,000 to Department same year." So that the estimate is pretty close considering that the 206 acres of better land are not included. Of course, I need not remind your Honours that the mortgagees' value is worked out on the basis of a forced sale; so that an ordinary vendor, if he can hold on, may rely on getting something better. Mr. J. G. Wilson, of Wellington, did the valuation for the Government Life Insurance Department. That would leave a net balance above the mortgage of £2,300. Then, there was sheep—Boo at 10s., £400; cattle, 12 at £6, say £70; horses, 16 at £20, say £300; farm implements, drays, &c, £250: making a total valuation, not allowing for reductions on account of the mortgages, of £4,520 as the value of the property unencumbered. Then, if you deduct mortgages £1,200 and sundry debtors £200, you leave £3,120, or, say, £3,000 as the net value after these deductions. There is also a section at Gore, which my client had to sell for the purposes of his litigation—an acre and a quarter in the suburbs of Gore in the name of Arthur Meikle. There is nothing to show the value of that, but I am instructed it was worth £200, although sold for £60 to meet an emergency in some of these proceedings. The Government's valuation applied to the 588 acres in his own 12 and 22—which were sold during Meikle's imprisonment- by the mortgagees. There was some one in possession by the mortgagees for some years. I cannot give the history of these transactions. The mortgagees were in considerable difficulty owing to the 200 acres which were in the sons' names being under a title which could not be realised. That made it difficult for the mortgagees, and they were in possession under circumstances which made it hard to get a good price. Section 23, in the name of the children, is a section on the north, adjoining Gregg's property on that side and the company's leasehold on the east. The divisions of the paddocks do not correspond with the divisions of the sections. As for details of the losses, my client estimates his income, after allowing for deductions— his net income as about £400 per annum at that time. It is hardly necessary for me to remind your Honours of how much is likely to be left of property of that kind while the owner spends five years in gaol, and a good many more years after he comes out in hunting for justice. The property was sold by the mortgagees during his imprisonment, and, as Meikle instructs me, he cannot give details; but there was no balance which came to him. The cropping appears to have been under an additional liability to J. G. Ward and Co. for £300, but he is not in a position to swear to that amount because of the circumstance that there have been two fires in the solicitors' offices since he came out of gaol, so that a large number of his papers have disappeared. With regard to the question of costs, I do not know that there is much occasion to trouble your Honours over the matter of costs of his defence and the prosecution of Lambert. It is exceedingly difficult in a number of these cases how to put them before the Court at all, because, for instance, Mr. Solomon's fee for the prosecution of Lambert was £60, and £18 has been paid. Dr. Findlay: All these costs are paid now. Mr. Atkinson: It is a case of a debt of honour on the other side. Mr. Justice Cooper: There was a sum of £294 paid for the costs of Lambert's prosecution The particulars, I suppose, will show. Mr. Atkinson : I was suggesting that we should treat as written off. I cannot ask you for fees on a higher scale than has been paid. There are elaborate details here, and it might save your Honours that trouble. You were asked to inquire into the financial position of Meikle at the time immediately preceding his arrest for sheep-stealing, which I have put before your Honours as substantially accurate, but which will be subject to correction with the account of the second mortgage. As to his position on the date of his release from prison, that is a more difficult matter to estimate. His position" now, of course, is a negative quantity, and a negative quantity that would run into a good many figures. It is very difficult to know how to put it. I understand he has been living from hand to mouth, and that there would be some hundreds of pounds to the wrong side at the present moment. Ido not suppose that your Honours or my friend will need precise proof—my friend will show what he does need in cross-examination—as to loss and the suffering the man has gone through, on the assumption of his innocence, and because he would not sit down, but must stand up and agitate as well a3 he can for a redress. He owes a considerable amount for legal advice. Dr. Findlay and His Honour Mr. Justice Cooper will know* that a good deal has been done. Mr. Justice Cooper: I know I tried two cases. Dr. Findlay: They were not very lucrative, your Honour. Mr. Justice Edwards: Surely the State is not going to pay that? Mr. Atkinson: No; but you are asked to ascertain his financial position. Mr. Justice Cooper: You say his present position is of a negative quantity ? Mr. Atkinson: The last I was aware in connection with his present position was when Meikle was about to leave Wellington for Dunedin to attend this Commission. A tailor on Lambton Quay said to him, "You will want to look well at this case, and if you want an overcoat I will make it for you." He has been treated in that way all through, so that it is difficult to ascertain how he really stands. He has not been able to get money on interest. As a matter of fact Meikle's friends had to send round the hat to get him down here. It is exceedingly difficult to put it in a more precise way, and it will raise a number of questions as to how far the services he has been rendered are gratuitous, and how far he is liable. Dr. Findlay: It is sufficiently met by your statement that he has nothing.
37
H.—2l.
Mr. Justice Cooper: Under paragraph 7 of the order of reference we have to find the amount of legal and other costs incurred by him. Mr. Justice Edwards: That does not mean these prosecutions? Mr. Atkinson: No, sir; that comes under paragraph 6. Mr. Justice Cooper: We have to find under that question the costs of the trial for sheepstealing under the trial for perjury; notwithstanding that the Government has paid £294 on that account, we still have to find the costs of them. Dr. Findlay: I propose to ask Meikle what he paid with the £294—if in point of fact he paid that to counsel; and I should probably be content with the answer. I know that Mr. Neave rendered a bill which was considered fabulously high, and which he said he would not pay. Mr. Atkinson: Mr. Neave's bill was for £680. Mr. Justice Edwards: For prosecutions in the Magistrate's Court? Dr. Findlay: Ido not know what he had to do with it. Mr. Atkinson: He included counsel in that. Dr. Findlay: I understand that the bill was manufactured for the purposes of the parliamentary Committee. Mr. Justice Edwards: Of course, it is quite out of the question that any one would ever pay that for costs, and no solicitor who understands his duty to the profession and has any respect for himself would ever dream of making out such a bill. Mr. Justice Cooper: I defended a good many cases of sheep-stealing, and have never yet had anything to do with a case in which the costs came to £680. Mr. Atkinson: Of course, it has been spread over a great number of years, and spread out to a large amount. We are not putting it here as a moral obligation. Then there is the question as to the chief aspect, of which we have had some discussion already, coming again in the bottom of the sixth issue: — " Whether, having regard to all the circumstances, the said John James Meikle is fairly entitled to further pecuniary compensation in respect of his conviction and imprisonment, or in respect of the loss and suffering alleged to have been entailed upon his family thereby; and, if so, to what amount." The question there of quantum, assuming th.it your Honours get over the abstract difficulties that have already been discussed, will then come in. The £5,000 your Honours have mentioned has been a sort of standard in various cases, although in Barber's case he was a sort of professional man, and, as Mr. Justice Edwards said, it was not on the basis of absolute compensation, although a consideration of that kind must clearly be an element in it. However, 1 think your Honours will agree that the basis of compensation in the present case, if the other questions were decided in Meikle's favour, will not be limited to the bare period he was in the walls of the gaol. If he was wrongfully convicted as an innocent man and suffered, then certainly he was entitled as an innocent man to seek redress. I do not suggest that compensation should cover any exorbitant claim, but I do say that whatever may be regarded as reasonable expenses, as a man doing his utmost through the Courts and in face of all the difficulties detailed to your Honours —I do say that whatever would be regarded as a reasonable allowance for the expenses of these proceedings, for loss of time and livelihood involved in these proceedings, will certainly be allowed. It is a difficult matter, and I am not going to attempt an accurate estimate before your Honours; but, clearly, not only as an innocent man who has suffered such wrong —if he is proved to be an innocent man —not only is he entitled to use all these methods —prosecution, litigation, and petition to Parliament—surely all these must be regarded as part of his rights, and that he was discharging a meritorious duty to himself, his family, and even his country in sticking to the matter and seeing it through. I put it to you not in any precise and technical way, but in this way: that the period of compensation, compassionate allowance, or gratuity must not be limited to the five years during which my client was in gaol, but that there must be a reasonable allowance also for the subsequent work, the merits of which my friend and I are agreed in conceiving the Government have recognised by the grants which have already been made. I refer, of course, to the case of Lambert. The Court adjourned until next morning.
Dunedin, Thursday, 3bd May, 1906. Consideration of the question of alleged contempt of Court preferred against the witness J. J. Meikle on the previous day was first dealt with by the Court. Mr. Justice Edwards: We should like to hear what Mr. Meikle has got to say. Mr. Atkinson: On Mr. Meikle's behalf I have to say that I regret the incident, which really is not so serious as represented to your Honours yesterday. It was the result of a double misunderstanding, for part of which my friend must bear the responsibility. As I mentioned yesterday, there was an undertaking on both sides that we should supply one another with lists of the witnesses we intended to cali. I had carried out my undertaking, but I have never been furnished with a list of my friend's witnesses. He had mentioned one or two who are to be called in Wellington, but I have not had a full list. Mr. Meikle, therefore, was not aware that this gentleman, Mr. Fleming, was a witness before this Commission. Mr. Fleming was a witness in 1887, but, as your Honours know, there have been five different Court proceedings since, in none of which did this gentleman appear, and Mr. Meikle was not aware that he was to be called now. Then a remark of a perfectly innocent character made to him by Mr. Fleming was taken by Mr. Meikle to be a remark of an opposite character, and he resented it. There was no reason why he should have been hurt by the remark, but he was hurt nevertheless. He did not retaliate by a threat, though there was some more or less picturesque language used. And it was not in the capacity of a witness before this
38
H.—2l.
Commission that Mr. Fleming was addressed, so far as my client was aware. It is not necessary for me to repeat to your Honours that I had endeavoured to anticipate trouble of this kind by urging upon my client that neither he nor any of his witnesses must speak to any of the others, and if my friend will supply me with a list of his witnesses I shall be in a better position to enforce that injunction. Di . Findlay: Of course, I know very well Mr. Atkinson has done his best both here and elsewhere to keep his client in order, and I am baking this matter somewhat seriously because I know as well as my friend Mr. Atkinson the peculiar type of man Meikle is. As regards the question of the list of witnesses, I think Mr. Atkinson is making too much of that. It is true I have not formally supplied him with a list; but I told him in Wellington that we were calling all the witnesses called before. I can, however, write out a list at once and supply it to Mr. Atkinson. Ido not want to ask for any severity in this matter. What lam aiming at is a serious warning from the Bench to prevent a repetition of this treatment of witnesses for the Crown, some whom may be even more nervous than Mr. Fleming. For my part, lam quite prepared to leave the matter as it is now. The facts are simply these: Mr. Fleming, when walking near the Grand Hotel the night before last, was met by two men, one of whom turned out to be Mr. Meikle, who began to speak about this case. Mr. Fleming, not having seen Meikle for some years, and Meikle having shaved off his beard, did not identify him. He said, "I am not here to persecute Meikle, but to give evidence about these fences to the best of my knowledge and belief." The reply to that was, " You, Mr. McDonald, and Judge Ward are in conspiracy to ruin me," and then followed some increasingly violent language, so loud in tone that it drew a crowd around. Then followed the threat by Meikle that he and his family would hound Fleming and those other two as long as they lived. By this time a crowd had gathered, and a friend, Mr. Mcßitchie, who was with Meikle, induced him away. Those are the facts, to which Mr. Fleming is prepared to swear. Mr. Atkinson: I should have thought that my friend might have asked your Honours to warn my client, and Mr. Justice Edwards: I understand that Dr. Findlay does not ask for punishment, but merely a warning. Mr. Atkinson: I do practically admit that the first improper observation came from my client, and it was in answer to an expression from Mr. Fleming to Meikle, " I should not have known you," which for some reason or other Mr. Meikle took as intended for insulting innuendo, and that is what started the friction. lam quite prepared to concede that my client was wrong in taking the expression in that sense. I regret the incident, and I think Dr. Findlay will be satisfied. Mr. Justice Edwards: I think the essential point is whether your client knew the person he addressed to be a witness or not, and that he denies. Dr. Find-lay: I think I had better call Mr. Fleming. James Fleming examined. 1. Dr. Findlay.] You are a farmer?— Yes. 2. You are chairman of your County Council?— Yes, at present. 3. You are a witness under subpoena from the Crown to attend before this Commission?—l am. 4. You have attended here in obedience to your subpoena, arriving the night before last? —Yes. 5. You have been a witness in 1887, and you gave evidence upon certain fences on Mr. Meikle's ground ? —Yes. 6. You were on the street near the Grand Hotel the night before last, and you were met by some one: who was it?—A man called Mcßitchie, and another with him, whom it appears was Mr. Meikle, though I did not recognise him at the time. 7. Did he speak to you?—Mcßitchie spoke—l knew him—and then Meikle at once started in connection with the case. . 8. Speaking about the case ?—Yes. 9. What did you say?—l said nothing at all, because I did not know the man. 10. What did you ultimately say?—He said, "Do you know who I am?" I said, " No; Ido not know you from Adam." 11. Was anything said about your evidence?— Not up to then. 12. Was anything subsequently said about your evidence?—As soon as he told me who he was, he started in connection with this matter. I then said, " Look here, Meikle, I am not here to persecute you in any shape or form, but simply to report as to the state of certain fences. lam going to report to the Commission acording to my knowledge and belief." He then said, " You are a bloody liar." 13. What followed that?—He said, "You and T. M. McDonald and Judge Ward are financially indebted to the company, and are under an undertaking to put me and my family out of the place." 14. What tone was this said in? —It started in an ordinary tone, I think, but it gradually got louder. 15. Could you hear him some distance away?—Yes v I should say so. 16. Were there any people about?— The people in the street began to gather around. 17. Did he use any other expressions?— Yes. 18. What did he say?—He said that Judge Ward owed the company some £30,000, and that Judge Ward, Mr. T. M. McDonald, and myself were a bloody lot of scoundrels. 19. What was his tone then ?—A very excited tone by this time. 20. Any further threat used? —He said he and his family would hound us down as long as we lived. 21. Was his friend Mcßitchie standing by?— Yes, and he said, " Tut, tut, man, this is not the place to talk like that," and he quietly got him away.
39
H.—2l.
22 By that time had any crowd gathered ?—Some people had gathered around, but I could not say how many; I was a bit flurried at the time myself under the circumstances. I suppose there must have been ten or twenty people. . 23. Mr. Atkinson.] Have you any of the ten or twenty people here?—l here is one person who was with Mr. Meikle here I know. I did not know any of the others 24 Who is that person ?—Mr. Mcßitchie, who was with Mr. Meikle when I met him 25.' Was not Meikle's first sharp remark to you in reply to your remark that you would not have known him? —That is so. .., T . ~ T 26 Did he not resent that remark very strongly ?—No; when he asked me did I know him, 1 said "I do not know you from Adam." Then he told me his name, and on looking at him 1 sard, " I see the difference now; you used to have a bushy black beard, and you have shaved rt oti 27 Is it not a fact that he felt insulted for some reason or other, and seemed to resent that remark of yours ?—No, he never resented that in the slightest. I did not put it in an offensive way. 28 lam not suggesting that: was it not taken in an offensive way ?—Not to my knowledge. 29 Was not that when the warmth began ?—No; he began to go into personal matters. 30' Did it not begin immediately on the top of this remark of yours about not knowing him from Adam, and your remark about the change in bis appearance ?-INo; there was a good deal more than that said, but I have given you the sum and substance of it as nearly as possible. 31 What was the remark you made to him about his change m appearance ?—After looking at him I could not understand how it was I did not recognise him, and on lookrng at him again 1 saw that it was because he had shaved. „, . . a n •j 4, . T 32. Did he say that he and his family had been hounded out of their property ?—He said that 1 and Mr T M. McDonald and Judge Ward had been hounding him. 33. Did he not make the observation, " I and my family have been hounded out of my property "I —No, he did not put it in that way. _ , 34. Did he make the observation, " Some day you and your family might be in the same positloll 35~Do°you swear that he said he and his family would never rest until they had done the same to you?— No. What he did say was this: that he and his family would hound us—that is, Mr. T M. McDonald, Judge Ward, and myself—as long as we lived. , 36. You swear that he did say that he and his family would take that contract over 7— EXa °37 y ' At what period of the conversation did you refer to the fact that you were a witness in the present case? —He just took it for granted. ... 38 You must not take anything for granted yourself. You are here to speak the truth. According to your examination in chief, it was a considerable way down in the conversation when reference was made to your being a witness. I want to know at what period of the conversation any reference was made to your being a witness I—l think it was at the time he sard that we were bloody scoundrels, and that we were practically appointed to persecute him and put him and his family off the land, and when he said he would show us up at this Court of inquiry. But the whole thing was so painfill to me that I cannot place everything exactly. 39. And yet you would swear the man's character away when you cannot place exactly what did '"'"'Mr. Justice Edwards: I think Mr. Fleming is giving his evidence very fairly. I have no doubt he was excited and cannot remember exactly what took place. Mr Atkinson: I do not want to be unjust to the witness, but, as your Honour has stated before it is important to know whether my client was aware at the time that Mr. Fleming was a witness in this case. The subject is a very painful one to me, and Ido not wish to make the matter worse than it really is. .... • ■ -j 40 Had there been any warm talk at all before you mentioned that you were giving evidence here?—Up to the time he mentioned his name I thought he was an ordinary man in the streetThere are some people who indulge in that kind of thing, and I took no notice of him. Br Findlay: As I said before, I do not ask for any penalty, but a warning to Mr. Meikle Mr Atkinson: I wish to be allowed to state that I am sorry to have taken up the time of the Court for so Ion"; but your Honours will understand my client is naturally sensitive, and he, not perfectly understanding" the remark about not knowing him from Adam, took it as intended for an offensive remark. Then followed, apparently, a good deal of wild talk. Ido not wrsh to take up the time of the Commission in examining my client on this matter. Mr Justice Edwards: Mr. Meikle, we are very sorry this should have occurred. It is beyond all question that you have been guilty of a very serious offence, almost coming within the Criminal Code and rendering yourself liable to imprisonment, with hard labour. This threatening of witnesses is a very serious matter, and a matter which cannot possibly be passed over lightly. We both regard it as being a very much more serious offence than many of the offences which are dealt with by the Criminal Code, and we cannot allow it to be passed over lightly. We do not propose at present to inflict any penalty. We propose to postpone adjudicating on this matter until the conclusion of the present inquiry, and we trust that your conduct in the meantime will justify us 111 adopting the lenient course suggested by Dr. Findlay, and simply dismissing the matter with a caution It is our duty to give you the most serious caution that words can express. That is the mode in which we propose to deal with it. Now, it is to be hoped for your own sake—because your statements must all be affected by such conduct as this—you will show you fully appreciate the warning which it is our duty to give you to-day. Address by counsel continued. Mr. Atkinson: Your Honours will remember that just before the adjournment yesterday you handed me a search note of my client's titles made on behalf of Dr. Findlay, and I had not
40
H.—2l.
had time to look at it fully. I find there must be added another £100 to the registered liabilities. It appears it stands as £1,000 to the Government Life and £200 to Joseph George Ward, and I allowed for an additional hundred on it, but it now appears that really there is a third mortgage on the title to J. G. Ward of £200, which increases my estimate of the liabilities by £100. When the property was sold under the mortgage about two years after Mr. Meikle was convicted, it was sold by the Registrar under the power of sale of the first mortgage to J. G. Ward for £900, which shows, of course, what a disastrous matter it had been; and, as I put it to your Honours, it was largely on account of the fact that just as Meikle's land held a very strong position in the centre of the company's land, so this part of the land which was then registered in the names of Mr. Meikle's children under age, and was therefore not mortgaged, interfered with the realisation of the rest. But your Honours will notice that these 588 acres had been valued by the Government Life Office, subject to that liability, for £2,352 three years before. The other point I desire to add by way of supplement to the financial side is just a calculation assuming that £3,000 remains as a fair estimate of the total estate of my client at that time. I forget whether I made an estimate on the section at Gore, but, putting it at that time at £200, it would more than make up for any deficit on account of the extra liability on the third mortgage, and would leave approximately £3,000, and, taking a compound-interest basis at 6 per cent., in eighteen years that £3,000 would have amounted to £8,564. That is one of the means, at any rate, of checking the loss, and perhaps it is a simpler method of going to work than looking into the changes of land values, and the various other elements to be considered. I have got now one issue left. It is the question of recording the innocence of Mr. Meikle, assuming it to be established. The question arises on issue No. 8 of the Commission :—■ "Whether, having regard to English precedent and the circumstances of the case, the claim of the said John James Meikle that his name be removed from the prison records can be given effect to; and, if not, what alternative is practicable in the way of placing on record his innocence, if, in your opinion, his innocence has been established or may be presumed as aforesaid." I must concede, your Honours, that it is not worth while taking up the time of the Commission with a proposal to effect any mechanical or physical mutilation of the prison records of the colony, or any other records. It seems to me an impracticable, a bizarre kind of proposal, and just as futile as it is grotesque. The idea of erasure or the use of scissors, or pasting over, or whatever mode of obliteration might be employed seems to me a mere absurdity, and it is not the sort of thing that any one with a sense of the importance of a public record and the valuelessness of any alteration of that kind would support. Of course, the enduring record of my client's trouble is outside the prison records. It is in the public mind; it is in the public prints; and there has got to be something really much more substantial and something much less improper than the mutilation of books. Then, your Honours, 1 come to the question of pardon, as to which I submit it is clearly not a thing for this case, because what is needed here, assuming that all the answers are found in my client's favour, is something for an innocent man. A pardon is not the thing for an innocent man, because it implies guilt. Mr. Justice Cooper: Not a free pardon; not a King's pardon. A free pardon does not imply guilt. A free pardon restores a man to his former status. Mr. Atkinson: It restores him to his former status, but it assumes he has lost it. Mr. Justice Cooper: He has lost it by the conviction. It restores his former status, and puts him in this position : that it cannot be alleged against him either under any statute which disqualifies a man owing to a conviction or in any other way. It cannot be alleged against him that he has been a convicted criminal. It restores his status as a citizen. Mr. Atkinson: It restores his status, but it assumes a crime has been committed which led to the loss of that status, and therefore it implies prior guilt. Mr. Justice Cooper: That is not Mr. Justice Hawkins's opinion in the case I referred to. Mr. Atkinson: I looked up that authority. Mr. Justice Cooper: In that case the man was wrongfully convicted and he received a free pardon, and it was held that he was a person who was entitled to obtain a publican's license, and that there was no blot upon his character. Mr. Atkinson: I have here one or two judicial definitions and one or two references in the text-books, especially in Mr. Justice Stephen's "History of Criminal Law." I have the authority to which your Honours referred, and I am unable to find that a free pardon means anything more than an absolute pardon as opposed to a conditional pardon. Mr. Justice Cooper: There are three classes of cases. There is the man who has been convicted and served his sentence. He has paid the penalty, and the consequences of his crime to that extent are wiped out, but he is not restored to his former status by having served the penalty. There is the second case, where for some reason the Crown has remitted the punishment and allowed him to leave gaol. That is a conditional pardon, or a pardon, as you may call it. There his status is not restored ; he has simply escaped the penalty. Then there is the case where he receives a free pardon. That not only releases the penalty, but restores his status. Mr. Atkinson: It undoubtedly does, your Honour; but I submit, nevertheless, it proceeds on the hypothesis that he is guilty, though his guilt has been purged. I will cite a case to your Honours presently—Smethurst's case—where a man has been found guilty of murder by poisoning, and sentenced, and there was a conflict of expert testimony. On the ground that there was not absolute certainty that he was guilty of poisoning, he got a free pardon. Well, it is surely, your Honours, a startling thing if the same remedy is to be applied in the case of a man who has proved he is innocent and wrongfully convicted. Mr. Justice Edwards: It is quite right that man should receive a free pardon, because he ought not to have been convicted. He should be restored to the state in which he would have been if the jury had returned the verdict as they ought to have done.
6—H. 21.
41
H.—2l.
Mr. Atkinson: That is simply a case where there is not a sufficient preponderance of proof to make it absolutely certain. It is like the Scotch verdict of " Not proven." Mr. Justice Edwards: Very well; a verdict of "Not guilty" should have been returned; and if he got a pardon at all upon that ground, of course he should get a free pardon. Mr. Justice Cooper: What was done in Beck's case was that he was paid a sum of money and received a free pardon. . ~ , Mr. Atkinson: On the face of Mr. Beck's pardon, of which I have got a copy, and on the face of any pardon of which I can find the text, there is not the faintest suggestion that the man is not guilty of the crime with which he has been charged. There are no recitals that go to the merits of the case. It is a free grant of the King's mercy, and the man might be the blackest of criminals, but circumstances arise which would call upon the Crown to exercrse rts clemency and to make some moral atonement; but there is absolutely nothing to distinguish these classes of cases in the free pardons as I have seen them. ~,.,, Mr Justice Cooper: Under paragraph 8, assuming we find in favour of Meikle, there is a permanent record in the finding of the Commission. A free pardon restores his status as if he had never been convicted. The finding of the Commission, assuming it is in Meikle's favour, places on record what you ask. Mr. Atkinson: Of course, a pardon implies that he has been guilty, and 1 want something to show he is innocent; and surely, your Honours, the things are as different as can be. Why, it has been held in America—and Ido not suggest that American Courts are a hrgh authority, as a rule, but it seems to be in accordance with common-sense—that the acceptance of a pardon admits the guilt in respect to the offence for which the pardon is granted. Mr. Justice Edwards: That" is not so in the case of a King's pardon. It is quite the contrary. It is never granted except upon the ground that a conviction should not have been recorded. Mr Justice Cooper: However, it is for you to suggest the alternative. Mr. Atkinson: I cannot gather from Mr. Justice Stephen's "History of Crimrnal Law that he is of your Honour's opinion. Mr. Justice Cooper: The best pronouncement is Baron Pollock s, m the case 1 referred to. Mr. Atkinson: I have looked it up, and I am unable to draw the same conclusion as your Honour. It restores the former status, but it assumes he was guilty. Mr. Justice Cooper: It does not assume he was guilty. What it does do is to make him a new man The point was that no man convicted of any offence was allowed to hold a license. This man having obtained a King's pardon—a free pardon—it was held his status was restored, and his conviction was wiped away. . Mr. Atkinson: But it assumed that he had been guilty. It assumed that the pardon wiped out the guilt It made him a new man, because he was now the old man without the guilt. Mr. Justice Cooper: It goes further. The King's pardon wiped out the conviction, and restored him to the status of a man who had never been convicted. Mr. Justice Edwards: What would you like? Mr. Atkinson: I want the whole thing quashed. Mr Jtistice Edwards: In what form? What do you want us to recommend? This Commission cannot do it, but Parliament can do it. Do you wish us to recommend Parliament simply to pass a statute reciting he had been unjustly convicted, and enacting—what? Mr. Atkinson: And enacting that the verdict and the sentence are hereby annulled, or whatever the proper technical language may be. To quote an American authority, your Honours—and I do not want to rely exclusively upon America, but I cannot gather from Mr. Justrce Stephen's "History of Criminal Law" that he regards the efficacy of a pardon in quite so thorough-going a way as your Honours. . Mr. Justice Edwards: It is the only satisfaction a man unjustly convicted ever got or could get in England. Mr. Atkinson: But it is a remedy which puts the very worst offender upon exactly the same position as the clearing of an innocent man. The logical basis of a pardon is that there is guilt there and it has to be purged, and it is purged. _ Mr. Justice Cooper: You might indicate, if we came to the conclusion Meikle was innocent, we should suggest that a short statute should be passed reciting that fact, and awarding him compensation. Mr. Justice Edwards: And if we came to the conclusion that Mr. Meikle, with his eyes open, accepted a certain sum in satisfaction of his claim, what are we to do then? Mr. Atkinson: Give us the statute, if there is nothing in it besides. It might recite, "And whereas this colony does not deem it to be inconsistent with its honour to hold up this receipt for £500 in satisfaction of all the claims," &c. I would like to have the drawing-up of that preamble. I do not want to labour what is a technical point, but I did approach the authorities with a very hopeful bias in favour of the view your Honours are putting now, from the fact that it was suggested by your Honours in one of the Chamber discussions previously ; but Chief Justice Marshall, of the United States, is the highest legal authority from whom I can find a detailed definition of a legal pardon. It is in the case of the U.S. v. Wilson, and is taken from 7 Peters (U.S.), page 150: " An Act of grace which proceeds from the power intrusted with the execution of the laws and exempts the individual on whom it is bestowed from the punishment which the law inflicts for a crime that he has committed." Mr. Justice Edwards: Is that a case of a man pardoned on the ground that he should not have been convicted 1 ~..,.. Mr. Atkinson: I really do not know. I cannot find any distinction in the books except as between a free and conditional pardon. Mr. Justice Edwards: That must be wrong. It seems to me, from what was said in the case Mr. Justice Cooper referred to, that if the man had simply received an ordinary pardon he would not have been entitled to a publican's license.
42
H.—2l.
Mr. Atkinson: I have not found that definition. I do not know where His Honour can point to it. Of course, that your Honours should put my client in the position of being able to hold a publican's license is not the sum of my ambition in this case. Mr. Justice Edwards: It is quite conceivable that the Legislature would object to pass a special statute in this matter, on the ground that it might justify a similar application in another case, and that it is quite foreign to the English practice. Mr. Atkinson: I am putting to your Honours that the English practice is absolutely illogical, the fact being that there is no remedy there short of the intervention of the Legislature, and no case has arisen there yet which has been considered worthy of such intervention. Mr. Justice Cooper: This is what Baron Pollock says: — "By 33 and 34 Vict., c. 29, s. 14 (the English Licensing Act), 'Every person convicted of felony shall for ever be disqualified from selling spirits.' " He continues, "John Hay was convicted of felony. He was afterwards pardoned." Now, here is the distinction between a King's pardon and an ordinary pardon: — " The pardon was under the Sign-manual and not under the Great Seal, but by 7 and 8 Geo. IV, c. 28, s. 13, such pardon is equivalent to a pardon under the Great Seal; so for all purposes he is in the same position as if he had a pardon under the Great Seal. . . . The general question of law next to be considered is: what was the effect of the pardon which John Hay obtained ? By the prerogative of the Crown the pardon extends far beyond the mere discharge of the prisoner from any further imprisonment. It is a purging of the offence. The King's pardon, says Hale, ' takes away poenam et culpam.' " It takes away the punishment and the fault. " This points to the character, condition, and status of a convict. Again, in 2 Hawkins's P.C., s. 48, the author says that pardon ' does so far clear the party from the infamy and all other consequences of his crime that he may not only have an action for a scandal in calling him traitor or felon after the time of the pardon, but may also be a good witness.' " It further sets up his status as a witness. " So in another text-book of authority, 1 Chitty's ' Criminal Law,' 775, it is said that ' The effect of a pardon, like that of the allowance of clergy, is not merely to prevent the infliction of the punishment denounced by the sentence, but to give to the defendant a new capacity, credit, and character.' " He refers to cases, and then goes on to say that his status has been restored. Then Mr. Justice Hawkins, in the same case, takes the very point that you have referred to. He says: — " It has been argued that the Queen's pardon may be granted for other reasons than innocence —that a notorious thief may have received the Queen's pardon in consideration of his having informed and given evidence against his accomplices. Ido not know how that may be. Perhaps if he had been convicted, and suffered part of his sentence, and shown contrition, some remission of his sentence rather than a Queen's pardon would be granted." Mr. Atkinson: That, of course, is a clear question of discretion. Mr. Justice Cooper: This goes to the root of the matter: — "Having regard to the whole matter and the argument in the present case, I have come to the conclusion that the effect of the Queen's pardon operating on the crime of which the alleged offender has been convicted was to absolve him not only from the actual punishment imposed by the Judge, but from all the other penal consequences to which I have referred." That is, loss of status and loss of character. He also sa}-s, and this is a propos of the matter: — " Then, as to the effect of the Queen's pardon, without discussing further the authorities and statutes, I come to the conclusion that directly the crime of which a man has been convicted is pardoned he is absolved not only from the punishment inflicted on him by the Judge who pronounced the sentence, but from all penal consequences, such as the disqualification from following his occupation. To treat it otherwise would be contrary to what certainly must have been the intention of the Legislature; for I cannot believe that it was the intention of the Legislature that if a man had the great misfortune to be wrongly convicted, and was pardoned on the ground that the conviction was wrong, the Queen's pardon, though absolving him from the pains of imprisonment, should nevertheless leave him to suffer the penal effect of his conviction by being prevented in future from following his avocation, notwithstanding the rectification of the error which had occurred." I do not think that the Legislature would for one moment hesitate to pass a short Act confirming what the Commission has done if we should find that Meikle is innocent. Mr. Atkinson: The granting of a free pardon may be a rectification of the error in one sense, but it does not say that there was no crime. It takes away the guilt, but in so doing it assumes that there must be guilt to take away, and what a farce it is to take away guilt after innocence is proved. Mr. Justice Edwards: What are you asking us to do? Mr. Atkinson: I am asking you to put my client in the position he was in in 1887. Mr. Justice Edwards: That is, a free pardon. My impression is that he could not get the King's pardon except from His Majesty in Council, and probably the Parliament of the colony would think it better to pass an Act dealing with it. Mr. Atkinson: I wish to cite the following sentences at page 312 of the first volume of Stephen's " History of Criminal Law ": — "It is a much more important circumstance that no provision whatever is made for questioning the decision of a jury on matters of fact. However unsatisfactory such a verdict may be, whatever facts may be discovered after the trial, which if known at the trial would have altered the result, no means are at present provided by law by which a verdict can be reversed. All that can be done in such a case is to apply to the Queen through the Secretary of State for the
43
H.—-21
44
Home Department for a pariioii for the person supposed to have been wrongly convicted. This is one of the greatest defects in our whole system of criminal procedure. To pardon a man on the ground of his innocence is in itself, to say the least, an exceedingly clumsy mode of procedure." If it is a clumsy mode of procedure, I submit that it supports the whole of my contention. Then there is a passage from the report of the Criminal Code Commission (page 317): — " The powers of the Secretary of State, however, as to disposing of the cases which come before him are not as satisfactory as his power of inquiring into the circumstances. He can advise Her Majesty to remit or commute a sentence; but, to say nothing of the inconsistency of pardoning a man for an offence on the ground that he did not commit it, such a course may be unsatisfactory. The result of the inquiries of the Secretary of State may be to show, not that the convict is clearly innocent, but that the propriety of the conviction is doubtful; that matters were left out of account which ought to have been considered, or that too little importance was attached to a view of the case the bearing of which was not sufficiently apprehended at the trial— in short, the inquiry may show that the case is one on which the opinion of a second jury ought to be taken. If this is the view of the Secretary of State, he ought, we think, to have the right of directing a new trial on his own undivided responsibility." If it were to be a pardon there is no doubt that the Legislature has ample power to do it. The only sort of legislative pardon that I can find in recent years was the pardon of Lord Bryon and another peer for having voted when they were disqualified, and it appears that they got a private indemnity Act. But that is a clear recognition of an undoubted power. However, as your Honours have put it, an Act might be passed with a preamble reciting the position, and if the report of the Commissioners is sufficiently favourable to my client to justify that, I am perfectly certain the Law Draftsman would have no difficulty in puttings enough into the preamble to meet the case. In conclusion, I desire to come back to the general principle of the moral responsibility of the colony for the miscarriage of justice, if miscarriage of tjustice is proved, and I will briefly sum up by saying that the deliberate wickedness of the tyrant who robs or tortures or imprisons is the execration of history; but in these days few tyrants have the opportunity of inflicting greater suffering upon their victims than have been heaped upon my client by the terrible miscairiage of justice now under investigation. A community whose law-courts have been the involuntary agents of this wrong is not going to put itself in the moral position of a tyrant, as it would by leaving things as they stand if the wrong be proved. Your Honours will surely appeal to its highest motives, and I do not fear the results.
Dunedin, Thursday, 3rd May, 1906. James White Kelly examined. 1. Mr. Atkinson.] You are a tailor carrying on business in Gore?— Yes. 2. You were formerly a member of the House of Representatives for Invercargill?—Yes. 3. And you were foreman of the jury which found Meikle guilty in 1887 of sheep-stealing?— I was. 4. You gave evidence in the prosecution of William Lambert for perjury in respect to evidence which he gave on the trial of Meikle?—Yes. 5. Let me read His Honour's notes of your evidence —it is a long while ago —if you will just listen and say whether these statements are correct: "James White Kelly, M.H.R., Invercargill: I remember sitting on a common jury to try indictment against Meikle in 1887. I was foreman of jury. I remember prisoner giving evidence. I heard him speak as to meeting Arthur Meikle on a certain date driving sheep. The date Lambert spoke to all through his evidence was the Nth October, 1887. I could not say, speaking from memory, what he said. He spoke as to seeing Arthur Meikle driving sheep that night. Speaking from memory, he said they were driven on to Meikle's property. He said they were the prosecuting company's sheep. He said the father met' them there. lam not sure whether it was on that particular occasion that one or more were killed. He pressed as to the date by counsel for the prisoner. He stuck to date all through his evidence. Cross-examined: I think it was both in his examination and cross-examination he stuck to the date —Nth. I don't think anything was mentioned about Nth in Supreme Court. I believe Meikle was charged with stealing twenty-seven sheep. I have seen an indictment and refreshed my memory. I could swear to the date before I saw the indictment. I saw indictment before I gave evidence in Court below. I remember about date, but not about number of sheep he was charged with stealing. I think two other witnesses spoke pretty close to Nth. Gregg was one. I think Gregg mentioned Lambert being at his hut on that date. I think Gregg was positive also as to date. Re-examined: lam confident that Lambert made use of a note at the trial." Is that a correct record so far as you recollect of the evidence you gave?— Yes. 6. Do you wish to make any alterations in that statement? —No. 7. These statements are true?— Yes. 8. You were a member of Parliament during what years?— For nine years. The first election was, I think, in 1889. 9. There were various petitions from Meikle which came before the House when you were there?— Yes. 10. Did you present any of them, or have charge of any of them?—l took a leading part in connection with the petitions, but I-cannot say whether they were presented all by me. On several occasions there were petitions brought in from other people asking for an inquiry, and probably they were not presented by me. 11. You took a leading part in some parts of the proceedings: on what side were you moving?—On behalf of Mr. Meikle.
H.— 2l.
J. W. KELLY.J
12. Do you remember when the sum of £500 was first voted—there had been a previous sum — do you recollect the date?— No. 13. Do you remember the matter being discussed in 1897?— Yes. 14. Do you recollect the debate on the subject?—No, I do not recollect a great deal about the debate further than that the last time the Committee's report was brought down, when the Chairman of the Committee moved, " That the report do lie on the table." I moved an amendment, " That it be referred back to the Committee." 15. Do you know the date? —No. 16. You have not refreshed your memory on the point?—No; because during the past six years I have had enough to think about. 17. Do you know whether there had been a sum of money voted before that debate took place? —I am almost certain that there was a sum of money voted. There were two sums of money voted. 18. There was one sum of money voted the previous session?— Yes, some time before that, but I cannot say how long. 19. Your name appears as a witness on the copy of the receipt which Meikle gave for £500?— Yes, I was present on one occasion when money was paid. 20. And you put your name to the receipt?— Yes. 21. Was there any protest made on his behalf with regard to it?—l warned Meikle before he put his signature to it. I said, "Before you put your signature you must read the document; you are giving a receipt of all future claims," and he said, " I sign it under protest." 22. Who others were present?—l cannot remember, except Meikle and the official who was paying the money. 23. Would it be in the Treasury?— Yes, these moneys are always paid in the Treasury, I think. 24. This was shortly after the debate on the subject to which you refer—the signing of the receipt ?—Yes. 25. Do you remember the Premier's statements, or those of any other Minister showing the basis on which the Government tendered the money? Mr. Justice Edwards: I do not suppose they will dispute what is in Hansard. 26. Mr. Atkinson: I would like to lead him on to that. (To witness): Was anything done in a parliamentary way during the period when the money was in the Treasury ? Was the matter before Parliament or Ministers, or had you any hand in it?—On several occasions I interviewed Mr. Seddon in connection with the matter, and pressed him to do something for Meikle. 27. That was while this £500 was awaiting Mr. Meikle in the Treasury: perhaps you do not recollect how long it was?—l think in all probability it would be between the time of the debate taking place and the money being placed on the estimates for Meikle. Probably that would be it, but I am not certain. 28. Dr. Findlay.] I understand that Mr. Robert McNab was interesting himself as well as yourself on behalf of Meikle about the time this sum of £500 was paid?— Yes. 29. A good deal of difficulty was found, I understand, by yourself and Mr. McNab in getting the Government to pay any sum at all. We may take it as admitted that £290-odd—nearly £300 —was paid a year or so earlier to Meikle for law-costs. A good deal of difficulty was found in getting the Government to make any further payment, as you know? —Yes. 30. Is Mr. Seddon right in stating that the £500, if accepted by Meikle, was to be a full and final discharge of Meikle's claims?—He never led us to understand that at any private interviews it would be a final discharge. 31. At any interview which he as head of the Government is entitled to rely upon was the understanding with yourself and Mr. McNab that if Meikle accepted £500 it was to be an end of this claim? —He may have said so to Mr. McNab, but not to me. 32. Well now, you, as you have told Mr. Atkinson, drew Meikle's attention to the terms of that receipt ?—Yes. 33. You observed rightly that it was couched in terms which expressed a release and a final release as strongly as could be expressed?—Of demands. 34. Of demands and claims made or suggested. In terms it covered every possible claim?— The voucher is perfectly clear. 35. You called Meikle's attention to it? —Certainly. _ 36. And you warned him if he signed he was putting his pen to a final payment of any claims against the Government?— Not a final payment; he practically was signing a discharge. 37. That he was putting his pen to paper which amounted to a final payment?— There was no doubt he knew that. 38. After this warning given by you he signed this document?—He told me he had signed it on the advice of another person, that he could come back to the House notwithstanding the signing of this document. 39. Then it amounts to this, that notwithstanding the terms of this document which you likely apprehend, he signed it on advice that he could come back and claim more?— Yes. 40. That was not your view, was it?—No, it was not. I could not get away from the document; but the reason I advised him not to take it was that I was afraid it would prejudice his case in the eyes of the members, not from the fear that he would be barred from coming before the House. 41. You did not share his views that he could come back?—l knew that he could come back. 42. You can lock the door often enough, but the question is, if a document is signed, if a man of that kind can come and further make demands, because that is a question for'their Honours?— Yes.
45
H.—2l.
46
[J. W. KELLY.
43. In the cross-examination of Lambert in the trial of Meikle the phrase occurs after stating "there was good few (sheep) left when Arthur Meikle drove off sheep. That was any night"— when he drove them off the turnips. " I remember night by McGeorge going away." I want to call your attention to that, because I do not say your evidence is in any sense wrong, but can you say with absolute certainty that on the cross-examination of Lambert by Mr. MacGregor on the trial of Meikle, he absolutely swore to the 17th October ?—I have no doubt that the statement I made at Lambert's trial was substantially correct. 44. Your memory is no better now than it was then ?—Just so. 45. You cannot undertake to say that your memory is better than nineteen years ago?—l would not undertake to swear after nineteen years, but there is no doubt that the matter was much fresher in my mind then. John Waddell examined. 46. Mr. Atkinson.] Your name is John Waddell?—Yes. 47. You are a farmer? —Yes. 48. Where do you live now?—At Mataura. 49. And you were living there in 1887?— Yes. 50. You gave evidence at Lambert's trial for perjury in 1895?— Yes. 51. I will read to you the Judge's notes of your evidence if you will kindly follow me and indicate where there is anything you think is incorrect: "Farmer, twelve or thirteen years' experience, mostly sheep-farming. Each year we have colts gelded. I know a man Barclay. He generally has done this. He is a veterinary surgeon. I keep a note-book. I made a note of the time of cutting at the time. In 1887 Barclay visited me to geld my colts, on Nth October. Lambert was with him. My place" is about three miles from Mataura. I don't remember time of day of cutting. Incline to think it was forenoon. I can say it was Nth from looking at note. Some nights it would be easier than others to drive sheep. If he got sheep in hand at first it would be tolerably easy. He might do it in half an hour. A person putting sheep into smithy would put them in by the wide door. He would make use of the fence. It would not at night be an easy job to drive sheep into the narrow door. If they were drawing on it might be done in a quarter of an hour; if not it might take him nearly two hours. I should say it would take a man in no particular hurry two and a half to three hours going from Mataura to Lambert's. Crossexamined : I haven't seen Meikle's yard myself. Two or three men would do it in half the time. If two men were working under difficulties, it might take half an hour. I have had a little experience in driving sheep at night. One to two hundred about, or forty or fifty, or less. I have never taken thirty or forty sheep and put them into a paddock at night. If one or two sheep were put into the door, the others would draw better. I know the day after was a very windy day. It is hardly necessary to make entry of castration of colts. Re-examined: I had never seen Meikle till he called on me, about February last, when he came to me. He asked me if I could give any evidence as to date. I could not find diary. I found the book after with the entry. Meikle was a stranger to me till about three months ago. Cross-examined: I know Neave." Do you say all these statements are true?— Yes, I do. 52. Dr. Findlay.] You refer here to part of the day. Can you tell me at what time you think Lambert and Barclay left you on the Nth?—l am not very sure, but 1 think it would be about midday. They came to me in the forenoon from Mataura. There were only two colts, and the work might be done about midday or might be done a little sooner. 53. Perhaps you can fix the time. Do you have midday dinner? —Yes, I have. I asked them " Will you have a bite before you go?" I was bachelorising. It was not a house but a hut I was living in, and lam inclined to think that they did not have dinner. lam not very sure. At any rate, it was about that time that they did their work and left. I would not be astonished if it was 11 o'clock, and I would not be astonished if it was 1 o'clock. Ido not remember them, having dinner with me. Ido not think they did, but Ido not say positively that they did not. 54. That was on the Nth?— Yes, on the Nth. '55. What direction did Barclay and Lambert take after leaving you?— They went over the hill. Well, they went to get the Dunedin Road, if you understand what that means. There is a road comes up from Mataura towards the Dunedin Road, and my place is a mile or so off that road. At least they went over the hill to go on to it. 56. What direction is that, generally speaking? —North. 57. Is that the direction of Islay Station? —No; Islay Station is more to the south-east. When they left my place they went to get this road, and that leads up to the Waiarikiki Gorge. When I said it was not in the direction of Islay Station, I should say it is in the direction of Islay Homestead, but not of Lambert's hut. The road over to Dunedin leads along Waiarikiki Gorge. 58. It will serve my purpose. How far from Meikle's is this place of yours?— You mean just the nearest way there? 59. Yes? —It may be nine or ten miles. John James Meikle examined. 60. Mr. Atkinson.] Your name is John James Meikle? —Yes. 61. When did you come to the Tuturau district?—l bought that land in 1881, when the " Tararua " was wrecked. 62. There are about 588 acres in your own name? —580-odd acres, and 206 I bought for the three boys. 63. That is about 794 altogether?— Yes. 64. What do you value the property at? —Well, taking the boys' at the value of £5 per acre. I was offered that by Mr. Robinson before that.
H.—2l.
1. J. MEIKLE.j
65. How long before?— About two years before. He stopped with me for three days, and left the offer open for two months. 66. Was it a definite offer he made?— Yes, a definite offer. 67. Was it open for any time?—-Yes, but my wife would not leave the place; she said No. 68. On which section are the main buildings?—On the boys' section —23. 69. What buildings were riiere? —A seven-roomed house. 70. When was that built? —It was built in 1882 or 1883. I carted all the timber down. 71. What value do you put on it?— The house was insured for £250. 72. You better give the other buildings on the same section. There was a stable? —A tenstalled stable. 73. Any other? —A barn 36 ft. long and 14 ft. wide, and at the end of it was a 12 ft. shed; that was a smithy. 74. The barn and smithy were really one building?— Yes; the smithy was put up after the barn was put up. There was a little shed about 2 ft. at the end for cows to stand to be milked. 75. What valuation were you putting upon these buildings?— Well, I suppose the buildings as they stand to-day, I do not suppose you could build under £1,000, because there was a new dairy there. 76. Is the valuation of this included in the estimate of the buildings you have given?—Of course, they go with the land; you could not separate them from the land. 77. These buildings are not included in the land that was valued?— Not on the land I had borrowed upon myself. 78. On Section 22 there were some small buildings? —A four-roomed house and three-stalled stable. 79. What value do you put on these? —About £300. The cartage was a great item. 80. These would be included in the Government Life Insurance valuation?— These would be included in the Government valuation. There were two valuers to value the land. 81. We shall get the valuation in Wellington. We have got a summary here already. There was a mortgage of £1,000 to the Government Life Insurance?—At 7 per cent. 82. And a second mortgage to J. G. Ward and Co. of £200?— At 8 per cent. 83. There was a third mortgage?— That was a crop lien. 84. Was it for a separate amount?—No, it was in the account; we did not separate the account as far as that went. 85. That is to say, the encumbrances amounted to £400. What is the amount of your own unsecured liabilities? —Do you mean at the present time? 86. No, then ?—I could not exactly tell to within £100, because my stock was sold shortly after I was incarcerated. 87. Can you give a rough estimate—within £100 or £200?— It might be £150 or £200; 1 could not say within that. 88. As to the stock: what sheep had 3*ou? —A little over eight hundred, with the lambs, altogether. 89. What value were sheep in those days?— There were some Leicesters, worth four guineas apiece, for breeding purposes. 90. At what would you average the lot?—At that time sheep were very cheap. I would average at 10s. per head, including everything. 91. What cattle had you?—l think thirteen head, or something like that. 92. About thirteen—at what valuation?— Well, they would be worth £5 apiece. I sold some at £6 55., and for some of them I had paid £7 10s. 93. Any horses? —Sixteen, all told. 94. How do you value these? —All over, on a valuation of £20 apiece. Carting-horses then were nothing like what they are now, and they were all young horses. 95. As to drays and implements: I shall not ask you for the items; I will ask the items to be given in a general estimate as to total value. At what do you value the general chattels?—lf 1 had a list I could tell you. 96. At what would you value the drays, binder, &c. ?—The binder cost £65. The lot at a forced sale ought to average about £250. 97. In addition to this land at Tuturau, there was a section at Gore?— That is so. 98. Do you know what the valuation of that was?—l do not know the valuation. Since I came out I had to sell it—when I was prosecuting in this case. 99. What purchase-money did you get?—l got £60; I was in a corner. I had to do it, and I got £60 from Jim Knight. 100. What value would that be in 1887? —Well, £200; but I was completely cornered the night before unfortunately, and had to sell it. 101. The Tuturau sections and your own land were sold by the mortgagee while you were in prison ?—Yes. 102. And the details are on the register here?—l had to sell another for interest, but I was powerless. 103. Had you any other stock besides the sheep, horses, and cows? —There were a lot of good pigs running about. 104. WTiat crops did you raise? Did you raise any for sale? —Oh, yes; as near as possible, from memory, about 200 acres that year. 105. lam speaking of crops for sale?—l grew potatoes for sale that year. 106. At what do you estimate your average income, year in and year out, at that time?— A little over £400. 107. Does that mean the net income after paying interest, &c. ?—Yes, about £400. 108. Your present income, in recent years, has not been as much as that? —I have had to go the streets of Wellington without my dinner, I am sorry to say.
47
H.—2l.
[j. J. MEIKLE.
48
109. You have no assets except what you stand up in?— Except pieces of land in two cemeteries in Dunedin. 110. Can you give an estimate of your liabilities—just a general one?— Well, I suppose my debts at the present time to a few friends who have helped me and money-lenders would be from £600 to £650. 111. On the wrong side?— Just so. 112. I was going to ask you as to the state of cultivation of this land, just roughly. Was there any of it in grass at this time? —There was a little over 200 acres in grass; there might be 240 acres or thereabouts [indicating the position on the map]. 113. Is the grass land indicated there? —Yes, grass and oats. 114. About 200 acres in grass and about how many in oats?— Well, I believe about 200, as near as possible. 115. In which part of the land was the oat crop? —In Section 22 and Section 23. 116. These are the two northerly ones?- —Yes. IN. At what stage of growth were they in at the time of your arrest? —In Section 23 the oats would be in the month of October about 8 in. long, and through the fence by-the barn they were not quite so far forward, but just about 8 in. long as near as possible. 118. Coming to Section 22, which is near the pre-emptive right, were there any on the part near the pre-emptive right?— Yes, right down to the Waiarikiki fence. 119. At what stage were these crops?— They were coming on splendidly; turnips had been sown there and had been ploughed over, and the oats were coming up. 120. At what height were they? —From 4 in. to 5 in. It was very well cultivated land, and the oats were doing well there. 121. That accounts for 400 acres. Altogether, what was growing on that part of the estate? —There were 83 acres ploughed on Section 12, but no turnips had been put in when I left. I believe Arthur put them in in my absence. 122. What* about the general character of the land?— The rest was all surface sown; I sowed a lot of it myself on horseback. 123. What was there on it? —Cocksfoot and clover. I got a bag on horseback and used to ride over it. [The witness indicated on a map of the farm the position of the different sections sown in crops and otherwise.] 124. What was the general state of the land on the boundary of the leasehold? —Good feed all along there. 125. You have told us already that in the neighbourhood of the pre-emptive right it was ploughed, with oats on there? —That is so. 126. It was about the centre of the estate that the oats came to 8 in. ? —Yes. 127. On the map there is a small corner marked E R, a school reserve of 11 acres? —Yes. 128. Was there any kind of feed there? —Yes, splendid feed; it was not fenced. 129. What sort of feed? —Clover on the river-bank, and tussock and any quantity of this cocksfoot. 130. Was anybody utilising it for grazing? —No; the ford was too deep just there, and very few would care to go across it. 131. Were there any sheep there? —When the company's sheep came down the creek they used to camp there. 132. Further up the Waiarikiki Creek, was there feed of any kind?— Yes, but it got worse as you went up higher towards the gorge. 133. Now, with regard to the cultivation of the pre-emptive right, how does it stand?— The map put in in 1887 showing the cultivation was entirely wrong, I am sorry to say. 134. Just tell us as near as you recollect what the position was?— There is the lower part here marked " Tussock," which is now ploughed. 135. What was growing in 1887?— Nothing. 136. Do you mean that they broke it up and left it in fallow?— Yes. 137. Is that "tussock" quite incorrect?— Quite incorrect. That is ploughed land. It was originally tussock. 138. There is a gap struck out, and a panel put in the map: what does that represent?— It is in the fence close to Lambert's hut. That is in a small paddock that was fenced there. 139. The hut was about 3 chains from the fence, and there is this little paddock to the right of the road. Where is this gap you speak of? —It is an opening as you turn to come to my house. 140. Was the fence continuous between the turnips and the Waiarikiki? —It was all open country right down to the creek. 141. With regard to the general condition of the fences thereabout, did your sheep ever get away?— They used to stray both ways. I have had six of my sheep shorn by the company; that was in 1885 or 1886. I went over and I caught them in the act. 1 had my suspicions that they were shearing them. . 142. There was a sort of interchange of trespass?— Yes, we had several litigations. One was in connection with insufficient fencing. 143. Who was the plaintiff? —I was. 144. We do not want the details, but you say there was litigation?— Yes, there was litigation over road-lines and boundaries. 145. How long had this kind of litigation been going on?— From 1884 till 1887. 146. On one occasion it came into the Police Court? —Yes, that is so. 147. Was that in connection with the mustering of sheep?— Yes; it was in regard to the assault case in the Police Court. 148. Who were the parties? —McCauley, one of the company s shepherds, and the next neighbour.
49
H.-21.
J. J. MEIKLE.
149. And there was a row at the boundary? —Yes, down below my house, about 18 chains. McCauley was going amongst the sheep, and I heard something going on, and went down to see what was up. The result was that I was fined. I forget now the amount. I was sentenced to a month's imprisonment without the option of a fine, and had to pay £7 costs. I appealed, and got notice from my lawyer to go to Mataura on a certain date. 150. You appealed to the Supreme Court? —Yes, and then I had to stand my trial for perjury. Then McCauley was committed to stand his trial. Then the Crown Prosecutor would not prosecute me; I understand the company's lawyer had to do so. 151. What was the result of that? —I had my month in gaol. 152. What was the result of the perjury proceeding?— Two juries could not agree upon my case. 153. What happened with regard to the other? —The other fell through, too. 154. Were there any further proceedings following upon this assault and perjury business? —I went to Wellington to interview the Minister of Justice, Mr. Tole. He told me to petition in the year following. That was in 1886. 155. Was there any petition of that kind presented in 1887?—-Yes; there was one presented by Sir George Grey in 1887. 156. What about the fire brand?— The fire brand is there on the table. 157. Is that the usual stamp of fire barnd?—We had three of those. I cannot tell you what other people had. That is mine. 158. What were your ear-marks? —My ear-mark was one piece out of the fore-part of the ear, and theirs was two. 159. Were these both in the same position in the ear? —Yes. 160. Now, I want to get your movements in October, 1887. First of all, where were you on the evening of the 15th October? —I was in Wyndham. 161. When did you come home? —On the morning of Sunday, the 16th October. 162. At what time were you home on the Sunday? —Between 9 and 10 o'clock on Sunday morning. 163. You were at home for some days after that?— Yes. 164. Coming to the 17th October, which is a critical date: at what time were you moving about your farm that morning? —I went down to the pre-emptive right to see if there were any sheep at the corner there. 165. Did you see any sheep?— No. 166. Did you see anybody? —I heard a dray moving, and I looked across and saw McGeorge going away a little after 8. 167. What sort of weather was it that day?—ln the morning it was all right for an hour and a half, and then it commenced to rain. I put my grey mare in the stable, intending to go to Waters's sale, which was taking place that day. 168. Where does Waters live? —Below Wyndham. 169. What is his occupation?— Farmer. 170. What was being sold? —Dairy cattle. 171. Did you go to Waters's sale?— No. 172. Why?— Arthur was very ill, and became more so that forenoon. 173. What was the nature of Arthur's illness? —Pleurisy. He had been ill off and on. 174. How often has he been ill?—I have had him ill often. He was always pretty sickly. 175. What family was there in the house altogether?— Nine children, Mrs. Meikle, and myself. 176. What were about the ages of those children? Just give them approximately?— Arthur was sixteen years past, James thirteen past I believe, and the youngest was nineteen days old— born on the 28th September. 177. As the day got on, can you remember the sort of weather there was?—lt did not rain but it poured. There was no bridge across the Mimehau at the time. It was very dangerous to ford. 178. Did the creeks rise? —Yes, they all rose. 179. Was there any wind that day?— Yes, a good deal. 180. What condition was your son Arthur in in the evening or during the day?— During the day he was very ill. I attended him myself. I thought it was a sad job for him to die with nobody with him. I suggested to Harvey to go for a doctor in the evening, but it was so dark I could not see the stable, nor could I see a white gate in front of me. 181. How far away was Harvey's hut? —Just about a chain. 182. So nobody went for the doctor? —No. His mother came and stopped with him until 1 o'clock in the morning, and at that time I was looking after the baby. 183. Was anybody else sleeping in the room?— Yes; James, the second son. 184. Was Arthur out that evening? —No. He could not get out, he was so ill. 185. Was he down to meals that day? —No. I lifted him out myself, and took him to the kitchen and sat him in a chair, but he said he was light in the head, and asked to be taken back again. 186. Did you go out that night?— No. 187. You have heard Lambert's story several times-—in 1887 and 1895?-—Yes. 188. We are chiefly concerned with the statement to which he swore, that he saw Arthur driving sheep on the pre-emptive right and other things the same evening. How much of that is true?— Not one word of it. 189. Is it true of any other night in that month? —No. 190. Is it true of the Nth October, or any other day in October?— No. It is neither true of myself nor Arthur, because he was bad all that month. While I was in Dunedin I could not say where he was, but I am sure he was not able to get about. 7—H. 21.
H.—2l.
50
[,T. J. MRIKLE
191. You speak of Arthur as generally sickly. What was his general condition of health during October? —I remember I had to go to Gore on the Bth October to get a bottle of medicine for him. 192. And as regards the rest of the month? —He was up and down all the rest of that month. 193. What day did you leave home that month?—On the 19th. 194. Was that the day you originally proposed to leave? —No; I proposed to leave on the 18th, but Arthur was too ill. 195. At what time did you leave for Dunedin on the 19th I—ln the morning. 196. How was Arthur then? —He was then sitting up in the bedroom. 197. How long were you away at Dunedin? —I came down on the 19th and went back on the 25th. 198. How many dogs had you?—l had an old bitch with a little pup. The bitch had lost one of her eyes and had one of her legs broken. 199. Was there any work left in her at that time? —She could work a bit on the level with a mob of sheep. She was a good dog at one time. 200. What kind of dog was she? —A sort of cross collie. 201. Were there any other dogs?— There was the red dog that Arthur had. He used that dog for rabbiting and for fetching the cows. 202. How was he for mustering?—He could not muster the sheep, but he could go into the yard with another and hold them up. He was not up to mustering. 203. Were they mute dogs either of them? —No; they both yelped. Running after rabbits made them do that, I am sorry to say. 204. When did you first see Lambert ?—ln September, some time about the middle of the month. He came to the back of the house and rapped at the door. There were a few people in the kitchen at the time, and he came in. 205. There was some one else there?—l believe my son Arthur was there, and I think James. I am not sure whether Mrs. Meikle was there, because she was about to be laid up, and not fit. 206. Had you seen Lambert before he called in the year 1887, or was this the first time you had seen him?—l had seen him before on the road-line, but not on the property. 207. It was in the month of September, 1887, that he called at your house? —Yes; it would be about the middle of September in the evening. We were either sitting at supper or we were finished, I cannot be sure which. 208. Where did you see him?—He rapped at the door. I went out and asked what he wanted. He said he wanted to speak to me. I said, "If you want to speak to me, come inside." 209. Did he come inside? —Yes. 210. Who was there in addition? —Harvey, Arthur, James, and the rest of the family. I cannot say if Mrs. Meikle was there. I think she was in the front room at the time. 211. The others you speak of were in the kitchen? —Yes. 212. Tell us what he said?—He said, " I have come to tell you, Meikle, I am to get £50 to get you off the place. Cameron and Troup are to stand at my back." I said, " How will you do it?" He said, " I am to put sheep or skins on the land or in the building—anything to get you off the place." 213. Do you remember any more of that conversation? —No; I think he went out with Harvey down to the hut. 214. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Does that finish all the conversation?—At that time, because my wife was very ill in the front room, and I had no time to stop. My wife was near her confinement, and was in a very precarious state. 215. Mr. Atkinson.] When did you next see Lambert?— The next time I saw him would be about the 22nd September. 216. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Do you mean to say you passed this by: A man says to you, " I am to get you off your land, and I am to put sheep-skins or sheep on it or in your buildings," and you did not answer him?—l asked him how he was going to do it. 217. He explained how he was going to do it, and you said no more?—l went away to my wife. I went into the front room. 218. Mr. Atkinson.] Well, to proceed.—On the 22nd September I came from Invercargill. I was told Mrs. Meikle was very ill. I rode up and saw this Lambert and Mrs. Wild going through the large grass paddock. 219. You met Lambert?—l did not meet them; I passed them going up towards the house through the paddocks. 220. Towards your house? —Yes, from the Mimihau Ford, and they said, "Mrs. Meikle is very ill, hurry up." I galloped through the paddock and hung the horse "up to the fence and went inside. I came out in an hour. Lambert was at the gate, and he said, " Mr. Meikle, Killoh has sold two of the company's sheep, and you have to go first and Jack Reid next. The company cannot work their land without yours and theirs." I told him that I knew myself for years back they had been trying to get me off the place through our feuds over fences, and so forth. But he says, " T will let you know the night this is going to be done." 221. Was that all the conversation that took place?— That is all. I put up the horse and went in to my wife, because Dr. Cox was coming from Gore. 222. When was the child born?—On the 28th of that month—lsabella; she is now married. 223. Did you take any steps as a result of that conversation?—l went to Invercar<dll on the 21st September to see Detective Ede, but I did not tell Lambert I went there for that purpose. He was not there. 224. That was before the conversation just reported you had been to Invercargill?—Before the second conversation. I took steps to go down as soon as I could, I went on Monday 3rd October, as soon as Mrs. Meikle was out of danger.
H.— 2l.
51
J. J. MEIKLE.j
225. Did you find Ede? —I saw Detective Ede. I told him to come and watch my place. I told him that Lambert had told me that men were to get £50 to put sheep or skins on my land, so that I would not get to Wellington to put my petition before the House. I saw Detective Ede, and I told him our feelings were so bad over our past relations. He replied that I was capable of looking out for myself. I said, " That is not the point. I have given you notice of this, and it is your duty to watch my place now." 226. What had you gone to Invercargill for?—To see the detective for that special purpose. I went down on the 21st September, and through not seeing him, I could not go sooner on account of this sickness of my wife's. Dr. Findlay: I assume this evidence is, strictly, not admissible. I apprehend your Honours will not apply the rigid rules of evidence. Mr. Justice Edwards: No, we cannot. Can you tell me, Mr. Atkinson, where Detective Ede is? Mr. Atkinson: He is dead, unfortunately, your Honour. He was subpoenaed by Mr. Meikle; but his evidence does not appear in the printed case since 1887. He was subpoenaed by Mr. Meikle in the Lambert prosecution, but he did not go into the box, as the evidence he was to give was admitted on Meikle's statement. 227. Mr. Atkinson.] To resume the examination: Was there a nurse in attendance on your wife? —Yes, she attended to my wife until the 12th October. 228. When did she arrive? —On the 22nd, during the night, from Wyndham, with Dr. Cox. 229. What was her name? —Mrs Eliza Howe. 230. When did you next see Lambert? When did you come back from Invercargill? —I came back that night, as soon as I had-done my business, and satisfied myself I had done my duty. 231. When did you next see Lambert? —I saw Lambert on Saturday, Bth, when I came from the Road Board meeting, in the evening, and he said, " Have you got your road-line?" 232. Was that relating to the meeting?— Yes, it was connected with the Road Board meeting. 233. Were you a member of the Road Board then? —I was previously, but I resigned because they blamed me for moving these gates when I was there. ■ 234. With whom was this question in dispute ?—Between the company and myself and the Land Board. 235. He said, "Have you got your road-line?"— Yes, and I said, "Yes." He said, "Did you see Troup?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Did you see the other joker who is going to help him?" I said, "Yes." Mr. Humphries pointed him out to me lying on the sofa—a man named Stewart. 236. That is the Wiliam Stewart who gave evidence in the case?— Yes. 237. When had you seen him? —On Saturday, the Bth, when I came from Gore with a bottle of medicine for Arthur. 238. Who had you seen on the Bth?—Stewart and the members of the Board in the Boardroom. 239. And this conversation was on the same day?— Yes. 240. Then the Road Board meeting and your seeing Stewart, and your conversation with Lambert were all on the same day?— Yes, on the Saturday afternoon. 241. When did you come across Lambert again?—lt might be about the 13th or 14th. I would not be sure. He was passing by the gate towards the men's hut, and he said, " I have seen two daisies of letters from Troup that are going to put you away." 242. Is there any more of that conversation that you recollect?—l asked him, "What does it all mean?" He said, " I will let you know to-night, if that man comes near your place." 243. When next did you meet Lambert? —I met him on the 18th October. 244. Had you seen him in the meanwhile?—No, I do not remember seeing him after that until the 18th. I saw him on the 15th, but not to speak to. 245. Where was he going on the 15th?—He was going up through Brown's ground, Mataura way. 246. Was Lambert ever in your house except the time you mentioned?—He could have come to the house when I was not there. 247. You saw him on the 18th October?— Yes, it was a Tuesday. 248. He came to the back door?—I saw him pass the window. 249. About wdiat hour?— About midday. He rapped at the door, and said, "Is Arthur any better?" I said, " Yes, lam pleased to say he is a little better." He said, " I was told that he nearly pegged out last night," I said, " That is quite true." He said, " I stopped at Mataura on Saturday in order to get the money McGibbon owed me, and I had a good booze at Mataura." 250. Did he mention where it was ho was at Mataura?—He said he stopped at Mataura and had a good booze. 251. Did he say what house he was in?—No; simply that he had a good booze. He also said, "We had a terrible day for Weber's sale." I said I was going to buy a cow, but on account of the weather, and Arthur being so ill, I could not go. I had sold a dry cow the previous month and wanted a wet one. On account of the weather I did not go, and on account of Arthur's illness I could not go, because Mrs. Howe left on the 12th, and Mrs. Shields left on the 7th, as nearly as my memory serves me. 252. When did you come across Lambert next? —Either on the 25th or 26th, 1 would not be positive. I went to Dunedin on the 19th. 253. About when did you conic back?— About the 25th. I had an interview with the Commissioner of Crown Lands on the 21st. 254. You returned about the 25th?—Yes. 255. And it was on the 25th or 26th that you saw Lambert?— Yes. He was going down towards the gate, and he was speaking to Harvey, and he said, " Since you have been away they have marked so-many sheep under the forearm."
H.—2l.
52
[j. J. MEIKLE.
256. Who are "they?" —Meaning the company's men, and referring to the sheep on the preemptive right. 257. Did that conversation go any further? —No. He said, "They are marking them, but you can rely upon it that man must be smarter than me to do this trick on you." Those are his words as nearly as possible. 258. Who was " that man?"—Stewart was the man, who came as assistant detective. He said, "That man must be a quicker man than me to do this trick on you," by "that man" meaning Stewart. 259. You remember nothing more of that conversation? —No, I did not see him again. 260. You have already told us that you had been to Detective Ede in consequence of a previous conversation. Were any other precautions taken? —Yes, I told Harvey, "Remember to keep those outbuildings locked —make no mistake —and take care of the skins in the buildings." 261. In what buildings were they kept?—ln the smithy, at the back of the barn. 262. Had you any particular reason for watching one building more than another? —When Lambert told me what was going to happen, I thought it my duty to caution Harvey and inform the police. I told Constable Fouhy that there was going to be a trick played upon me. 263. Was there any particular reason for watching the buildings you have named?— Yes, because he told me that the skins would be about it. 264. Dr. Findlay.] Who told you? —Lambert. 265. Mr. Atkinson.] Are they two buildings? —Two locks commanded the barn and two the smithy. There was a 4 ft. door, and the one at the back had a padlock. 266. Had Harvey charge of-the two keys: one for the barn and one for the smithy?— Yes, he had the whole of the keys. The other keys were down below. We had a place down below where we put in all the machinery, the binder, and the trap we drove about in. 267. How many buildings had Harvey to lock with the keys?— The barn and the smithy. 268. Dr. Findlay.] The stable?— No. 269. Mr. Atkinson.] What is the other building you have spoken about?— Where we put the binder into, and the ploughs and the trap. 270. Was that kept locked?— Yes. 271. You say that the smithy, the barn, and this big building were all kept locked, but the stable was not locked? —No, the stable was not locked. 272. Were there any other out-buildings?—There was the men's hut and the dairy. The servant girl looked after the dairy—kept the key of the dairy — and the men looked after the hut themselves. 273. How far away was the hut? —Barely a chain. 274. When did you next see Lambert?— The next time I saw him was on the Ist November. 275. At what hour?— About half-past 9 at night. It was a splendid night, Arthur was sitting in the kitchen. I heard Lambert sing out to Harvey that he would like to get his knife sharpened in the smithy. Harvey sang out that he had not the key; that his feet were sore, and he said the keys were on the mantelpiece, and that he might ask Arthur for the keys. Arthur got the keys. It appears that they went over to the smithy, because I heard the grindstone going. 276. Where were you at this time? —I had come out at the back. 277. Did you follow Arthur?—No; but I heard the grindstone going. 278. Where was the grindstone turning?—ln the smithy. Arthur went in to the 4ft. door. I saw the grindstone turning, and said, "What a time of night this is to come to have a knife sharpened." He said, "I am going to kill sheep at the station to-morrow, and am leaving tonight." I saw a white 4-bushel bag standing up at the corner of the piles. When I came out of the smithy I saw saw the white bag. I said, " What kind of a bag is that?" It was a cornsack, a4bushel bag. He said, "Itis my blankets." I said, " I will be away next week, and whoever is here mustering my sheep can tell the company's men to take them out; and whoever shears them, I do not want any dispute, for I will be away over a fortnight." He had put his horse in the stable, it appears, for his horse was not there. He walked part of the way to the house, and when he got to the comer —there was a road down to the well at the back —he said, '"' Look here, old man, there will be nothing happen to-night. You can rely upon me, and I will come and get your sheep out when you are away, and whoever shears them, there will be no dispute." The kitchen clock struck 10 just as he was going away. I shall never forget it so long as I live. 279. That was the last you saw of Lambert that night?— Yes. 280. When did you see him again?—lt was after the arrest of the late Arthur Meikle and myself. 281. What was the date of the arrests? —Arthur was arrested on the 3rd November, and I wrote to the police that I would be in Invercargill on the Monday, if I remember right, and I believe I was arrested on Monday, the 7th November, by Detective Ede. He met me, and I said, " My word, it is pretty correct, but I did not think it was coming to this." 282. Did you know what skins were in the smithy when you last took stock of them? Thirteen or fourteen skins; but the majority were skins taken from sheep that had died and were put in there. 283. From whose sheep had those skins come?—My own. 284. Were there any strangers there to your own knowledge?—No; my brand was a black one and his was a red one. 285. This is your brand [brand produced]?— Yes, J.M. in black letters, and the company's was a red one. 286. When did you see Lambert again?—l saw him in the North Star Hotel. 287. On what date? —On the Bth, I believe. The next day after I was remanded to appear at Gore. 288. When did you appear before the Magistrates?—On that day at Invercargill, and I was remanded to Gore. I was bailed out, and my things were handed to me.
53
H.— 21.
J. J. MEIKLE.j
289. After being remanded to Gore you met Lambert in the North Star Hotel at Invercargill? —Yes. 290. That was on the Bth or thereabouts? —Yes. 291. Was anybody else present?— Yes, there were several persons present. I think there were the two Macdonalds present, and a man, I believe, named Morris Evans. I believe there were more than those three, but I would not be positive. 292. What were the Macdonalds' Christian names?— Malcolm and Alexander. 293. Alexander Macdonald gave evidence at your trial in 1887?— Yes. 294. Did he give evidence in 1895?— I do not think he gave evidence in the Supreme Court in 1895. 295. Was he there? —I do not think so; but some witnesses were there, and it was said that they were not required. 296. Malcolm and Alexander Macdonald and some others were present?— Yes. 297. What took place?—l told Lambert very straight. I said, " I want you to be truthful whichever way it is to be between myself and Stuart." 298. Was that the end of your conversation?—-Yes, at the moment. He replied that he was waiting to get £10 of blood-money from Stuart to clear out. Then he said, "You clear out; I am waiting to get £10 blood-money from Stuart." 299. Did you clear out? —We went away. 300. Then, when you came before the Justices at Wyndham?—We were remanded from Gore to Wyndham. We appeared at Gore and I was bailed out there, and we appeared on the 18th November before the local Justices, Messrs. Forsyth and Crosbie. 301. You were represented by counsel through part of the proceedings? —I had two there, but, lam sorry to say, they had too many long beers in them. I had to do without them, and conduct my own case. My lawyers had too many long beers, and 1 had to dispense with them. 302. At the close of the case you were conducting the case?— After part of the cross-examina-tion was done by Wade I conducted the case on behalf of my late son and myself. 303. Did you make any application with regard to Lambert?—l made an application at the close of my trial to indict him for perjury. I told them in my address that he had committed perjury. They told me that I was not charged with stealing sheep-skins, but I was charged with stealing sheep. The skins were held up in Court. Mr. Harvey said, "He is not charged with stealing skins." 304. That was when Westacote's evidence was disallowed ?—Yes. 305. You say that Harvey, the company's solicitor, was conducting the prosecution?— Yes, and the Inspector of Police was assisting him. I had not time to find my witnesses, and we had to ask for an adjournment. 306. Did you sell any meat in the month of October? —No. 307. Can you produce any of the accounts?— Yes; I produced an account in the Supreme Court before Mr. Justice Williams for £9 odd for October. 308. What things did you buy?—l got bread from him and meat, and I gave him oats and potatoes in return. I gave him potatoes for his bread, and oats also. 309. Did the £9 cover the month's supply? —I sent in on Saturday ; I got £2 ss. 310. The twelve, fifteen, and sixteen items were £2 ss.?—Yes. 311. The trial in December at Invercargill—Mr. John MacGregor appeared for you?—l was committed for trial to appear on the 6th December, and he appeared at the Supreme Court, and the case came on for trial on the 16th and Nth —Friday and Saturday—or thereabouts. 312. Do you remember Mr. MacGregor making a statement in Court about Templeton's evidence? —Yes. 313. What period of the case was it?—lt was next morning. 314. When had Templeton given his evidence I—On the Friday night. . 315. Then, on the Saturday morning Mr. MacGregor has something to say about Templeton? Yes. He said, "Your Honour, Mr. Templeton gave the wrong date; it should have been the 24th August instead of the 24th September." He swore that he knew of no date but from the books, and he found out lookiug at his books that that was correct —that the 24th September ought to have been the 24th August. 316. Do you remember what time in the morning that would be? —Shortly after the Court opened, if my memory serves me right. 317. Had your case closed then? —No, it had not closed then. Of course, they brought in others to rebut something afterwards. Stewart was put in, and Wilson and Burgess, if my memory serves me right, 318. As to the period of the case when Mr. MacGregor made his statement about Templeton? —That was on the Saturday forenoon. 319. What witnesses were called after the statement was made, do you remember? —I could not tell exactly how many, but I know there were some who were called to rebut —I think three or four. 320. Were they called after this intimation ?- -After this intimation was given to the Bench. That was to make out that Templeton had been wrong altogether. 321. Had you a servant man named Arthur Perkins in 1887?-—Yes; he 'eft me in September after we had the oats in. 322. When were the oats put in? —In August or September. 323. In what part? —Right around the pre-emptive right, clear in front of the house— Sections 23 and 22—and down to the creek between the grass paddock and Mimihau. 324. And he left towards the end of September?—l could not be positive, because I have not got all my papers—they are gone in that big fire. If I had them I could be accurate. 325. What work was Perkins doing?— Ploughing.
H.--21.
54
[j. j. meikle
326. And then you told us that Mrs. Howe, the nurse, arrived on the 22nd September. Can you say about what date she left? —On the 12th October. There was a sale at Gregg's the day after she came, and several came to the house to get tea. 327. She left on the 12th October? —Yes; it was on a Wednesday, if my memory serves me right. 328. Mrs. Howe, I understand, is dead? —Yes. 329. I will get it from this witness as to the number of witnesses who have passed away at various intervals. Arthur Meikle, your sou, was indicted in 1887, and he died while you were in prison?— The charges were severed; we were not tried together. 330. Then George Davis, is he alive? —No; he died before I came out of gaol in 1892. 331. And Waters? —He died in 1892, and Arthur, my son, on the sth June, 1890. 1 was in Lyttelton Prison on the defence works when the letter came over for me. 332. These were three witnesses for your defence in 1887, wdio had all died before the prosecution of Lambert?— That is so. There was another witness named Baynes, but 1 do not know whether he is dead or not. 1 could not get him; he shifted from where he was living. 333. To come to the witnesses who had dropped out before the prosecution of Lambert. Barclay gave evidence in the prosecution of Lambert. Is he alive?—No; lam sorry to say he is dead. 334. And Harvey?— Mr. Harvey is dead. 335. And Mrs. Howe?—Yes. Remember, I am not going to swear 1 saw them. It is only what I am told. 336. You were informed and verily believed?— Yes. 337. Mr. Henderson, solicitor, and who was Registrar of the Supreme Court at Invercargill, is he alive?—l have been down to see him at his office, and believe he is dead. 338. James Young is also gone?— That is so. 339. And Detective Ede?—Yes, he is also dead. 340. Did Ede give evidence at the prosecution of Lambert ?—No ; 1 made a statement in the box the same as now. He was placed in front of Mr Justice Williams. Mr. McAllister said he would accept that, as I was in the box to save time. 341. Ede was there, and was subpoenaed too? —Yes. 342. This was the fire brand you used [produced]. What size is the company's relatively?—lt is a little larger, but not much. I had to cut 1 off that 17. Mine is more like an L, and is very small. " 343. The company's brand was a little larger?—A little larger. 344. I omitted to ask you as to the nature of the fence on the east of your land between the leasehold and yours?— Below the Tent Bush to the Mimihau there were five posts torn out, and I was always going over to repair them but 1 was too busy, and the sheep used to go back and forward over this ground and camp—in good weather go to the high country, and in bad to the low. 345. Was the leasehold very rough?— Very rough. In bad weather you could drive a horse and cart through the fence there. There were 38 chains uiifenced through (he bush on the boundary of the leasehold. This map [produced] shows the position where the land was unfenced. It is called the Tent Bush. 346. Then, you were found guilty, Meikle? —Yes. 347. Of course, you were unable to give evidence either in the lower Court or the Supreme Court in 1887? —At that time I could not give evidence. 348. You made a statement from the dock before sentence was passed to the effect that you were innocent?—l did, and I complained about the map as misleading the jury. It was marked "turnips" where there could not be turnips. A lot of it could not be ploughed, and never was ploughed. 349. I only want to get it that you protested your innocence. Did you take steps afterwards in prison to protest? —Yes; Mrs. Meikle came to see me. When I got transferred to Lyttelton Gaol I sent a petition —you have got it—and all the facts were set out in that petition. I have also letters sent to Mrs. Meikle, which were suppressed by the Inspector and Commissioner of Prisons. 350. What was the date of this petition?—l think towards the latter end of March. 351. Of what year?—lBBB. Mr. O'Brien was the gaoler. 352. And in that petition you made a statement about Lambert that you have sworn to since? 353. As to the steps you took, about what date did you get out of gaol?—I believe the discharge came out on the 9th, and*l got my liberty on the 10th. lam almost sure I got out on the 10th. 354. Of what month? —November, 1892. 355. Where were you when you were discharged?—ln Nelson. 356. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Were you discharged in Nelson ?—I was. 357. I thought prisoners were discharged from where they were convicted ?—I was discharged from there. , 358. Mr. Justice Cooper.] I think they get passage to where they were convicted I —l got a passage on board the " Dingadee." 359 Did the Government pay the expenses?— They gave me a ticket to Wellington, then a ticket to Lyttelton, from there to Dunedin, and there to Invercargill. I had to report myself at the prison at each place. 360. Mr. Atkinson.] It was on the 10th November you were discharged?—l am almost sure it was on the 10th—it was the 9th or 10th. ~,„/,, , ~ , 361 Did you take any steps in Wellington?—l arrived on Sunday afternoon, and on Monday I took the gaol polish off" and saw the Minister of Justice, Mr. Cadman, who treated me very kindly.
J. J. MEIKLE.]
55
H.— 2l.
362. What did you ask him for?—l asked him to assist me to prosecute Lambert, as I was positive he was the man wdio had put the skins there. 363. And the Government did not undertake to do so?— No. 364. Did you make any subsequent applications?— Yes, my letters are there in the bag. They would not assist in any way. 365. Then what steps did you take?— How long? 366. Before you took legal advice?—l was very unwell for three weeks after returning home. As soon as i was able to move I went off to Gore and saw Mr. Neave, the lawyer. 367. That would be? —The month of December. 368. And then you set to work? —Yes; it took me eighteen or nineteen months, I think, to collect the evidence before my lawyer was satisfied. 369. Who was helping you to see witnesses and collect evidence? —Myself. I had two saddle horses, and I scoured the country —went here, there, and everywhere. I could not find Perkins and other witnesses, and there was a lot I had to pick up. 370. Did you know that McGeorge was important?—l could not find him until the third trial, I am sorry to say. 371. About what day was it that you actually found him?—A clergyman's wife wrote to my lawyer that he had evidence to give me, and that he was in the Wintou district. 372. In what month? —If I remember rightly, he came there in the March trial, before Mr. Hawkins. 373. That was March, 1895. It was only a little before you had heard of McGeorge?—And the same applies to Waddell. 374. Then, previous to this,-do you remember when the first information was made?—l fancy the first information was made in June or July, but there was something about Lambert cutting the end off a tent and getting away. 375. What was the actual date on the information ?— About August, I think. 376. Then the information was heard before Mr. Rawson, at Wyndham, in the same month, August, 1894?— From the 15th to the 20th, I think. 377. And Lambert was committed for trial by Mr. Rawson?—That is so. 378. Then the grand jury at Invercargill threw out the bill?—On 25th September. 379. Do vou^remember that the perjury alleged was that before the J.P.s in November, I .-87?— Yes. 380. Had you copies of the Judge's notes of evidence, or had your solicitor at that time?— No; I applied to get them, and I offered £30. A telegram said that the Judge's notes were lost. 381. A copy of the Judge's notes could not be found. You will see why the informations were taken before a Magistrate in the first two cases of perjury. You laid another information? —1 laid two. 382. Two, which came on in March, 1895; they were heard by Mr. Hawkins, at Wyndham?— At Gore, only one. 383. And that was dismissed on the 21st March? —At Gore. 384. Your third information alleged perjury in the Supreme Court trial of 1887? —It came on in May, 1895. 385. And Lambert was committed for trial, and the'case was tried in the following month? — In June. 386. And he was found guilty? —The trial started on the 11th and finished on the 15th, if I remember. 387. Mr. Justice Cooper.] Mr. McAllister, who defended you, is the barrister at Invercargill— still there? —No, sir. Mr. McAllister defended Lambert. 388. Mr. Atkinson.] Mr. John McAllister. (To witness): Is the evidence you swore to in the various proceedings against Lambert true in each case?—l should be very sorry to tell a lie to convict an innocent man—God forbid. . 389. Do you remember how Lambert fixed the date at the Supreme Court at Invercargill?— He fixed the date both in the upper and lower Courts by McGeorge going away. He said he fixed the date on or about the Nth October. 390. He said on or about before the Justices: what about his cross-examination?—He pulled out a book, held it this way, and said he took a note of the date by McGeorge going away—the Nth October. 391. How did he fix the date in the Supreme Cgurt?—By McGeorge going away, and that he met Arthur Meikle on the Nth. 392. Was it "on or about"?—lt was "on or about." He said he met Arthur Meikle, and Gregg corroborated it. 393. How did Gregg fix the date? —By McGeorge going away. 394. There is a reference in a document of which I have said a good deal already to the fact that you may be a sheep-stealer and a horse-stealer also? —I have been told that I have been worse than that. 395. Is there any truth in the suggestion with regard to your having stolen Carswell White's horse? —No; I have never stolen a horse in my life, or asked a man to say so. I can say that honestly and truthfully. 396. Dr. Findlay.] I think you went into the Tuturau district in 1887?— No. 397. Will you tell us when?—l said distinctly in 1881, the time of the wreck of the " Tararua." I was in the Gore district before that. 398. Were you a farmer there?—l had a 200-acre farm there. 399. Before that?—l was in this town for years as an expressman. 400. Have you ever had any experience as a policeman?— Well, I was asked to drive the mailescort at the time of the robbery, but I had sold my horses.
H.—2l
56
J. J. MEIKLE
401. How long were you in the Police service? —Twelve months. It did not suit me. 402. We need not go into that. What was your position? —I was in the Mounted Force at the Dunstan along wdth Inspector Moore. 403. Doing the ordinary work of a mounted policeman?—l did what I was told; there was nothing against my character. 404. lam not suggesting that. I suppose it was part of your duty to attend the Court in your capacity as a policeman?—No; senior people did the Court work. I never did any; it was out of my line. 405. Do you mean to say you never did any?—l was asked to write a report because Mr. Justice Williams and other people were annoyed by blasting operations at Anderson's Bay. 406. You were a mounted constable for twelve months?—l was a mounted constable for twelve months. 407. Tell us why you left? —Because it did not suit me. 408. Then you took to farming?—No; I did not. 409. What did you do next?— Well, I was not thieving. Dr. Findlay: There is no occasion for excitement, Mr. Meikle. You will do much better by answering the questions put to you. Mr. Justice Cooper: If you will give your evidence as you did in Wellington to Dr. Findlay, you will get along much better. 410. Dr. Findlay (to witness).] Mr. Atkinson referred to some earlier difficulties between yourself and the company.—That is so. 411. I understand before you were tried and convicted of sheep-stealing in 1887 you had been a month in gaol for assault 1- —Quite correct. 412. Now, the assault, as I understand alleged, was an assault on McCauley?- —That is so. 413. Mr. McCauley had come to your place for what purpose?—To muster sheep. 414. He wanted you to muster your sheep?— Yes. 415. For what purpose?—l do not know. 416. Was it to ascertain whether some of the company's sheep were among yours?—l suppose so. 417. Did you agree to muster your sheep?—l told him to wait until after the lambing. 418. You refused to muster your sheep. McCauley came upon your premises with a nose which was not broken, and went off it with the middle bone of it broken ? —lt was broken down the road-line by a man who admitted having struck him. I did not strike him. I know he had his nose broken, because the man who did it confessed it before Judge Williams. 419. You knew he had his face battered with some man's fist so that he could scarcely be recognised? —I did not see anything wrong with his face more than that there was a bit of skin off his nose. 420. The Magistrate who tried you thought it was so serious an assault that he committed you to a month's imprisonment, with hard labour?—He did. 421. You swore you never touched him?—l did, and I do so to-day. 422. Yet after that oath was pledged by you you were convicted and sent to gaol for a month. Now, in addition to the conviction by the Magistrate, Mr. McCullough, who heard your case, and after your denial that you touched McCauley, an information for perjury was laid against you?— No, I appealed. 423. Yes, but you appealed to Mr. Justice Williams. You still served your month. That conviction was never quashed?—lt could not be quashed the way the thing was drawn. 424. You attempted to have the conviction quashed. You appealed to the Supreme Court. You were also charged with perjury? —Yes, and so was McCauley. 425. The information for perjury was laid against you first?— Yes. 426. After the information was laid against you for perjury, you laid one against McCauley? —That is so. 427. The information came before a Magistrate, and you were committed for trial? —Before a J.P. 428. You were tried before twelve men in Invercargill, and the jury could not agree?— Yes. 429. The jury could not agree, and there was a further trial, and again the jury did not agree ?—That is so. Mr. Justice Edwards: What became of the indictment ultimately ? Dr. Findlay: A nolle prosequi was entered, sir. 430. Dr. Findlay (to witness).] As regards the charge against McCauley by you, what did the Grand Jury do?— They threw the bill out. 431. This was two years before the trouble in 1887?— That is so—a little more. 432. You say it was more than two 3-ears: how many years?— Nearly three years, I think. 433. These events took place in 1884?— Yes. 434. You petitioned against this iniquity?—l petitioned in 1887. We were in Court continually. 435. You waited from 1884 to 1887 before you petitioned?—No; I went to Wellington in 1886 and interviewed the Minister of Justice. 436. That was nearly two years afterwards?—No, I kept writing up and down. 437. Mr. Justice Edwards.] About what?— About the alleged assault and perjury cases 438. When did they take place?—On 6th October, 1884. 439. Dr. Findlay.) Now you. tell their Honours that this assault took place on the 6th October, 1884, and that you petitioned about the perjury case and went up to Wellington about them three years after —in 1887?— I went up in July, 1886. 440. What was your petition about in 1887?— It was about the wrongful conviction which was recorded against me and also about the alleged perjury case and the expense I had been put to.
H.— 2l
J. J. MEIKLE.]
57
Seeing that the other man had confessed that it was he who had struck McCauley, Mr. Stone said he was ashamed I could not get redress. 441. You do not challenge the fairness or impartiality of Mr. McCullough, who tried you?—l challenge the fairness in that there was no evidence to corroborate it. 442. First of all, the Magistrate convicts you, then two juries are unable to agree as to whether or not you committed perjury. Now, Mr. Meikle, you may stand face to face to-day with this man Lambert. If his story is true, you are a guilty man ?—I am proud to say it is not true, and I can meet my Maker and prove that when they come. 443. We were told by Mr. Atkinson when he opened his case that when Lambert entered the box he had a good deal to ask him about his general character. Now, it comes down to a question of credibility —as to whether your evidence or the evidence of Lambert is to be accepted by these Judges. I think you told us in Wellington that your claim against the colony was £10,000 for yourself, and that a claim would be made on behalf of your son for another £tO,OOO? —Pardon me, I said £10,000 for myself and £5,000 for the benefit of my children; but I want to clear my name and leave them with an honoured name. 444. I understand you to say on oath you ask part of that for the damage that had been done to your character by these convictions?— Yes, and for the losses I have sustained. 445. Had you before and had you since borne such a character as entitled you to come to this colony and ask for its bounty ?—I landed here nearly forty years ago, and I ask you to put any one in this box and state that riiave either by word, thought, or deed done anything of which I need be ashamed. 446. lam glad you have given me that challenge, because I accept it. Do you know whether or not a detailed police report has been in the hands of the Government for some time about your character ?—They might have fifty police reports, but let them come into the box here and satisfy any open-minded people. 447. You are prepared now to take an opportunity of denying any charge made in the police report about you to which I refer ?—Certainly. I have never been charged in any police report that I am aware of with theft or forgery or anything else that I am aware of. 448. Show the witness that name, please [name shown]. Ido not want to use the surname of that woman?—l am glad my wife is here, because this is a young lady who was engaged to my nephew, and if the character of a woman is to be dragged in, it is my duty to stand up and vindicate it. 449. I have drawn your attention to a name?—My wife is attacked. It is said that lam not married to Mrs. Meikle, but the marriage certificate will be here in this Court. 450. Do you know any girl of that name?—l do. She was engaged to my nephew. 451. Do you know the Water Tower in Invercargill?—l have never been to it in my life, but I have seen it. 452. Do you know Doon Street, Invercargill?- —No. 453. I ask you whether, after you came out of gaol, you ever stayed with that young woman whose name I have mentioned for some time in a house in Invercargill? —No; I never slept with that young woman in any house in Invercargill. I slept in my nephew's house the last time I was there. 454. Did you not stop at a house of Mrs. Daniels, in Invercargill, with the young woman whose name is there, and occupied the same room as she did for some days and some nights?— No. My wife is here, and she can tell you about that young woman. I think it is a low-down game to drag her name in. 455. I am asking you in the utmost seriousness. I am taking your answers with the utmost gravity, and I presume we have them down. Did you not stop at the house of Mrs. Daniels at any time and occupy the same room as the young woman did?—My nephew may have done, but not me. Never. 456. Do you know that that young woman and this man, whoever he was, gave rise to a suspicion that abortion was attempted? Have you not heard this? —The whole thing is got up to put a stain on my character. 457. Do you identify that signature? —I see the name. 458. Do you swear you do not know what that handwriting is?— Yes; undoubtedly, I swear I know it. i v • • i 459. Now, if the young woman whose name you have seen there and whose writing you have identified declares you are the man who stopped with her in Invercargill, will you deny it? —I will. This is merely an attempt to blacken my character. Dr. Findlay: that statement was signed before a police officer. Bring Mrs. Daniels into the Court and we will see about this. Witness: I am prepared. Mr. Justice Edwards (to witness): You had better think well over this and be careful, because I need hardly remind you this comes as a surprise, I suppose, to everybody, and while this specific matter may not be material to your case, you may be liable for perjury. Witness: He makes out that I stopped with this woman for immoral purposes. 460. Dr. Findlay (to witness).] Did you ever hear that story before?— No. 461. Look at that woman [Mrs. Daniels]. Will you swear in this woman's presence that you did not stop in her house in Invercargill with a young woman, occupying the same room as she, after you came out of gaol?—I never stopped with her—never. 462. Dr. Findlay (to Mrs. Daniels).] Is that the man?— Yes. 463 Dr Findlay (to witness).] Now, after Miss Mills has signed a statement—you have seen her signature—will you still deny it on oath?— Miss Mills may sign fifty things, but Miss Mills is not speaking the truth about my personal character. Dr Findlay •It is signed before the police, I will remind you of something more. 'B—H.' 21.
H.—2l.
58
[j. J. MEIKLE.
Mr. Justice Edwards: There is a specific statement there. What you are asked is whether that particular thing is false or true. You merely in reply make some general statement about personal character. The question of your general character is not put to you. It is put to you whether this particular statement is false or correct, and we want a distinct answer to that. Dr. Findlay: This is the statement made by Miss Mills: " The blood on the crockery in Mrs. Daniels's room, the one I occupied, did not come from me; it came from a man who was emptying the basin, in which he had washed his hands, into the chamber. It fell (slipped) and broke, and when he was picking up the pieces he cut his hand. The man was Mr. Meikle. Witness: My nephew's name is Meikle. Dr. Findlay: We will come to that presently. "I am not sure which hand he cut, or where the cut was situated on the hand. I saw it. I cannot say the size or the depth of the cut. The water he washed his hands in was spilled all over the floor. I wiped it up with a piece of flannelette I got in a scullery there. I think I threw the piece of flannelette out the window of the room. It was only used for wiping up the water. It took place on Thursday morning last, the day I left there. It took place about a quarter or half past 8 o'clock. I could not say if he had much difficulty in stopping the bleeding. He used a towel first and then tied a handkerchief round it. He picked up the towel to stop the blood going on his clothes. He lifted it up and put it to his hand. I was in the room. I was not in bed —I was up. I did not have a wash that morning. I just took the damp sponge that was there and wiped it over my face. I tied the handkerchief on Mr. Meikle's hand —tied it in one knot. We had breakfast together in the dining-room. I brought it into the room. I told him I was going to Gore, and he sent a man for my box, &c. I saw him at the train about 4 p.m. He came to the station. I did not see him again until to-day. He came here to Mr. Perks. He came to see if I were here. He called at Mrs. Harvey's, and she told him where I was. He was here about a quarter of an hour. It was just after the Mataura train came in—that is, the first train from the south. He asked if I were comfortable. I said I was. He said if I wanted anything I was to write to Mrs. Meikle and let her know. We then spoke of his daughter, Jessie, being ill —she had a sore throat. This was all that passed. He is not coming back again ; he said he was going home by the express train. No one saw him here except myself; I answered his knock at the door. I did not ask him how his hand was; he did not mention it. I could not say if he had a cloth round it. Mr. J. J. Meikle and I were the only persons in that room on Wednesday night last and Thursday morning. 464. Dr. Findlay (to witness).] Is that true? —No, it is a lie. Dr. Findlay: " I left Invercargill on Thursday because there was no use my stopping there when I could not get anything to do. I left a letter for Mrs. Daniels. I told her 1 was called away in sickness —1 was not feeling very well. lam engaged to Mr. Meikle's nephew, Archie Dryden. He is in Sydney. He is in Sydney Hospital—he got hurt by a horse. I am in the family way. I was that way when I went to Invercargill. lam still in that condition. I have been that way since August last. lamin my sixth month. I decline to say who is the father of it. I paid Mrs. Daniels £1 in advance; I think it was the third day after I went there. I went there on Saturday last —a week ago to-day. I owe Mrs. Daniels ss.—that's up to Thursday last. I have relations near Auckland. They are my parents. I consent to be examined by a doctor I met Mr. Dryden in Wellington. I did not tell Mrs. Daniels of the broken crockery on Thursday-—I thought probably I would be back there again. I acknowledge this to be correct. —E. Mills." Witness: She did not sign that. 465. Dr. Findlay (to witness).] She signed that of which this is a copy. Having signed such a statement in those exact words, do you say it is untrue?—l say the woman has told a lie. 466. Did you or did you not pay for the board? —No. 467. Were you not sued for it?— The thing was sued for in my name instead of my nephew. I told them of the mistake. They gave me the summons, and I said it was a mistake. Mr. Justice Edwards (to witness): It is of no use your saying you were not sued if you were served with a summons. 468. Dr. Findlay.] Did you pay? —Well, the money was sent to Invercargill, but I did not pay for it. 469. Did you pay over the full amount of the sum you were sued for?— Part of it was given to me; I think Mr. Stout got the money. 469 a. If Mr. Stout, of Invercargill, says he sued you for the full amount of that board, and for some other things, and that you paid the full amount, is that untrue?— Undoubtedly, the amount was tendered. 470. If Mr. Stout says you were sued for the full amount and you paid it, will you deny it?—l will not deny the money was paid. 471. Did you pay out of your hand? —The money was given me to pay Mr. Stout. 472. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Why do you not say at once, "Yes, I paid him, but I got the money from Miss Mills"? You paid the money into Mr. Stout's hands. The money was given you to pay?-—lt was, and I told Mr. Stout it was a mistake. 473. Dr. Findlay.] When you were sued it was not for board only, but also for damage and injury to bedroom ware of different kinds? —It was not for myseif. She told me the bedroom ware was broken. 474. You know something about it now?— The woman told me, and she gave the money. 475. Were you not told that the bedclothes in that bed were saturated with blood and were destroyed? Were you not told that outside the window of the bedroom it is alleged you occupied there was found a piece of cloth saturated with blood? —This is the first I have heard of it. 476. You know Miss Mills?— Yes. 477. Do you know she was examined afterwards at the instance of the police, for the purpose of discovering whether there had been an attempt at abortion ?—My wife
59
H.— 2l.
J. J. MEIKLE.
478. Mr. Justice Edwards.] We have got the fact that somebody was there in the name of "J. J. Meikle." We have the fact that you were sued, and that the money went through your hands from Miss Mills. You must have had some conversation with Miss Mills?— Miss Mills came to my house and was confined there. 479. Dr. Findlay.] Did Miss Mills tell you that she was examined at the instance of the police by a doctor in Gore?— Yes, there is no secret about that. 480. For what reason was she examined? —I could not tell you. 481. Did she tell you she was examined for the purpose of ascertaining whether there was an attempt at practising abortion, in which you were suspected of being associated with her?— No. 482. Mr. Justice Cooper.] How old is your nephew?— About forty-four. 483. Dr. Findlay.] We had heard of this story, and we are able to clear up that matter entirely. Did you not stay at this woman's house under the assumed names of Mr. and Mrs. Milne?—l never went by that name in my life. 484. Do you know a Mrs. Ede, the widow of the detective of that name?—l do not know her, but I have stopped at her house. 485. Was this young woman ever staying at Mrs. Ede s house at the same time that you were stayi ig there? —I believe I only stopped there on one or two occasions. 486. Were you ever in this young woman's room at that hotel before you went to Mrs. Daniels? —I believe we were sitting in one room with a number of others on one occasion. 487. If Mrs. Ede swears that you were in Miss Mills's room?—I have never been in a bedroom with Miss Mills in my life.
Dunedin, f Friday, 4th May, 1906. John James Meikle further examined. 1. Dr. Findlay.] We [left 'off Mr. Meikle, at a point where I was asking youjsome questions regarding a young woman named Mills ? —That is so. 2. I understand you to swear that you never stayed at the house of Mrs. Daniels or Mr. Daniels in Doon Street, Invercargill ? —Never in my .life that lam aware of. It is seven years ago. 3. You pledge your oath you never stayed at the house of Mrs. Daniels in Doon Street, Invercargill, at any time ?—Not that I am aware of. 4. You swear you did not I —Not that I am aware of. I never stayed in such a private house in Invercargill that lam aware of. I would not know where she lived if you gave me a million of money to-day. 5. Mr. Justice Edivards.] You will need to be more precise ; to say " I am not aware of it," will not do. If you like you can say "I do not remember " ?—I do not remember it, and I have a pretty retentive memory. 6. You know it is not every day that an elderly man and a young woman go into a house and spend nights together ?—I am not aware that I ever stopped at a house of that name in Invercargill. If I ever stopped in a house in Invercargill I was never aware of that name, and never heard of it until yesterday. 7. Dr. Findlay.] I will assist your memory by a little detail. In the month of February, 1899, did you stop at Mrs. Daniels's in Invercargill ? —I do not remember that I did. 8. Will you swear you did not ?—I am almost positive I did not, and that I did not know the name. I stopped in three houses there with friends. 9. Who were the three friends ?—Mr. Ede's, Mr. McFarlane's, as far as I remember, and I think in my nephew's. 10. Now, cannot you tell me with certainty, never mind the particular name, if you stopped in another house in Doon Street, Invercargill, in the month of February on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday ?—Not that I remember. 11. Will you swear that you did not ?—I cannot swear I did not stop in the house. If I was in the house, I say I never knew it was Mrs. Daniels's or of any other name until the present moment. 12. You were confronted with the old lady yesterday ; she was brought face to face with you, and told you that you had stopped in her house : you heard her say so % —I did not hear her say so. She said I came, and she saw me. I had a full beard at the time, and Ido not see how she could recognise me now. 13. You saw the old lady brought over to that witness-box, and she said, addressing you, " You were the man who stayed in my house " ?—I think she was mistaken, and that she never saw me. 14. Will you swear she is mistaken ?—I cannot swear she has not seen me, but Ido not think she ever saw me in her house. If she saw me there it is more than ever I knew. 15. Mr. Justice Cooper.] Of course you could not forget if you had stopped in her house two or three days with a girl in bed at night : that is a circumstance no man would forget ? —I was only away two nights at a time from home, and I think that can be easily accounted for by the members of my family. I was not aware that was going to be thrown in my teeth. 16. Dr. Findlay.] If you had adrhitted it frankly yesterday, I would have passed on** —I say I was not aware I ever stopped in the house of Mrs. Daniels in my life. If I did stop there it slipped my memory at any time. 17. Did it slip your memory that you went with Miss Mills and slept with her ?—I never went with Miss Mills and slept with her. Miss Mills has been in my bedroom at Ede's and also at the Club Hotel when she was serving there, but never for an immoral purpose.
[j. J. MEIKLE.
H.—2l.
60
18. You swear you have never been in Miss Mills's bedroom at Daniels's house ?—Not that lam aware of. 19. I am going to give you a little information that will probably assist you : the police produced envelopes torn up into small pieces, on which, when put together, they found the name of J. J. Meikle, and on others the name of Miss E. Mills ?—That is easily accounted for. 20. How ?—I am telling you Miss Mills stopped in the Club Hotel. 21. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Mr. Meikle, you had better try and be more explicit in your answers. For your own sake if the thing is true and is to be proved, admit the truth frankly. If it be not true do not fence with the matter, and do not endeavour to envelop the issue in a cloud of meaningless words. Answer simply and directly, and to the point, which at present you are not doing ?—lf I was ever in this house in my life I do not remember it. 22. Dr. Findlay.] Before I proceed further I repeat my warning of yesterday. In the house of Mrs. Daniels were others who saw you and who are now available. NowJ warn you if you persist in the denial these matters will be used for another proceeding. Will you,"swear that in the month of February, 1899, you were not in a house in Invercargill with Miss Mills ?—I may have been, and it has slipped my memory. If that was the house I did not know it. I was never at the Water Tower in my life. I have seen it at a distance, but I could not get to it if you gave me a million of money. 23. I will bring you again to this particluar question, and I will again ask you to be careful : will you swear that in the month of February, 1899, or at any other time you did not spend certain days and nights in a house in Invercargill with Miss Emily Mills ?—I did not stop nights. I may have been in the house, but I was not nights in the house. I may have been in the house and not known it. 24. You may have been stopping in a house in the same room with this Miss Mills in Invercargill ? —I never slept in the same room with her that I am aware of, in Invercargill. 25. That is as far as you can charge your memory ?—So far as I can charge my memory. lam not aware of it. I have slept in the same room at home when ill. There is ho secret about that. 26. Mr. Justice Cooper.] You know what sleeping in the same room is. Of course if it was true it only goes to your reputation, and not to the real issue; but if you deny it and it turns out afterwards that your evidence is untrue it affects your credibility on the main issue ?— I admit that. 27. Now, surely a man does not forget whether he ever slept with a girl ?—Your Honour, I could bern the same room and not sleep with a woman. I think lam old enough to do that. * 28. Mr. Justice Edwards.] You are not going to ask us to believe that. We are not children. We have both of us had some little experience of the world, and of the criminal Courts. Are you really going to ask us to believe that you spent a night in the bedroom of that young woman for any purpose but one—not in your own house mind, but in any house ?—I may have stopped in several hotels, and Miss Mills has been there. There is no secret about that. She has been an inmate in my house. 29. Dr. Findlay.] In the same room all night ?—I will give the whole truth as near as I remember. I have been in a house with Miss Mills, but I have never been in the same room all night—from night to morning. 30. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Perhaps you went in after the other people went to bed, and came out before' they got up in the morning : can we assume that ? —We will assume that to satisfy the argument. ... 31. We are not going to assume anything in regard to a fact of that sort: either it is true or it is not true !—All I say is, I do not remember. 32. Mr. Justice Cooper.] If it is true you could not have forgotten ?—I would forget the house if I went into a stranger's house and did not know the people. 33. Mr. Justice Edwards.] It does not matter one straw what house it was : were you sleeping there with the young woman ? —I say Ido not remember ever sleeping in that house with that young woman. . 34. Are we to assume, Mr. Meikle, that you are in the habit of sleeping m all sorts of houses with all sorts of young women ?—No, your Honour, I have been in so many houses. 35. That is trifling with the Court. Why, the most hardened libertine, with the assistance that has been given you by Dr. Findlay, if he had been sleeping with half a dozen young women in the last six or seven years, would be able to return a direct answer to Dr. Findlay's question ?—I will say to you this : that if I have been in that house I was not aware that was the house I was in. I did not know the name of the people until yesterday. 36. Dr. Findlay.] I see what you mean. I understand you to admit that you did spend some time and some nights with Miss Emily Mills in a house in Invercargill, but that you did not know it was Mrs. Daniels's ?— Only because she was ill. She was taken ill at my house and nursed and cared for. 37. Will you admit you did spend some time in a house in Invercargill, and spend it in the same room as this young girl Mills, but did not know it was Daniels's house ?—I do not know. 38. Perhaps it is only the mistake as to the name of the landlady that induced you to deny the other particulars which I am going to ask you about now—l am about to read this from the police report: do you know that when you left this house—we will not call it Daniels's house—that you locked the door so that it had to be forced open after you and this girl left ?—I never did. 39. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Did Mills lock it while you were there ?—No, your Honour; I never saw the door locked, if that was the house. 40. Dr. Findlay.] You say you did not lock the door ?—No. 41. When you left the room of the house you have now discovered you stopped at, was this the condition of the bedroom—l am reading from the report of the police who were called in the next day : "It was seen that something unusual had taken place there; the undersheeting on the double bed was saturated with blood—principally about the middle portion; the floor, near the bed, was blood-
J. J. MEIKLE.]
61
H.—2l.
bespattered, and a large towel, saturated with blood, was lying there ; all the bedroom-utensils (excepting the commode) were broken and smeared with blood ; spots of blood were on the counterpane of an unused single bed, which was close to the window ; numerous pieces of torn-up addressed, but unused, envelopes and fragments of letters in Miss Mills's handwriting were strewn in the open fireplace—the front was enclosed by a screen —and a piece of clothing, which had been taken from the kitchen, saturated with blood, was found immediately outside the window. Later on Mrs. Daniels found a letter, addressed to her, to the effect that the writer, Mrs. Milne, had left on account of sickness. Mrs. Daniels collected the fragments of envelopes and letters ; and, having pieced them together, observed that the former were addressed ' Mr. J. J. Meikle. ' " I have read you the description the police have given us of the room you occupied the night before : was that the condition of that room when you left it ? —No, it was not; I never left a room in such a state in my life. 42. You told me yesterday you knew Miss Mills was examined by a doctor shortly after this ?— I believe so. 43. She told you herself you said ? —She told me because she went to my house. 44. Miss Mills told you herself she had been examined by a doctor shortly after this : you know who the doctor was ?—I cannot tell you exactly. 45. Did you ring him up % —I did not ring him up, but lam acquainted with the man you refer to. 46. Who was it ? —I was told Dr. Donaldson ; not that I will swear to it. 47. You knew the doctor she was examined, by ? —T was told that. 48. Did you not ring Dr. Donaldson up and ask him about it ?—No. 49. Do you swear you did not ?—When I found it out Dr. Copeland went to see Miss Mills and to see what condition she was in, arid I was the man who sent him to see how poorly the girl was. 50. She was confined shortly afterwards ? —No, not until a month later. 51. Did Miss Mills tell you that she told two policemen, who are both available, that you had been improperly intimate with her for eighteen months before this very time ?—No, I do not think that she ever said that. 52. The two policemen are available : will you swear that you were not intimate with that girl for eighteen months before the month of February, 1899 ? —No, I was not; and if she told you it is not the case. 53. When did you have improper intimacy with this girl ?—Never at any time. 54. Mr. Justice Edwards.] You swear you never had sexual intercourse with Miss Mills ? —I never had sexual intercourse with Miss Mills down there ; the girl was too ill. 55. Dr. Findlay.] You say you never had intercourse down there : where did you have intercourse with her ? —Elsewhere, but not there. I admit it straight; I treated the girl with kindness and did all I could. 56. Where is Miss Mills now ?—The last time I saw her was in Wellington. 57. You were there at the same time ?—Yes, and I saw both her father and mother. 58. How long ago ?—Three weeks ago. 59. And all down these years, since 1889, you have known and frequently met Miss Mills ? —That is true, and I have met her mother and father too. 60. How many children has the lady got ?—I believe she has three. 61. How many of them are you the father of ?—None that I am aware of. 62. That is a very safe reply ; but I put it to you that you, who are coming to ask the colony for its bounty, have been keeping this woman as a mistress for some eight years ? —I can assure you that I have not had the means to keep myself during the last eight years, much less Miss Mills. I admit that she has been in my home on and off for some years, and Mrs. Meikle will say that. 63. Did she pay for her board ?—She stopped there and paid for her board for part of the time. 64. This woman had been staying in your home and when your wife was there, and yet she was a woman with whom you had been in improper intercourse : have you given her any money at all ? — On three occasions, when she required it. 65. Yet you approached the Government as a hopelessly impecunious person, as Mr. Atkinson has told us ? —Not lately ; this was before the homestead went. 66. Miss Mills was twenty-seven years of age in 1899 ?—I do not know her age. 67. Did you know her eighteen years before ?—No, I never saw her- till 1897. 68. Why do you say that you gave her money before your homestead went: when did you give her money ? —The homestead did not go till six years ago. 69. When did you give her money ?—About four years ago. 70. For the last seven years you have been giving her money ? —I admit that. 71. That was while you were carrying on this crusade of wrong and innocence against the colony ? —No. 72. You began the crusade after you got out in July ?—I have for fourteen years 73. You got £500 from the colony ? —Yes, and the Premier said it was for law costs. 74. And two years ago we find you with this young woman and giving her money. I asked you yesterday whether you had borne a good character before your conviction in 1887 and you said you had ? —I was not aware that I had a bad one. 75. I asked you whether before 1887 you had borne a good character and you said you had and you challenged me to bring before you anything which was to your discredit ?—Yes. 76. Do you know the present Inspector Macdonell of Napier ?—I do. 77. You knew him many years ago ?—I could not say that I knew him, but I saw him on one occasion. I knew him at Caversham, I think it was. 78. Do you recollect bringing to Sergeant Macdonell a letter from Sergeant-major Bevan containing a warrant for the arrest of a young girl who had been in your service ?—That is so.
H.—2l.
62
[j. J. MEIKLE.
79. What was the girl's name ?—I think it was Beaver. 80. She had been in your service ? —Yes ; on the farm at Gore. 81. You charged her with stealing a small brooch ?—No ; she obtained her wages twice over from my wife. 82. Did you not charge her with stealing jewellery ?—No, money. 83. Do you swear that you did not charge her with having stolen any articles of jewellery ?—She was taken up for getting her wages twice over. 84. Did you or did you not charge this girl with stealing from your house certain articles of jewellery ? —Not that I am aware of. 85. Will you swear that you did not charge her to the police that she had taken from your house some articles of jewellery ? —No ; she was charged with getting money twice over. 86. Mr. Justice Edwards.] You are not asked what she was prosecuted for but what statement you made to the police ? —I made a statement to this effect; that she had got her wages twice, and I filed an information. 87. Dr. Findlay.] Do you remember bringing a letter to Sergeant Macdonnell from Sergeantmajor Bevan containing a warrant for the arrest of this young girl ?—Yes, she was arrested. 88. Was not that warrant issued in consequence of a charge you laid that she had stolen from your house some jewellery ? —No, it was money. 89. Will you pledge your oath to that statement —that the charge you made was not—at any rate in part —for taking jewellery from your house ?—No, it was for money. 90. You went with Inspector Macdonell to the house of the parents of this young girl. You would not go inside ?—Certainly n<3t. 91. You let him go inside to arrest her ?—Certainly. 92. How old was she ? —I cannot say. 93. Let me recall to your memory something which perhaps has faded from it. You saw Sergeant-major Bevan after this ? —Yes. 94. The girl was taken to the police station ?—Yes. 95. She made a statement there that you had given her some jewellery—the jewellery that you alleged she had stolen; that you afterwards made improper proposals to her—she then being alone in your house —-that she refused, and you carried her into the bedroom and there attempted to commit rape upon her, which caused her to leave your house before daylight, walk a long distance to the train, by which she returned to her parents' house. And it was between the time that she left your house and the time you had given her the jewellery—it was after she left your house and you attempted rape on her that you laid this information ?—I never gave her jewellery in my life. 96. Were you not told by Sergeant-major Bevan that when the girl came to the police-station and she was arrested, that she said you attempted to commit rape upon her ? —No. 97. If Inspector Macdonel lswears that you were told at the police-station that this was the girl's story —that you attempted rape on her —and that you cleared out and did not follow up the prosecution, is that untrue ?—lt is untrue. 98. You withdrew the information at any rate ?—lt was withdrawn. 99. Did you get the jewellery back ? —I never gave her jewellery in my life. 100. Now we pass on to matters more immediately connected with this case You remember Scott coming to your barn some weeks before your arrest ? —I do. 101. He brought two horses ? —That is so. 102. He knocked you up early in the morning ? —I think it would be about 7 o'clock as nearly as possible. 103. He came to your house about 7 in the morning, and knocked you up ?—Yes. 104. In giving evidence you say, " Six or seven weeks ago " ; this evidence was given on the Bth November, that would take us back to the latter part of September ?—lt was in September that he came —before Mrs. Meikle was confined. 105. He came with two horses and knocked you up at 7 o'clock, and you went out ? —Yes. 106. You asked him what he wanted ?—I did ask him if he had an entire, and he said " No." 107. He asked you to buy two horses from him ?—No; only one that I remember. 108. You had a look at it ?—I did. 109. He wanted £20 ? —I think it was £20, if I remember right, but I remember that I said it was worth £14. 110. I think it was sold for £18 afterwards % —Yes. 111. You said it looked like a £14 horse ? —Yes. 112. How long had you been farming and dealing with horses % —That was in 1887. 113. During the previous ten years you had been dealing with horses, sheep, and cattle ?—Undoubtedly. 114. When you saw the brand upon the horse that was not the first brand you had seen on horses. Now the brand was so peculiar that you asked him, " What brand do you call this ? " —Yes. 115. And he replied, " 0.H." ?—Yes. 116. It was plain, was it not, then that the brand had been recently altered ?—No; you could not discover it. It was as clever a piece of alteration of a brand as I have ever seen. 117. Even your practised eye could not see that the alteration was a fresh alteration ? —Yes. 118. Was your son Arthur a truthful witness ? —Yes; he was the best boy I had at home. . 119. Was he a boy with a good head ? —Yes; he was a good all-round boy. 120. This is what Arthur swore upon the trial of Scott for the theft of this horse. This good boy Arthur had apparently a better eye than you, because he said that the alteration of the brand seemed to be fresh ?—He may have said it, because he was in the stable more than I was.
H.— 2l.
J. J. MEIKLE. J
63
121. He says that the alteration of the brand seemed to be fresh, and yet you, an experienced man with horses, did not notice that —although your son said that it appeared to have been recently altered ? —I had every confidence in Scott, and I would not like to say that Scott had stolen the horse. 122. You told me that you did not notice that the brand had been altered, and that it was so successfully done as to deceive anybody. Your son saw that it had been altered. Now you say that you had no suspicion ? —I knew Scott, and did not suspect anything. 123. If a horse is brought to you by a man you know, at 7 o'clock in the morning, and you go out and see it. and he asks you £20 for it and finally you get it for £14, and in regard to which your son says that the brands appeared to have been recently altered, you would not for one moment —by the way, you paid no money for it ?—That is -so. 124. It was left with you in September, and you were to give him £14 for it some time in November, I think ? —He was to get £14 some time in November. 125. You were to work the horse in the meantime ?—No ; I told him I did not want the horse badly. 126. Why did you not work it—why did you not treat it as your own horse, and work it ?—-I did work it, but we had any amount of young horses in the paddock. 127. Your son would know about that ?—Yes. 128. He said you worked it for a month ?—He would know. It might be worked for a few hours in the day. 129. He swears that the horse was worked for a month ? —He may have said that. 130. What was the date on which Scott came to you with these horses ?—ln September. Mr. Atkinson : Arthur swears that the horse was worked for three weeks. 131. Dr. Findlay.] He brought the horse in September ?—Yes. 132. Scott came back again ?—Yes. 133. How long after his first coming to you was it before he returned ? —I think about nine or ten days. He passed on —he did not stop. 134. These are the depositions of your son. He was speaking on the Bth November and he said, " A month ago " —that is about Bth October —" a horse was brought to our place," and he said that Scott returned about a fortnight later ? —I think it was about eight or ten days later. 135. If he were there on the Bth October—as your son seems to have thought—and he came back ten days later, he would be at your place on the 18th October, 1887 ? —No ; he never stopped at my place —even in September, he did not. 136. Scott will swear that he stopped at your place on the 18th October, 1887, and your son bears it out that Scott stayed at your place on that day; that you altered the brand, and that while he was there he saw your son bringing in sheep from the station ? —" From the station ?"I am glad you told me that. It is new evidence after nineteen years. Mr Justice Cooper : What was the result of the case ? Dr. Findlay: He was convicted. 137. Dr. Findlay (to witness).] You know that Lambert has sworn consistently that he saw you altering the brand on the horse for the theft of which Scott was convicted ?—Untrue, sir. 138. But he swore it ? —He would swear anything. All his evidence shows how nicely he has sworn. 139. Now we come to review the evidence you gave in the Court yesterday. You told the Court —repeating very clearly and closely the evidence you have always given before—you told the Court that Lambert was set to watch you ?—He said he was to get £50 to get me off the place. 140. This is what you told Judge Williams in Meikle v. Lambert trial, " He rapped at the back door. I went to the door myself. He said he had something to say to me. I told him to come inside, and say what he had to say. He said, ' Look here, Mr. Meikle, I have to get £50 to get you off your place. Cameron and Troup will stand at my back.' Cameron was manager for the company, and Troup was head shepherd. He said he was to put sheep or sheep-skins on the land so as to get me into trouble and off the place. He said, ' I will let you know the night its to be done, Mr. Meikle. I won't do it.' " Is that quite correct ?—I did say so, and Ido so still. 141. You believed this when he said it to you?— Yes. 142. And you believed that he was to put sheep or sheep-skins on your land to get you into trouble ? —Yes. 143. That was the first you heard of it ? —Yes. 144. When this man came to your door what did you say in reply ? —I asked him how it was to be done. 145. Well, then you did make a reply ? When Judge Edwards asked you yesterday you said " Nothing " ? —I said " Yes," and I told His Honour that my wife and I went into the room ; she was unwell. 146. We have the notes of what you said yesterday. When asked you told His Honour you made no reply ? —I made a reply and walked on. 147. What was your reply ? —" That is what others have told me." 148. It was no news to you ?—No, I was told previously ; Perry told me before he left, " Cameron will hunt you off this place." 149. Do you mean to tell this Court that a respectable company was hiring this man to put skins to secure your conviction % —Cameron is a man who would do anything. He is out of this colony now. 150. Do you believe this company was getting skins put there to get you wrongfully convicted % —I do; and Cameron was the man who told me he would hunt me out of it, on the railway-platform here. 151. You called Lambert inside and told him to say what he had to say. Was not this what happened 1 lam quoting from your wife's evidence :" My husband said to him, 'If you have any-
H.—2l.
64
[j. J. MEIKLE.
thing to say come into the kitchen and say it before the people there ' " ?—That was on one occasion, not on this occasion. He had been there several times, even without me. 152. On another occasion when he came you say you went and asked him to come in, " If you have anything to say come into the kitchen and say it before the people there " ? —I wanted no secret, I told him. 153. What was the other occasion ?—He came in to tell me something about the forearm of a sheep —about the 25th. 154. At any rate you told him to come in and say it before the people there ?—Yes. 155. Did he tell it there ?—Yes. 156. And there were several people there ?—He did ; there was no secret in it. 157. What did he say ?—He said, " Mr. Meikle, I have come to tell you lam to get £50 to get you off your place. I have either to put sheep or skins on your land, and lam to get £50. Cameron and Troup will stand at my back." 158. This is a subsequent visit when you invite him into your kitchen, and there before fresh witnesses he makes this statement ?—He made it repeatedly. 159. Youx wife says you said, "If you have anything to say, come into the kitchen and say it before the people there " ?—That is true. 160. How many times has he made it ?—Repeatedly to my men, and not only that, but to others outside. 161. That he was to get £50 to put sheep or skins on your land ?—There was no doubt he did put them there. 162. Where was he to put them ?—ln the barn. That was the farthest building from the house that was convenient for him. 163. He was to get £50 for putting sheep or skins on your land, and the man who was to get it, you say, came to you on several occasions and declared so before witnesses and outsiders ?—Certainly. 164. Was Mr. Lambert ever in a lunatic asylum, do you know ? —I do not know, it does not matter to me if he was. 165. Can you account for a man, who is going to put skins in your barn to get you convicted, going around the countryside and telling everybody that he is going to do it '—Undoubtedly. To suit his purpose, which he did by the grindstone incident. 166. If he held his tongue, and had not made these speeches—you were an old policeman, and must know—he might still have put them there and escaped detection ?—He would never have got within the gates had he not come the way he did, as a friend—had he come as an outsider, because his appearance was enough for me ; and I never took him into my confidence, as I told the detective. 167. Look at the position you were putting yourself in by this speech ?—I am not making a speech. 168. You say you would not have allowed him within the gate ?—Never. 169. Because he told you this story ? —And I intended to tell the police. 170. Did you believe he was going to do it ?—I believed that if he did not, the other man would. 171. And yet you allowed him inside ?—I believed that, if the other man did not do it, he would. 172. Before we pass on, what was the purpose of putting the skins on your land ?—To get me convicted, so that I would not be to Wellington when the matter was being inquired into before the Land Board there. 173. Were you going to set the world on fire by going to Wellington I—l was going to get past wrongs redressed that had been done by this company. 174. You are going back to the assault ? How far back ?— Three years before, and I have got the correspondence. 175. You say a horrible conspiracy was afoot to get you from going to Wellington ?—Yes. 176. I think you told Mr. Atkinson that the purpose was to get your land because the company could not work their station ? That was the reason you gave him ?—lt was also to get me out of the property, and prevent me from getting redress. 177. They had two reasons ? —Yes, and Cameron told me he would hunt me out. 178. Well, they did get you convicted, and have they got the land ?—No, but Cameron's brother has got it. 179. Who first, as a matter of fact, were the mortgagees at that trme ?—The Government Lrte Insurance Department and J. G. Ward and Company. 180. Who sold it ?—The Government Life Insurance Company. 181. Through the Registrar ?—I could not help that. I was in gaol. 182. It was sold by the Registrar, and the company did not buy it ?—Because they could not get the homestead, but Cameron's brother bought it since. 183. We will pass to another stage. Not only did Lambert tell you this amazing story that he was going to put these skins into the barn, but something else of a more dramatic kind was to happen. Lambert told you this : He said, " I saw two daisies of letters to Troup from Cameron telling him how to put you out, but trust to me I will let you know the night the trick is to be done. The 'joker' will be dressed in light clothes; I will be dressed in dark. You fire at him with the light clothes." Do you remember swearing that ?—I did; I would not fire with ball all the same. 184. What were you going to fire with ? —I would have made him stand. I told him that if I could find the man coming on my place at night I would fire, but not with ball. 185. What were you going to fire with ?—With powder, but not with shot. I said, " I will frighten the first man I see near the building at night." 186. You say that Lambert told you " the joker " was to be dressed in light clothes while he was to be in dark clothes. Was that to enable you to distinguish who to shoot at ?— He told me that one would be in light clothes and the other in dark, and he said that the man in light would carry the skins,
J. J. MEIKLE.]
65
H.— 2l.
187. He was to be the " dark horse " and the other the " angel of light" ? —Stewart had come before that. 188. The man in dark was to come, and you were to fire at the man in light ?—That is so. 189. Would you kindly tell me did you really believe all this ?—I knew it was to be, and my neighbours knew it. Lambert told it all over. 190. They, of course, were to be in possession of skins for the purpose of convicting you—these two men who were to come—the one in the light clothes was to bring the skins ?—They were to be both together, the one that went to the barn, he said, was to bring the skins. 191. At any rate it will suit my purpose very well that either the man in light or the one in dark was to go and try and put skins in your barn. That was to be the scheme ? —That is so. 192. Your wife tells us the same was told to her ? —Yes. 193. If you had fired, what was to happen to Lambert ?—I could have got the man and held him, until I could have got a policeman : I would have tied him if I were able. 194. You would have tied either Lambert or the other man ? —I would, if I caught him doing such a thing. 195. So you say that Lambert, who was a party to the scheme, under which he or the man in light clothes was to carry the skins would have been tied until the arrival of the police ?—I would have made a bold attempt to do it. 196. You would have invoked the criminal law and tried to send him to gaol for as long as you could ?—I would if I got him. Ido not deny it. 197. Then I suppose if it happened to be the man in the dark clothes who was doing this, he would go to gaol ? —Undoubtedly. 198. So that you say, if Lambert were the man who had the bag, he entered into an arrangement whereby you were to shoot, to have him bound hand and foot, and sent to gaol. Was he ever in a lunatic asylum ? —He may have been; he is more like that than anything else. 199. Well, now, this amazing story—pardon my saying it is amazing—that you say Lambert told you and your wife and others—did you never discuss with him the effect it would have on himself ?—No; I went and told the police. I believed him at the time. 200. Did you never have any talk about the folly of him putting himself in the position by which he might be in gaol for his life ? —No; I went to the police. I was three days in Invercargill and could not get a detective in. 201. We will leave the statement that in your house and to others he told this wonderful story as to how you were to be convicted ? —Yes; he knew there were sheep on my land, and that all he had to do was to plant the skins. 202. That is not the end. According to your case after the skins would be put in your barn, he went and asked McGeorge to get two skins for him ?—I do not know about that. 203. Well, that is how it turns out—two skins ?—I do not know about that. 204. I suppose he could have got skins quite easily ? —Well, he could not very well. 205. How did McGeorge get them then ? —He had orders to get them from Section 24—Tent Bush—near my boundary, and they have all to be accounted for and counted into the station, so' that at the end of the year they can see how many sheep died and how many were killed. 206. At all events McGeorge had no right to give him these skins ? —I cannot say what his right was. If he had orders from Mr. Troup to give them, he had to give them. 207. If he had no orders, he had no right to give them ? —I cannot say that 208. I want to put another peculiar thing to you. You say the barn is where Lambert told you the skins were to be put, and you told us as soon as you heard that you gave Harvey instructions to keep the barn locked. When did you give him instructions to do that ?—After Lambert came and gave notice at the house what was to be done. 209. That was the middle of September ? —Yes, and I went to Invercargill after that to see the police. 210. You gave instructions to keep the barn locked ? —And the smithy. 211. And you knew that Harvey implicitly kept the barn locked ?—Every night, bar the night Lambert managed to get in—the night before the police came—and the plant was laid. 212. So that for a month before the barn-door and the smithy were locked, and the keys in your possession ? —Harvey kept the keys. 213. You know that Harvey obeyed your instructions and kept them locked ?—I went a few nights to see if they were locked. 214. And found them locked ? —Yes, and they would not have been unlocked that night if he had not come. 215. Well now, can you tell me why the rascal who wanted to convict you should not have put the skins under your house or in some suspicious place, why in the barn ?—Because he could say they were in the building, and could not get there without my knowing, and that was a conviction. 216. Your theory is that he put the skins in the barn and told the police they were in the barn ?— Undoubtedly. 217. Supposing Lambert had taken the skins and stowed them in some suspicious place where an honest man did not keep skins, do you not think the discovery would have been worse ?—He could not, because a yelping dog and the old dog would have made a noise, and I would have had my gun. 218. Do you suggest that Lambert could not have put two skins on your farm of 800 acres in some suspicious place and then told the police ? —Not as long as I was there with two dogs, which were as faithful dogs as ever walked. 219. Your story is that he must have put them in a locked building which was guarded jealously ? —He put them there, because the key was stolen from Arthur, after he had done his business with the grindstone. 9—H. 21.
H.—2l.
66
\j. .T. MEIKLR.
220. I have told you where he could have put them. Was Harvey a fairly truthful witness ?— I found him a very decent man and all of them a very decent family. 221. He would not have made a mistake when he gave his evidence ? —I could not say that. I never coached him. 222. Do you know that he gave evidence—once, twice, thrice—and said there were skins kept in the stable, and as many kept there as in the barn ? —I never saw them. If there were any there they were taken over to the smithy and hung there. I would not allow them to remain in the stable to keep the horses from their feed. 223. At page 38 you will find Harvey tells us this, " I had no instructions about coachhouse or stable. I had to look out for barn and smithy. It was in them the skins were to be put. Sheep were killed sometimes in smithy, sometimes in stable. I had seen sheep-skins in stable. There were sheep-skins as often in barn. I cannot say anything nov positively as to how many skins there were in the smithy " ?—Quite likely. 224. This stable, you told Mr. Atkinson, was a place in which all your men could go, it was not locked ?—Only at certain hours. 225. Why could Lambert not have put the skins in the stable ?—Because I say he could not have come except in a friendly way. The dogs would have barked. 226. Why, you were away from home yourself at times ? —But his purpose would not have been effected if I was away from home. 227. Do you seriously tell the Judges that Lambert could not have smuggled two skins in the stable ? —Not at night, unless he was caught by the dogs. 228. But the skins in the stable were not counted ?—They were all counted into the barn. 229. But he says they were as often in the stable as in the barn ? —Not at that time. 230. Do you seriously say that he could not have put them into the open stable ? —No, because we could look out at it through a window and see him through it; it is impossible. 231. You say it was absolutely essential to this man's crime that he must put them in the barn ? —Yes. 232. You must, upon what you told us, have been absolutely certain from the first moment you heard of the skins in the barn that Lambert did it ?—Of course, he put them there the night before. There is not the slightest doubt. 233. Then, as soon as you went out you knew this was the man who said he was paid to do it ?— You knew he was there the night before : you saw a suspicious bag outside while he was there : you remembered that the man had waited to get your son to open the barn ? From the first moment you knew the police had found the skins in the barn you knew that Lambert was the guilty man ?—I had some suspicions that it was him or Stewart, but afterwards I saw it was him because he came there the night before with a bogus tale, and then I saw it was him. 234. Your trusted servant, Harvey, counted the skins the day before the police came, and Lambert comes the night before, puts them there, and the next day the police find them ? —Yes, the police went straight to get them. 235. Had you any doubt it was Lambert ? —I had no doubt, and my petition showed that. I had a doubt that Stewart might have assisted him in a way, because Stewart came to do it on the Bth October, but he failed because he was not smart enough he said. 236. Stewart came to assist him ?—Perhaps he was smarter than him, Lambert said. 237. You did not see Stewart about on the Ist November ?—I did not. 238. The only one who could have done it was Lambert ? —There was no one else who could have got into the building. 239. And no one else could possibly have done it ? —I say so still. If lam as sure of heaven, I will be pretty safe. 240. You told us you believed Lambert's story when he told you he was going to put them in the barn. The police came and found them in the barn. Could any reasonable man have a doubt after that ? —I have no doubt now, nor did I after being incarcerated. 241. We will see now how you acted after the police raid on your house. The first time you see Lambert after your own and son's arrests on the Bth November ? —Quite correct. 242. You saw him at the North Star Hotel ? —On the Bth November. 243. Did you come up and say to him, " Mr. Lambert, you are the man who put the skins in my barn " ? —No, I did not come up to him at all. 244. What you did say was this, " Behave truthfully whatever you do " ?—I did. He confessed to his own crime too. 245. Six days after the police had discovered the skins ? And he told you to go away, that he wanted the £10 of blood-money he was to get from Stewart ?—He said " I am waiting to get £10 bloodmoney to clear out of the road." 246. What did he mean by that ?—I suppose it was part of his reward of £50, because Troup had been sent away to Nelson, and had left the station some time after this man came—it may be a few days —and had not returned until within a fortnight before my conviction, according to his own testimony. If the three had been there they'could not have done it so well, because they would have given each other away. Troup was at the Road Board meeting. 247. What did you understand when he said he was to get £10 ?—I came to the conclusion that he was getting part of his reward; 248. When he told you he was to get £10 you knew that was part of his reward for having effected his purpose ? —That is so. 249. You could have little doubt of the character of the man then ? —I had only one doubt—did he come with an honest intention to have his knife sharpened, or to put the skins there ? and there were the two alternatives.
J. J. MEJKLE.]
67
H.— 2l.
250. And after he told you that he was going to get blood-money from Stewart any doubt disappeared ? —I had no doubt at all then. 251. Now, we will show you a letter. You will remember a letter was put in written by you to Lambert ?—Yes, on the 14th November. 252. This is six days after you had satisfied yourself that the real culprit—the blood-money man— was Lambert: is this the letter you wrote to this scoundrel :— " November 14, 1887 " Dear Sir, —I want my sheep shorn. Can you come and shear them. Tell Arthur whether you are coming or not. I hope you will be straight in this matter about the company and myself. You have nothing to fear, and listen to no report. Constable Lees, lam afraid, will be in serious trouble over this matter and the company. I should like you to come and shear as you promised. " J. J. Meikle." That is the letter you wrote ? —That is a copy of it. I have it in my book, 253. Now, I want an explanation of this letter. You begin by saying " Dear Sir, —I want my sheep shorn. Can you come and shear them." Your sheep were on your premises, were they not ? —Yes. 254. This blood-money man was to come and shear your sheep ? —That was my plan to get him to come to my place. 255. This was a trap he was to fall into nicely ?—I was going to get him down there so that I could frighten the whole thing out of him. 256. Did you fire your gun off then ? —No, not then. 257. Then the letter goes on " Tell Arthur whether you are coming or not. I hope you will be straight in this matter " ? —Certainly, because if he was a man he would have admitted right up. 258. And you would have nothing to fear if he was the man who went there and put those skins there and got you convicted for felony. You know he was guilty of a very great crime ?—No doubt, and if he had come down there I would have frightened out of him exactly what had been done. 259. Have you done that kind of thing before ?—No, but I would have found out from him if he had been there the night before and betrayed his trust in such a cowardly way. 260. What was his trust ?—Well, a man who would come there and say he was a shepherd and then do what he did 261. I think your wife said he gammoned to be your friend ? —Yes. 262. And then he betrayed the trust you put in him ?—That is the only way I could do it. I put no trust in any man who acted as he did. 263. But he could betray no trust, if you put no trust in him. " I hope you will behave straight in this matter about the company and myself. You have nothing to fear, and listen to no reports " ? —Reports that were going about all over the district about the £50. 264. What were the reports he had nothing to fear from ?—The reports were that he, Lambert, had told several people he was to get £50 by the company's servants for putting the skins on my property. 265. Why did you say " Listen to no reports " ? —Those were the reports that were going abroad. 266. Then you ask him not to listen to the reports which he himself had circulated. You tell him he has nothing to fear, and ask him to listen to no reports, and yet you say the reports were those which Lambert himself had circulated ? —I say, if he had told this about the company, they would have been indicted far worse than myself. 267. Mr. Justice Edwards.] You say you expected to get him to admit having put the skins there ? —Yes. 268. Well, what are these reports ?—The report was that, if he made a clean breast of it, he would probably be indicted ; and I wished to try and get him to make a clean breast of it, as I would have explained to him that the very men who employed him to do this were really the guilty parties, much more so than he was, and that they would be indicted. 269. Dr. Findlay.] You say he was to listen to no reports. These reports, you say, were that he was paid to put the skins upon the place by the company's servants. Well, if that were so, he must have known it. Why did you refer to a report he knew already ?—The report was that he was likely to get into gaol if he confessed, and nobody else. I wanted to explain to him that it would be the other way about. 270. You wanted to explain to him that if he would come and make a clean breast of it you would not prosecute him ? —No; I should not have prosecuted him, but the directors, because the}' would be the guilty parties. 271. You told me a moment ago that the report you referred to was a statement he circulated that he was to put the skins there and get paid for it ?—And other reports afterwards. 272. What was the report he was not to listen to ?—The report that went abroad that he would be arrested, if he confessed, and nobody else. I wanted him not to listen to that, but to come to me, when I would have told him that, if he confessed to having been employed, it would be the company who would most likely suffer and not himself. 273. You told us a little while ago that you wanted him to come to your place in order that you might frighten the truth out of him ? —Because if he confessed, the truth was out. 274. Mr. Justice Edwards.] This letter reads, " I want my sheep shorn. Can you come and shear them ? Tell Arthur whether you are coming or not. I hope you will behave straight in this matter about the company and myself. You have nothing to fear, and listen to no reports." That, to my mind, rather suggests that you were referring to something which both you and Lambert knew ?— Undoubtedly, but I wanted to explain to him that if he confessed what he knew that I was quite sure he would not be convicted, but that Troup and Cameron, who employed him, were the guilty parties, and that they would be convicted.
H.—2l.
68
r ,T. J. MEIKLE.
275. Dr. Findlay.] The last words of the letter are, " I should like you to come and shear, as you promised." When was that promise made ? —The promise was made verbally. I could not tell you exactly when. I told him I was going to Dunedin. 276. When did you go to Dunedin ? —On the 19th October. It was before that. 277. How long ?—I could not say. It might have been on the Bth, when I was coming from the Road Board meeting from Mataura. 278. On the Bth October you asked him to come and shear the sheep as promised I—Well, he asked me if I would let him shear my sheep, and I said, "I do not care who shears them. I shall not be at home. Mrs. Meikle will pay for the shearing." 279. You ask him to come and shear the sheep " as promised "?—He promised then that if he could he would come. 280. Then you asked him to come and fulfil his promise ?—I was simply wanting him down to explain matters to him, and to frighten it out of him. That was my whole policy. 281. Why did you not ask him to come down and have a talk with you ?—That would never have done. There was a report circulated that I might shoot him. I was not going to shoot him. I would not shoot any one. 282. I want to know what is the meaning of this : " Constable Leece, I am afraid, will be in serious trouble"? —Yes, because Constable Leece, in his first information, made them fifty-nine sheep, and then fifty-four, and then when he came to the building he went straight to where the skins were taken out, and never looked at the sheep at all. When they got the skins he thought he had got the bird in the cage, and it was all right. 283. That is all you mean in-your letter to Lambert when you say that Constable Leece will be in serious trouble ?—Yes, because he was the man whom Lambert told me had got a letter from Cameron, from Cameron's Hotel in Mataura, that each of them was to get something. 284. Was Leece to get something too ?—I could not say, but that was Lambert's statement to me on one occasion. 285. What was it ?—That he was to get £50. 286. What about Leece ?—He was the man who witnessed the agreement. He told me this. and as soon as Lambert got me fixed he was to get £50. 287. Then Leece knew all about the conspiracy ?—He said so. 288. You knew this of Leece from Lambert himself I —Lambert told me. 289. Hence in a letter to Lambert you say, " I am afraid Constable Leece will be in considerable trouble "J—Yes, because, if his statement was correct that he witnessed such a thing, I reckoned he would be in serious trouble. 290. Mr. Justice Edwards.] No doubt if the Minister of Justice found that Leece was a party to such a conspiracy he would get into serious trouble, but the peculiar thing is that you say you addressed this letter to a fellow-conspirator of Leece. You say, " Come and shear my sheep." That does not look like a letter addressed to such a man who would do such things. Of course you may be able to explain it better ?—The only way I could get him to come down was by sending a plausible letter like that, I thought. 291. It seems to me silly ? —lt may be, your Honour, but that is how I looked at it. 292. Dr. Findlay.] I think I can give you the key to the letter ?—Very well. 293. Lambert had agreed to shear the sheep ?—There was nothing binding, or in writing. It was only verbal. 294. For the very good reason that when Lambert agreed to shear your sheep, the sheep he was to shear were sheep that were to be taken by you from the company's land ?—Does that letter say so. 295. I have a note at the bottom of the letter, which was made at the time of your trial for sheepstealing : " Some days before this letter was written Meikle told me he was going to take sheep on Friday the 18th, and he would like me to shear them on Tuesday "?—I was in Dunedin then. 296. " The sheep he was to shear were sheep which had been stolen from the company "?—Never. The thing is paltry. 297. Now, at the time you wrote this letter to Lambert you told me that you were absolutely satisfied yourself that he was the culprit who put the skins in your barn I —Yes, I was determined to find that out. 298. You told us before that when you wrote this letter you knew you were addressing the man who had put the skins in the barn I —That was my own belief, and I am still convinced of it to-day. 299. Is that the class of letter you would write to such a man ?—Yes, in order to get him to come down, and make him confess. 300. He did not give this evidence on previous occasion ? —No. 301. You did not know what he was going to say ? —No. 302. You still thought this man was going to keep his mouth shut ?—No, I want no man to shut his mouth. I want every witness to come here and honestly say what he knows, and tell the truth. 303. As to the incidents of this night of the Ist November, I want to get them in proper order. Lambert went to your place on the Ist November, 1887. To whom did he speak first ?—He came at about a quarter past 9, and I heard him sing out to Harvey. The hut door was open. He said, " Harvey, can I get the key ? " Harvey said, " No, my feet are sore, I have been sowing grass-seed and turnips, and my boots are off. The key is on the mantelpiece. You can ask Arthur for it." That was all I heard of it. 304. Did he ask Arthur ?—Yes. 305. Did you hear him ask Arthur ?—No, but I saw them go to the hut. I saw them from the window.
69
H.— 2l.
J. J. MEIKLE.
306. Where did they go first ?—To the hut door. They were speaking there with Harvey. I heard their voices going. 307. Did you hear Harvey reply ?—I could just hear them talking ; I was busy with housework, and I did not hear what they were saying. 308. How long were they there talking to Harvey ?—About ten minutes. 309. What was the next thing that was done ? —They went on their way to the barn. I did not see them then. 310. What happened after that ? —I heard the grindstone going round, and I said to my wife, " I will go out to them ; just get the children to bed." 311. What was your intention on going out ?—lt was to ask Lambert what time of night this was to come and sharpen his knife at the smithy. 312. You thought it was very unreasonable ?—Yes ; there was nothing to prevent his coming in daylight to sharpen it. 313. Why did you not tell your boy not to go out ?—Pardon me, my boy went out, and I have never refused any one at any time of night leave to come and sharpen his knife. 314. But you thought this was unreasonable ?—Yes, to come at that time of night. 315. When you heard the grindstone going, you went out; what did you see then % —I saw Lambert cast his eye up in rather a peculiar manner when I looked at him. 316. Were the skins up in the direction in which he cast his eye ?—No ; they were in a different direction—hanging on a beam. 317. What was Lambert's motive ? —I do not know his motive, but I thought he looked peculiar. 318. What do you mean by that ?—He could not look me in the face. 319. Do you mean that he had a furtive look about him \ —He had a funny look. 320. Did you say anything to him ?—I simply asked him why he came so late. 321. You did not like his look I—l did not know what he was after. 322. This is now nearly twenty years ago ? —lt will be nineteen years in October. 323. And you remember his looking up like that ?—I do ; and I shall never forget it. 324. Now, when he looked up like that, you asked him what ?—I said, " What time of night is this to come and sharpen your knife ? " 325. What did he say ?—He said, " I am going to kill sheep to-morrow, and skin some on the station." 326. What happened after that; was there any further conversation ?—They came out. 327. Immediately ?—lt was about a quarter to 10 or ten minutes to 10. 328. Who do you mean by " they " ?—Lambert and my late son Arthur. Lambert came out behind my son ; they could not come two abreast. 329. Did you say anything more to Lambert % —I said, " What is in your bag, Lambert ? " He had a bag with him. He said, "My blankets." I asked him because I thought he was going to stop at the hut. I did not think he was going away for good until he told me he was going away from the station. 330. Was the bag one which would hold two sheepskins ?—-If you squeezed them in, you could put in three or four, but only two if they were put in loose. If you put them in tight, it would not be easy to take them out. 331. You believe that the bag you saw there was the one which contained the two sheepskins ? —Yes. 332. You said to Lambert—your son standing behind him—'' What is in the bag, Lambert ?" and he said, " My blankets " ?—Yes. 333. Did he say this in an ordinary tone of voice ? —He said it in a casual way. 334. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Where was this bag ? —lt was at the barn —about 26 ft. away from where I was standing ; it was at the corner, standing up. ■ 335. It seems to me a very simple kind of conspiracy, when a man puts evidence in your way like that ?—He said he was going to the station, and it did not strike me for a moment that the skins were there. 336. In that view of the case one would suppose if he brought the skins he would have left them under a hedge or in a dark place ?—There were no hedges there. They were all post and wire fences. 337. Dr. Findlay.] What I want to get from you is this : At the moment he came with the bag of skins, you could see 26 ft. away % —Yes, it was a lovely night. 338. Have you looked up the calendar to see whether it was moonlight ? —No. I cannot say whether it was moonlight or not, but I know it was a remarkably fine night. 339. How far was Lambert off when you said this to him ?—He stood close to me. My son was with me. 340. Then both Lambert and your son heard you ask this question ?—Yes. 341. Mr. Justice Edwards.] I have never understood how you suggested Lambert got the skins into where they were found in the smithy ? —lt was this : the keys were on a string. When Arthur went to get them when I came home after the arrest, he could not find them, and the smithy door was just shoved to. He did not like to say the keys were not there, and the next morning, when the police came in my absence, they found the door open, walked in, and pulled the skins down, and down came two of the company's skins with mine. 342. The suggestion is that Lambert had taken possession of the keys ?—Yes, that is the only way it could be done. 343. Dr. Findlay.] You have done yourself a very great wrong, Mr. Meikle. You were tried on the 16th December, two months or so after the skins were put there, and you heard Lambert's evidence in the Court below, you were calling evidence to show that he probably put the skins there, because
H.—2l.
70
[j. J. MEIKLK
you called the evidence you are calling now, it was part of your case on the evidence which these Judges have before .them that Lambert was the man who put the skins in that barn—you know that ?—I know it perfectly well. 344. I want you to tell me then why it is there is no mention of this bag outside the barn until you come out of gaol years after ? —My reason is I was tongue-tied. I was not allowed to say anything, and the two skins convicted me when held up to the jury. 345. Your son went into the box and your son was examined, and your son, you swear, heard you ask Lambert about the bag, why was not your son asked this question ? —Was I going to tell my son to do it. He lies dead to-day, but I can meet him face to face with a clear conscience. 346. Mr. Justice Edwards.] It is perfectly true at that date you could not have been|sworn to give evidence, but if you had asked or your counsel had asked that you might make a statement, I think that would have been allowed. It would have been in the discretion of the Judge to have refused it, but Ido not think it at all likely he would have done so. It was open to your counsel to make suggestions to the jury, and certainly this point could have got to the jury without the slightest difficulty simply by cross-examining Lambert about it; why was he not examined about the bag ? — Mr. McGregor told me when I was in the box, " You rest content, Meikle. There is nothing against you, not a tittle. On the evidence you cannot be convicted." I rested on that rotten reed, and I fell. 347. Dr. Findlay.] You know Lambert was never asked about the presence of that bag at your trial 1— No. 348. Your son was in the box and was examined and cross-examined, he was never asked about that bag ?—I do not think so. Of-course I did not see the Judge's notes until lately. 349. Will you swear Mr. MeikJe—l suppose Mr. McGregor can be found if you will permit me to ask him —that you told Mr. McGregor that you saw this suspicious bag outside the barn, and that you asked Lambert what was in it and that he and your son were both present and heard it, and the answer Lambert gave you : will you swear you told Mr. McGregor any such thing ?—I swear that I brought up a lot of questions and that was one of them, and handed them to him, and he just took them and tore them up, and walked up to me and said, "Do not put yourself about. No jury will convict you." As I kept writing them down, he said there was no need to do it. 350. Well, you are still in a difficulty as you appeared for yourself in the Court below, and you, yourself, cross-examined Lambert: why did you not ask him the question ?—I asked him such a lot, and I could not mind everything at the time when I had to bear everything on my own shoulders. 351. Then you had an opportunity yourself shortly after this momentous bag was seen, and you never asked Lambert a word about it ? —I swore to the bag when I appeared in the Courts as soon as I could. 352. That is at the prosecution of Lambert ? —Yes. 353. That is in 1895, about eight years afterwards ? —Yes. 354. You tell us now that you told Harvey to lock this barn immediately after Lambert told you his story ?—That is so. 355. And so far as you know, Harvey locked the barn every night after that I —Yes. 356. Well, can you explain this, that when Harvey gave evidence in your favour on your trial for sheep-stealing, he was never asked and never said one word about locking the barn ?—That is quite possible, because Mr. McGregor was so sure of an acquittal that he did not trouble to put himself about. 357. Then you know your chief witness, Harvey, was never asked about your instructing him to lock the barn : now when you were examining him yourself in the Court below and no Mr. MacGregor was there to tell you you had such a safe case, did you ask him any questions about it ? —No; because, as I told you, I was not allowed to cross-examine my own witnesses. 358. Did you ask him any questions ? —I was going to ask some, but that was what the Court ruled. It was about some of the skins. Even Westacott's evidence about the skins being on the wire-fence was cut out. It was said I was charged with stealing sheep, and not skins. 359. You say Mr. MacGregor did not ask in the higher Court because he was so sure oi your acquittal, and in the Court below you were represented by two lawyers (who retired for the reason you told us yesterday), you did examine Harvey ?—I examined him on some points, but not on all. I did not expect to have to defend the case myself, and it upset me a little bit. 360. I want to know why you did not examine Harvey on this question about locking the barn after this time ? —As I have said, it was regarded by everybody in the neighbourhood that the whole thing was a put-up job, but I did my best when conducting the case. 361. We have it that Harvey was not asked about locking the bam, until 1895, and your son was not asked about locking ; he gave evidence in the lower Court and in the higher Court, and he was both examined and cross-examined, and your son was not asked any question about looking the barn ? —No. 362. Your son, who was living then, makes this statement, speaking of Mr. Lambert, " the first time he called he mentioned about the £50 to be paid for trapping father. Had no suspicion of him. Thought no need of taking precautions." Now do you mean to tell us that your son, who was there constantly, did not know that these skins were being counted every morning and that your barn was being locked every night, and that Arthur had to bring the key out to enable the men to get into the barn, and that that young man, with these things fresh in his mind, did not know that there was any suspicion, and did not know that any precautions were necessary ?—No; he was quite a boy. You would sit with him for hours, but you would never hear him speak. He was not suspicious. 363. There is in the boy's evidence on oath the statement that he had no suspicions, and thought no precautions were necessary ? —He knew I went to the police.
3. ,). MEIKLE.]
71
H.—2l.
364. And on re-examination he is not asked by Mr. MacGregor, "Do you know your father's barn is locked up every day from the middle of September to the Ist November" ?—I could not help that, because I could not tell Mr. MacGregor what to do. 365. However, lam calling your attention to these things. The first time we hear of this locking business is in 1895. Now you told us that Harvey had the skins in the smithy from the middle of September until the Ist November ? —Yes. They would not go away until shearing time. 366. Now, I am going to call your attention to what Mr. Harvey, your witness, swore in your hearing before the lower Court on your trial for sheep-stealing. You remember that first of all in the Court below Harvey swore this : " The two skins were not in the smithy [these are the two skins on which evidence was being given against you] on the previous day although I am certain from the time I brought a number of skins off the fence into the smithy I think they must have been counted three or four times." You heard him give this evidence ? —I believe he gave that evidence. 367. Now in the Court above he swore he had counted the skins every day from the time you had instructed him to lock the barn and the Judge called his attention to the fact that he had sworn differently in the Court below, and he altered his evidence ?—Yes. 368. In 1895 he got back to the old statement and not only swears he counted the skins, but swears he kept the place locked from the middle of September to the Ist November ?—You cannot blame me. I did not ask him to swear for me. 369. You have collected evidence ? —I did not collect him because I knew where I could find Harvey. 370. There is another thing which is peculiar. Do you know that the first time in the whole history of this case that you have said Lambert stated he was going to put the skins into the barn was yesterday 1 —No; that he stated he was to get £50 to put them into the barn, and Cameron and Troup were to stand at his back. 371. You have never before stated anywhere that Lambert was to get £50 to put the skins in the barn ?—I have stated it in my evidence here. 372. Find it ? —He told me he was to get £50 to put the skins in the building —in the outbuildings. 373. The land or buildings ? —Anywhere so long as he would get me off the place. 374. Yesterday you were able to swear with great emphasis and repetition that he told you he was going to put the skins in the barn ?—Yes, because these small incidents have cropped up in my memory since and make it very retentive. 375. Your memory improves as time goes on ?—Yes. 376. I direct your attention to page 33 when you first made the statement ? —I have both pages 33 and 34 here. 377. Now, will you tell me what class of sheep you had on your land ?—Crossbreds, Leicester's, Merinoes, and half-breds. 378. Anything else I—That is all I had —a few rams and just the ewes. 379. To whom was your wool sold ? —I think that year we sold some to Wilson Tame. 380. When was it sold ? —I think about the end of November. 381. In that year ?—I think so. 382. Do you know it was ultimately bought by Mr. Brown ? —I cannot tell you. I know two lots went. Brown may have bought the first lot. 383. That was sold after your arrest and before your conviction ?—Yes. 384. How many half-breds would there be ? —I cannot give an estimate such a long time afterwards. 385. You cannot tell us how many of any class ? —No. 386. What was the bulk of your flock ?—Altogether with the lambs, when I left there, there would be a little over eight hundred. 387. How many lambs ? —I cannot tell you how many amongst the flock. I bought two hundred from Davy Murray, and I bought either 185 or 195 from Jackson. 388. Can you give us an estimate as to the number of lambs ?—No, I cannot. I cannot give you the details because I was so upset over the case. 389. Who sold the sheep ultimately ? —Five hundred were stolen from the place. They have never been seen from that day to this. 390. Stolen by whom do you think ? —You are not going to get me to commit myself on that point; I have to hold my tongue. 391. Who continued to look after the place afteT your conviction ? —Mrs. Meikle, but the little children could not do anything. 392. Mr. Harvey remained some time ?—Just a little time. Mrs. Meikle would not have anybody about the place. 393. You say five hundred of the sheep were stolen % —They disappeared and were never seen again. 394. So you cannot get a record of what sheep you had from your sales ?—There are none left; all my records and papers were burnt in the fire at' Gore. 395. You can give me no help at all as to how the eight hundred sheep were made up ? —I cannot; one man told me he had bought some of my horses. 396. You had 800 acres, of which some belonged to your family ? —Yes, I bought it for them when infants. 397. What did you pay for it ?—£l per acre for that. 398. What did you pay for your own % —I paid £1 for Section 12. 399. What was the average you paid for it all ?—I took Section 22 subject to, a mortgage of £600 and borrowed £1,000 from the Government Life. It cost me over £750, or thereabouts.
72
[j. J. MEIKLE.
H.-21.
400. From off the 800 acres and the sheep and some crops you made between £400 and £500 a year ?—Yes. 401. For how many years before did you make that ?—For two years. I was offered £5 to go out of it. 402. That is £400 or £500 net after paying interest and labour and everything else ?—Yes. 403. What did you make prior to the two years ? —I was not making so much because it was all outlay. 404. What was your net profit ?—I cannot tell you. It was going out faster than it came in. 405. You gave Mr. Atkinson a statement of your finanical position when you were convicted : do you recollect the total amount of your indebtedness to J. G. Ward ?—I have not got the figures, but I gave them as near as possible. There was a crop still to come in. 406. Do you remember what the indebtedness was : I put it that the indebtedness to J. G. Ward was between £1,200 and £1,400 ?—That is wrong. It is absurd on the face of it. 407. What would you put it down at '—There might be about £450 or £500 at the outside ; but to talk of me owing Mr. J. G. Ward at that time £1,200 is nonsense. 408. Do you know what the indebtedness was afterwards ? —No, because I was in prison. 409. The farm was sold : have you ascertained how long it was sold after you were convicted ?— I could not say ; it was about two years I think. 410. The farm was sold and your stock was sold and your debts were paid I suppose ?—I think it was in 1888 the stock was sold. 411. The transfer appears to have been registered on the 29th March, 1889 : that would be eighteen months after your conviction ? —Tknow the crop was badly handled. 412. At any rate there was a sale of the land and, I suppose, a sale of whatever chattels there were I—l1 —I think they sold all the stock from what I have been told. 413. Have you received any balance after payment of your debts ? —I have received nothing. 414. There was no balance from these sales after payment of the debts '—Everything was sacrificed. I believe that some of the horses went at less than half their value. 415. You have not got any account sales ?—No, I was in gaol. 416. Did you ever get any account sales ? —There was a small slip given to me. 417. Whatever your financial position was when you were convicted, upon the realisation of the property later there was no balance left for you after deducting your debts '—Certainly not; if there had been Mrs. Meikle would have told me. 418. A sum of £295 odd was paid to you for costs ?—Yes ; but they could not pay for witnesses and the expenses I had been put to. 419. It was paid to you for costs ? —lt was paid to me as part of the costs. 420. What did you do with that £294 ?— It was pretty well swallowed up before I got it. 421. Did Mr. Solomon get nothing out of the £294 ?—Mr. Solomon's bill for prosecuting Lambert was sixty guineas. 422. The question is this : that you paid Mr. Solomon nothing out of the £294 ? —No. 423. Can you produce any statement showing your disbursements out of the £294 ?—No. 424. A little later you got an offer of £500 ?—Two years after. 425. I understand that you refused this sum when first it was offered as being too small ? —I did. 426. Mr. J. W. Kelly told us in his evidence yesterday that he called your attention to the terms of the receipt that you signed —that he pointed out to you that the receipt was a final and complete discharge of all claims against the colony. You have read Mr. Kelly's evidence : was that true ?— He told me to look at it. 427. Was his evidence true yesterday when he said he pointed that out to you ?—Yes. 428. You heard his evidence ? —Yes. 429. Was his evidence true ? —So far as he went. ' 430. After your attention was called to it by Mr. Kelly you signed it ?—Yes. Members of the House —I do not want to mention names —told me that I was bound to get justice ;it did not matter who came into power. 431. Mr. Robert McNab interested himself on your behalf ? —I can give you a few remarks made in the House from Hansard. The Premier's statement was that this payment was for costs —simply to assist me for my costs in the prosecution of Lambert. 432. The £500 received was two years after the conviction of Lambert, and after paying the costs 433. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Surely the costs could not have come to more than £294 ? —There were five trials. 434. Dr. Findlay.] There was one trial before the Supreme Court; the others were trials before Justices. You got £294-odd for the costs of these prosecutions ?—Yes. 435. As regards the counsel who appeared in the Supreme Court, the total fee he got was £18 ?— Yes, quite correct. I had to pay witnesses a bigger scale than Bs. a day. 436. Do you seriously tell this Court that you disbursed more than £294 ?—Of course I disbursed more. 437. Mr. Justice Edwards.] That will not do for me, because I have been in practice and I know what these things are. Possibly you may have done so ; but certainly I would want to see the details before you could persuade me as to the costs ?—I had buggies and the costs of serving my own witnesses because I could not get them served by the police. That was the reason I signed the receipt for the £500 —because it was stated it was not for my innocence. 438. Dr. Findlay.] You got £500 later *— Yes.
J. J. MEIKLE.]
73
H.— 2l.
439. Did not Mr. McNab tell you after the interview with the Premier that he could only get the payment of £500 on the distinct understanding from you that it was to be a full and final settlement of any claims that you had against the colony ? Do you swear that Mr. McNab, after the interview with the Premier, did not tell you that this was the only condition on which Mr. Seddon would make the payment ?—No. 440. Did Mr. McNab tell you about the interview he had with the Premier ? —He told me they had agreed to put £500 on the estimates. He said he had done his best. 441. With whom ?—ln the House. 442. Then he did not tell you about the interview he had with Mr. Seddon in the Cabinet-room, and that those were the only conditions on which he could make the payment ?—No. Mr. Seddon came before the Committee in 1897 and it appeared in Hansard, and then I heard of the interview. 443. You did not find out till 1897 that Mr. Seddon had an interview with Mr. McNab ?—No. 444. What did you find out that Mr. Seddon said to Mr. McNab ?—That various sums had been mentioned as to the expenses I had been put to, and that ultimately the Cabinet had agreed to put £500 on the estimates in full settlement of all my expenses in prosecuting Lambert. 445. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Do you mean to tell me that £794 has been paid to you expressly for the prosecution of Lambert ? —That was what was stated in the House. 446. Dr. Findlay.] You say that now ?—I say that now. It is in Hansard. 447. Mr. Justice Edwards.] If I had been paid at the same rate I should certainly be nearly a millionaire ?—There was a defence in 1887, and two trials in 1887. 448. It is positively ridiculous, Mr. Meikle ? —There was the prosecution in 1887. 449. You told us just now it was for prosecuting Lambert ? —[No answer.] 450. Dr. Findlay.] You said the £794 was for the prosecution of Lambert ? —Yes. 451. Who said so ? —The Premier. He said that he put £500 on the estimates to assist Meikle in his expenses in connection with the prosecution of Lambert for perjury. 452. Do you not know that Mr. McNab, representing you, undertook with the Premier that if £500 were paid to you, you would accept that sum in full and final settlement of all claims you have against this colony ?—No ; I never agreed to such a thing. 453. You know that the receipt you did sign, after being warned by Mr. Kelly, says so ? —No ; I have the Premier's statement of what it was signed for, or I would not have signed it. If the Premier had not made that announcement on the 2nd December I would never have signed it at all. 454. When a business man pointed out to you that when you put your name to that piece of paper —that it showed that you are getting that sum in final settlement —why did you not ask that it be remitted back to the Premier ?—Because the present Chief Justice of the colony (who was in the House) said to me, " Meikle, take it" ; and Captain Russell and Mr. George Hutchison told me to take the money —it is simply for costs to assist you in connection with the prosecution of Lambert. 455. Do you suggest that Sir Robert Stout, knowing that you were going to put your pen to a piece of paper which says that you accepted that sum in final settlement, told you you might sign it and take the money, and still make a claim against the colony ? —Yes. 456. Do you say that Sir Robert Stout told you that you could sign this paper, and then that you could make another claim against the colony ? —He said it did not matter what I signed. He said it was recommended by a Committee in 1897—that there was no getting away from it, and it was a matter of justice and nothing else. 457. You tell these Judges that the present Chief Justice told you to sign a paper which declared that you were receiving the money in full and final settlement of any claims, and at the same time that you might make a claim against the colony for more money ? —He said, " Take the money; it was to assist you to get justice." 458. Mr. Justice Edwards.] I venture to say, Mr. Meikle, that you must have been mistaken 1 — He told me that. 459. You are mentioning the name of a great public official —and quite unnecessarily, because you were not asked the question —and, for myself, I shall not believe it till Sir Robert Stout tells me ? — He told me. 460. Dr. Findlay.] Do you mean to tell me that a man, after receiving the warning that you did, that this was a receipt for £500 in full and final settlement of every claim against the colony —do you think that such a man is entitled to come next day and make a further demand ?—Yes ; undoubtedly. I was told that the £500 was given on the understanding I have stated. Such cases have happened in England and other places. 461. Mr. Justice Edivards.] The question asked you was whether you took this sum knowing it was upon condition that you should trouble the colony no more, and in answer to that you say " No." You said that the gentleman now occupying the position of Chief Justice said, " Take it, and sign the receipt in full, and then you tan come back upon the colony for more " ? —He said it dees not matter what the receipt was. 462. I decline to believe —and Mr. Justice Cooper agrees with me —we decline to believe what you have stated in reference to Sir Robert Stout unless we are told by Sir Robert Stout himself. We will not say that you are speaking falsely —we will assume that you misunderstood Sir Robert Stout ?— I would not tell a lie about it. 463. Dr. Findlay.] I have just received a telegram which I think it is my duty to ask you a question about. You referred in your evidence yesterday to a nephew called Archibald Meikle ?—Yes. 464. What were the names of his parents ?—My sister Margaret. 465. What was his father's name ? —George. 466. What is his brother's name ?—There were several. 467. Was Archibald Meikle not born on the 23rd August, 1883 ?—I could not tell you when he was born.
10— H. 21.
74
JJ. J. MEIKLK.
H.—2l.
468. Mr. Justice Cooper asked you yesterday the age of the nephew you referred to, and you said, " Over forty " ? —I believe he is over forty. 469. Then you swear he was not born in August, 1883 ?—I could not say. 470. Mr. Justice Cooper.] I put that question to you yesterday because it suggested itself to me that possibly your nephew might have been taken for you; and if he was forty years of age, that gave colour to it, but if he is only twenty-three now, how could he be taken for you ?—This is entirely wrong. I would like matters right. There is my brother-in-law. Harry Dryden is in Wellington. He had a son, and it might have been misconstrued. 471. Dr. Findlay.] I wired for the full particulars, and they will reach us in a day or two. Archibald Meikle, is that the name of a nephew ?—Yes. 472. What age is he ? —Fully or more than you say. 473. Archibald Meikle might be forty years or more ? —I do not suppose there is a bigger or a stronger man in this Court, than Archibald Meikle. 474. Archibald Meikle was your nephew, I am asking ? 475. Mr. Justice Edwards.] You say your nephew was engaged to this young woman; then there must be two nephews engaged ? —No ; we always called him Archibald Meikle ; he never went by the name of Dryden. 476. Dr. Findlay.] The woman has signed a statement in which she says " Archibald Meikle," no "Dryden" at all? —Archibald Meikle Dryden. 477. Not at all; there is no "Dryden" in it ?—lf it is Archibald Meikle, it is my own son. 478. Mr. Justice Cooper.] Where is this nephew of yours ?—He is in Sydney. This is my own son, who is married to Miss Duncan, and who is now in a dredge up country. 479. Mr. Justice Edwards.] We want to know about the person you suggested was sleeping with this young woman ?—Archibald Meikle Dryden must be about forty years of age —every day of it; he has got my own son, unfortunately. 480. You certainly told us " Archibald Meikle." That is the young woman's statement ?—I certainly have several sons, and they always go by the name of Meikle. 481. Dr. Findlay.] At any rate, I will get you all particulars. Certificate is coming along from Wellington. I may be quite wrong ? —I will get them here at the registry. 482. You have been asking for a trial to clear your character for a long time ?—Yes. 483. You have sought to have a tribunal—competent, independent, and impartial —for many years for the purpose of establishing your innocence ? —That is so. 484. And for the further purpose of establishing any right you may have for compensation from the colony I—That1 —That is so. 485. We all want finality to these proceedings. We want to have an end of the agitation you have been carrying on. You want justice ?—I do. 486. You have here the tribunal you. sought —impartial and competent —and I am going to ask you, whatever the result of this inquiry may be, do you agree to accept their Honours' findings as final— to give up all further claim and litigation and agitation against this colony ?—I decline to say the words " give up." I will have my name cleared for the sake of my offspring. 487. Then we will take it that the colony goes so far as to pay your counsel, witnesses, and give you every opportunity to bring your case before their Honours. I ask you now, whatever the view their Honours take, will you accept it, and make an end of any further agitation and claim ?—I have got to take the end as far as they go, but that does not prevent me from my freedom. 488. Will you undertake to accept the findings of this tribunal you have induced the Government to set up ? —No ; undoubtedly not. 489. Mr. Atkinson.] Did you know yesterday the date of the memorandum on which you were cross-examined ?—I did not. 490. Do you know the date now ? —Yes, as soon as you showed it to me —18th February, 1899. 491. Do you know the date of proceedings in relation to Miss Beaver on which you have been cross-examined this morning ?—lt was in 1881—the day William was born ; but I cannot say until I go to the files of the papers. William was born on the 2nd January, 1881. 492. Have you been guilty of abortion or attempted abortion in the first-mentioned case ?— Never. Dr. Findlay : I shall warn my friend that if there is to be a contest as to the conduct of Meikle in Mrs. Daniels's house I shall probably ask the Commission to allow me to call the whole of the inmates of the house, including the police and the doctor who examined it. Ido not say that my friend is not entitled to go over this ground, but only that if he is going to get his witness to deny that evidence I shall ask the Court to hear it, and I will expect the Court to give a direction. Mr. Atkinson : As I took it, my friend had left the matter with an awful insinuation of that kind, and I want to make it definite. Surely, your Honours, it cannot be possible, whatever the scope of this Commission, that it can proceed to try this unfortunate man for every offence that can be alleged against him at every period of his life ? Your Honours ruled yesterday that the ordinary rules of evidence would not be strictly observed. I think my friend has had very free latitude. Mr. Justice Edwards : We would do that in any case, to test his credibility. The way we look at it is this: There is no evidence before us that Meikle was guilty of attempt at procuring abortion, but to a certain extent on the examination it has been material. The claim here is materially for an enormous sum of damages for alleged injury to a man's blameless character by reason of a miscarriage of justice. The value of his character of course depends upon what character he is entitled to. To that extent it may be material in assessing the compensation he ought to be paid, if any ; but in a much wider sense it may be material as testing the witness's credibility. If he first questioned the truth of this charge, and only ultimately admitted its truth, in that we shall be guided by the report of the
3. ,/. MEIKLE.]
75
H.—2l.
shorthand-writers. That, of course, goes to the man's credit; but you can take it that we do not assume upon the material before us that he attempted to procure abortion. 493. Mr. Atkinson :It is not a pleasing task, your Honour, for any of us. [To witness.] You mentioned n reply to Dr. Findlay that you paid some sum of money to Miss Mills. What was the amount ?—I think she may have got £20 altogether. No doubt Mrs. Meikle will tell you what sum she got. 494. With regard to this case of the horse, was it £14 you gave for the horse ? —£14, and it was sold here for £18 and commission, I think. 495. What were the expenses ? —I think they came to|about £3. 496. How did you send it to Dunedin ?—On a truck. 497. By railway ? —By railway. 498. You had to pay a commission, I suppose, and stabling ?—lßs. commission and 2s. 6d. entrance money. 499. And you left with a profit of £1 or £2 ?—No, I had to pay for a set of shoes, and then there was the stabling to pay, as I had to pay for that too. 500. The £14 that you paid Scott for the horse, when was it paid ?—ln November, when he was going to prosecute Kidd for some dispute about an entire horse. 501. Had you seen the horse before ?—No, I had not seen it before. He was a young horse, four years old. 502. When was your attention first called to the suspicion of the altered brand ? —When I looked at the horse I asked Scott what brand he called it, and he said, " O H." 503. When was your attention first called to the alteration in the brand ? —Not till I saw it in Dunedin. Detective Maddern, I think, came and asked me, " Where did you get this horse ?" I said, " From Scott." He said, " I thought so, we will have a look at it." He said, "Do you see that ?" I said, "I do not know who you are." He said, " Detective Maddern." The hair is more shaved and tender where the brand is than the other part. I said, " You take this horse, I would not have it said I had taken a horse that was stolen." Then I offered him not to sell the horse. That was in the presence of Sergeant-Major Bevan, Mr. Gourlay, and Mr. Stephenson. Stephenson called them out and said, "If you do not take the horse I will sell it." I offered the horse there and then, but they would not, and he took it away. 504. You said something to Dr. Findlay in reference to altering the brand in the stable ?•—You made some answer in reference to the possibility of branding the horse in the stable ?—I never branded one in the stable in my life, and I would not like to try to brand one on the shoulder in the stable. 505. Why ? —A man would be worse than mad to put a hot brand on a horse's shoulder in a stable. I do not know where he would be later. Mr. Justice Edwards : We perfectly understand why he would not like to brand it in a stable. I would not either. Or the hind quarter either. You would want to be where you could get out of the horse's way. 506. Mr. Atkinson : You mentioned in cross-examination about the dispute with the company as to where you got the road-line ? —That was on the Bth October, on a Saturday. 507. You had a dispute before the Road Board ? —lt was settled that day before the Road Board, and recommended to the Land Board to go through the corner of Section 24. 508. On whose petition was that ?—On mine. 509. Who was opposing it ?—The company opposed it tooth and nail. 510. Had the company made a similar application previously ? —They always opposed my getting the road rectified. 511. Had they made application ?—They made'application to get the road through my property to the bush land. The Board told them they could not give it as it was on freehold property. 512. On what date was that ? —IBBS. You will find it by the minutes of the Land Board. This application of mine came on on the Bth October before the Tuturau Road Board. 513. There was some question put to you in cross-examination with regard to that letter of yours. It was mentioned by Dr. Findlay or suggested that the sheep referred to in that letter were the company's sheep which you had agreed with Lambert to shear if he had stolen them ? —I never agreed to shear a man's sheep, only my own. It would mean to go and give me goal for shearing another man's flock. 514. How far had your case proceeded before the Justices at Wyndham before you knew you would have to conduct it yourself ?—lt proceeded, I should think, somewhere about two hours or a little better. 515. Had you two solicitors appearing for you ? —Mr. Finn and Mr. Webb. 516. Both instructed ?—Yes. 517. Who was your legal adviser in preparing your case for the Supreme Court ?—I was my own adviser. I had to come and see Mr. MacGregor once and go back again. 518. Did you come to Dunedin to see him ?—I just came to Dunedin and saw him. 519. How long were you with him here ?—A very short time. I went away next morning. I think I sent him the file of the papers. 520. Then he came to Invercargill ?—Yes. 521: You saw him there, of course ? —I saw him there —a couple of times I think in the hotel at night, and I think a little while one afternoon. 522. Did you prepare instructions for him in writing ?—I wrote down a little, and gave him the papers, and he told me he knew the-rest all right. 523. He was pretty confident of the result ?—Yes, I have known him a long time, and I do not disbelieve a lawyer when he tells me a thing like that.
76
H—2l.
[j. FORSAITH.
James Forsaith examined. 524. Mr. Atkinson.] Your name is James Forsaith ?—Yes. 525. You reside in Wyndham ? —Yes. 526. You are a farmer, or a retired farmer ?—Yes. 527. You were one of the Justices who committed Meikle for trial for sheep-stealing in 1887 ? —That is correct. 528. Were there any sheepskins produced in Court on that occasion ? —Yes. 529. Were there marks of any kind that you as a farmer noticed on them ? —Yes, I drew the attention of my co-Justice to the wire marks on some of the sheepskins as if they had been dried on a wire fence —two, I think, as far as my memory serves me. 530. Where were you living in that year, 1887 ?—At Edendale. 531. And you were then engaged in farming of some kind. What sort ?—Mixed farming—dairy farming and cropping—mixed all through. 532. Did you ever have occasion to visit the company's station or Meikle's land ?—I have had cows wintering on two occasions beyond Meikle's farm. 533. On whose land was that ? —One year on a settler's run, named McGettigan, at the back of Meikle's place. 534. And you put your cows there ? —The cows were left there for three months. 535. Did that happen in 1887 ?—Yes. 536. At what date in that year did you bring your cows home ?—The cows were usually brought home about the first" or second week in September. 537. Did you bring them back personally that year ? —I did. 538. Did you have to pass these two properties to get them back ?—Yes. 539. Was there anybody with you ?—Mr. Winter, who had cows wintering on the same farm as I had mine. 540. McGettigan's is just to the north of Gregg's ?—Yes. 541. So, then, Mr. Winter was with you in September, 1887 ?—He was with me. 542. Had you occasion to notice the feed on Islay Station pre-emptive right, or on Meikle's ?— Yes, as far as I went. 543. Did you discuss the matter with Winter —the question of the crops and the feed about there ? —The feed on the reserve was very poor. 544. What do you call the reserve ?—Adjoining Meikle's place —the pre-emptive right; and it was completely finished on McGettigan's. 545. How was Meikle's place looking ?—Meikle's, I made the remark to Mr. Winter, had very excellent feed. 546. Was Winter's opinion agreed with yours ? —They both agreed. We do not know whether it was heavily stocked or not. We both agreed. 547. Did you go through Meikle's ?—No, we did not. Mr. Meikle came through a gate on the road and asked us to drive our cows —about 150—and go through near his house, a nearer way; but I refused to go, as he had crop on the paddock quite 9 in. high, and I knew it would destroy the crop. I would not go. 548. Could you state the extent of the paddock ?—No, I could not. It was the whole road-line ; we passed it coming along to the gate. I could not give the acreage or anything of that sort. 549. What about the land generally ? —Well, so far as we saw it, it was the best feed in that district at that time. 550. How did the pre-emptive right and the company's land seem in comparison ?—-The feed was much better in Meikle's land. 551. Did you deal in Meikle in things you bought from him ?—I bought at several times a ton of potatoes, or such things as that. - 552. What was the general condition of the farm, apart from the crops—buildings, gates, and so on ?—The buildings were all in good order —good buildings, good outhouses. 553. The gates are a bit of a test ?—I could not say very much about the gates, but the fences next the road were good. 554. Can you speak as to the quality of the land generally as compared with that of your neighbours ? —No, I could not go into details. 555. I take it Mr. Winter concurred generally in your opinion ?—Yes. 556. Dr. Findlay.] Have you ever before given evidence in any of Mr. Meikle's cases ? —Never. 557. How many years since is it, do you remember, that you'saw the pasture on Meikle's country ?—lt was in 1887. 558. And when were you asked to give evidence here ? —I never knew I was coming here until I got the subpoena. I was not aware that I was to be brought here. 559. When did you see Meikle and tell him what you thought of his pastures in 1887 ? —I met him, I think, on Thursday week last. 560. So that until then you had not told him anything about it ?—No. 561. Now, you saw this pasture in 1887, and you speak of that nearly nineteen years afterwards, in 1906 ?—Yes. 562. You tell their Honours that you were driving some cattle. Do you remember the date 1 — No, I could not give you the exact date, but it was the first or second week in September, 1887. 563. How do you fix that year ?—Well, I do not know very well how I can fix that year. 564. I put it to you that you are speaking of the year before—'lßß6 -? —No, I think it was 1887. 565. I know you are perfectly frank in your evidence, but what you say is in such direct conflict
i. FOBSAITH.]
77
H.—2l.
with the large mass of evidence I am calling of men who are living there that I put it to you that the evidence you are giving is in respect of the previous year —1886 ? —I believe I had cows up both those years. 566. If about nine witnesses —men who are living there from day to day—swear that the pasture at that time on Meikle's land was quite different from what you have stated, would you exclude the possibility of your having fixed the wrong year ?—lf there are so many witnesses who can prove that, I may be wrong ; but it was one of those years. 567. You cannot say which ?—My impression is it was 1887. 568. Now, perhaps I can help you a little. I want to draw your attention to a map which I think will help you. You say you remember the pre-emptive right on the company's land ? —Yes. 569. Was it the year you saw it in turnips ?—Yes, but I think the turnips were eaten off when we passed in September. I think some of it was turnip ground. 570. Was there, or was there not, a large area of rich turnip land on the company's property when you saw it ?—You see, I have not been over the whole property at all; I only went as far as McGettigan's place. 571. How long were you up there ? —We might have gone up in the morning to muster the cattle, and came away about midday. 572. That is the only opportunity you had ? —Yes, I was never over the company's pastures. 573. Then you cannot say whether the company's pastures were better or worse than Meikle's ? —It was merely from casual observation. 574. And the same applies to Mr. Winter ?—Yes. 575. Now, I ask you, both from your experience and as a frank witness, suppose you have rich pasture upon Mr. Meikle's land,.and poor pasture on the company's land, and poor fences, where would you expect to find the greater number of trespassing sheep ?—On Mr. Meikle's land, of course. 576. Then, the deduction you would make from this is that on the Ist November twenty-seven sheep of the company's were found on Meikle's land, and no sheep at all of Meikle's were found on the company's land ?—Yes, the trespassing sheep would be on the better pastures. 577. What area of turflips were there on Meikle's land ? —I have no idea. 578. You could not say whether there were any turnips or not on Meikle's land ? —No, we only just passed through it. I was not over his land at all. It was only what caught my eye in passing and repassing. 579. And you are not sure what year it was ? —Well, I am almost sure it was 1887. 580. But if I bring these other witnesses to say it was 1886 ?—Well, of course I must admit I am wrong, but I am speaking to the best of my belief. 581. You told us you were one of the Justices who heard this case. When were you first asked by Meikle to say whether or not these skins bore the marks of wire ?—Never. Mr. Meikle never spoke to me of the skins. 582. Who asked you whether or not the skins bore the marks of wire ?—I saw them in the Court. 583. But you were asked about the skins before you gave evidence just now ? —Never before Mr. Atkinson asked me about them last night. 584. So that between the time you saw them and last night you had never been asked about them before ?—No ; but it has been in my memory all through. I had spoken to my co-Justice about them. 585. Who was your co-Justice % —The late George Crosby. 586. Do you know whether your co-Justice gave evidence in this case ?—-I am almost sure he never did. I should have remembered it if he had. 587. Mr. George Crosby did give evidence. His depositions were taken before Mr. Rawson. Your co-Justice was called apparently on the 15th of August, 1894, at the trial of Lambert in the lower Court. He was not asked any questions about the skins ?—I did not know that. I never was called. 588. What was the nature of the mark which led you to infer that they had been on wire ? —No one accustomed to sheep-skins could have any doubt at all about it. A skin is often thrown on the wire, and across the inside you will see a black stripe when it has been hanging, say, a month. 589. You are charging your memory with an event of nearly nineteen years ago. Might not the mark have been produced by the skin having been folded and pressed ? —No, that would be a different mark altogether. 590. You do not agree with that suggestion ?—No. 591. Mr. Atkinson.] Do you remember ever buying a cow from Mr. Meikle ? —I bought a cow from him, at one time when 1 was up there, in passing. 592. Which year was that ?—lt was either 1886 or 1887. 593. You remember, of course, the year that he was committed. Can you say whether that was the same year that you passed through. He was committed in November ?—lt is likely enough. 594. I want to get from you the road you passed along ?—We came along the road between Gregg's and Meikle's, and passed through the company's land between the parts marked " Tussock " and " Turnips." I did not particularly notice the part marked "P. R." John Templeton examined. 595. Mr. Atkinson.] You were a storekeeper at Wyndham twenty years ago ? —Yes. 596. Are you still in the same occupation ?—Various occupations—storekeeping, butchering, farming, accommodation-house keeping, mail contractor, and livery stables —just a combination. 597. Have you some land of your own ?—The land I have is leased. It is an education lease of fourteen years. 598. What area ?—lOl acres. 599. You gave evidence for the defence at Mr. Meikle's trial in 1887, and also in the prosecution of Lambert in 1895 ?—I cannot remember the dates, but I was there at the trials.
78
[j. TBMPLETON.
H.—2l.
600. Do you remember what you gave evidence about ?—Yes ; the evidence I gave was that I met Mr. Lambert atJMr. Boyd's hotel in Wyndham. I think it was outside the hotel; but at any rate it was there. 601. What took place between you ?—I went in there to look for a man named Malcolm Macdonald, but was disappointed in not finding him there. I was told he had just left. 1 went away for a while—back to my store—and when I came back Boyd asked me to be kind enough to take Mr. Lambert away. Mr. Lambert was in a very good humour, and he went away with me. 602. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Do you mean to say he was drunk ?—No, sir; he was not drunk. He may have been under the influence of drink, but he was not drunk. 603. Why did you take him away ?—He seemed inclined to have a bit of a spar, or fight, occasionally, and I think they were a bit frightened of him. 604. What is your definition of " drunk " ?—When a fellow is fairly jolly and ready for a fight I would not call him drunk, because he was able to walk straight. Mr. Justice Edwards : We have heard it contended that a man was not drunk so long as he could ask for more liquor. 605. Mr. Atkinson.] Was he cheerful when you met him ?—He was in good humour when I met him, but apparently Mr. Boyd wanted me to take him away, and I did so more for the sake of Mr. Boyd than for any liking I had for Lambert. Did not know him very well, although we were not bad friends. We then went to another hotel, and I knocked up the hotelkeeper, and asked him to find a bed for this man. Lambert said, "I am not going to stop here, lam going to Sunnyside ; I have a horse here." I parted from him then, and went to my home. 606. What conversation did you have with him ?—The only conversation I had with him was at the corner of the hotel, and after a few words we parted. 607. What were the few words.?— The few words were that the company wanted him to go for Meikle, but that he would stick to poor old Meikle. That is" all I remember. ! ! 608. Did you mention a calendar date in giving evidence in the Supreme Court \ —Yes. 609. Did you fix the right date ?—No ; and the next morning Meikle's lawyer told me I had made a mistake about the date. 610. Can you remember the date you fixed in your original evidence in the Supreme Court ? —I have no remembrance of either of the dates now. 611. But you fixed the wrong date, and you told Mr. MacGregor the next morning. I would not have troubled to look up the date again if it had not been for the heckling I got from the Crown Prose-, cutor, Mr. Macdonald. I then found I had made a mistake. The Crown Prosecutor said he could prove that I was wrong, and I said I could prove I was right, in my letter-book. 612. You then looked up your letter-book ?—Not that night, because I did not get home that night, but I saw Mr. Malcolm Macdonald, and he thought I was right about the date until he mentioned that I had sent him two letters. I knew then that I might have looked up the wrong letter, and got the wrong date. Then, on looking over my letter-book, I found that I had just turned over the pages ■until I came to a letter to Malcolm Macdonald, and took that to be the date, and I fancied I was as sure as possible about the date. 613. You told Mr. MacGregor the next morning ? —Yes. 614. But the policeman did not tell you next morning ?— I do not think a policeman came near me. I went straight away to do some business, and met Mr. MacGregor going to the Court. When I told him of the mistake he said he was very sorry. I said I could not help it, and that I was going to tell the truth. 615. Did Mr. Macdonald, the Crown Prosecutor, heckle you about the place ?— He could not do that because I had plenty of witnesses to back me up. 616. Did you know Mr. Troup, the manager of the company's station ?—No ; I did not know him at that time. He was only pointed out to me about the time of the first case at Wyndham. He had been manager, I was told. ( 617. Do you remember meeting him after Meikle was in gaol ?—Yes ; I met him at the Farmers Arms Hotel. 618. Any one else present ?—Mr. Mabin. 619. Was there any conversation about the case ?—Well, Mr. Troup, as far as I can remember, called the landlord to come in ; and I think some one said Troup wanted to see Mr. Mabin. At any rate, Mabin went out and the two came back into the room together. 620. Can you tell us anything of the conversation about Meikle's case ?—I did not remember anything about the conversation until I heard Mr. Mabin tell you yesterday. I then remembered it. 621. How much of the conversation do you remember ? —I cannot remember the words, but I can tell you the meaning of the words. It was that Troup had it in his power in some, shape or form to help Meikle out of gaol. That was the inference I drew from it. 622. Dr. Findlay.] As far as you know, is Mr. Troup an honest and respectable man ?—Yes, certainly. 623. Have you ever heard any one say anything against his character ? —No. 624. You suggest that Mr. Troup said he had something in his possession which would help an innocent man out of gaol ? —Something to that effect. 625. Give us the words I—l1 —I could not tell you now. 626. Where was it ?—lt was at the Farmers' Arms Hotel, at Wyndham. Mr. John Miln was the proprietor. . 627. What date ?—I am done now. I cannot tell you the date or the year or anything else about it; but I can tell you one thing, it was after Meikle was in gaol. • 628. You cannot tell how many years afterwards ?—No.
H.— 2l.
J. TEMPLETON.J
79
629. It might have been two or three years ?—Yes. 630. Or five years I—Well,1 —Well, it would not be five years, because I believe he was only about five years in gaol altogether, and it was while Meikle was in gaol. 631. What time of night was it; can you give me the hour ?—No ; you cannot catch me that way. 632. Can you tell me how many drinks you had after dinner that night ?—I cannot remember even that. 633. Do you know how many Mr. Troup had ?—I do not think he had any. Ido not remember that he had any. I think he is a temperate man. 634. To whom was he speaking ? —To Mr. James Mabin. 635. Is he living ? —Yes. 636. You cannot tell me anything about the words ; you cannot tell me the time, and you cannot tell me the date, and you cannot tell me how many drinks you had ?—No. 637. Mr. Troup is an honest man ? —I believe so. 638. Mr. Troup did not drink so far as you know ? —I cannot say ;he may have had a drink. 639. If Mr. Troup goes into that box and on oath and says you are mistaken, will you contradict him ? —I certainly would, without fear or doubt. 640. If this honest man goes into the box, the man who must have said it, and swears you are mistaken and that he did not use words justifying that inference, then you say he is perjuring himself ?—Yes. 641. You do not know how many drinks you had ?—I thoroughly believe I was sober. Ido not know whether I had a drink or.not. 642. How many drinks does it take to make you drunk ? —I do not know ; there are very few men in New Zealand who have seen me what you call drunk. 643. It would take a great number to put you down ? —Yes ; it would depend entirely on the state of my stomach in the morning. 644. It would depend, I suppose, upon how much you could hold ? —Yes. 645. You cannot say whether you were drunk or sober ? —I would say I was perfectly sober. 646. You tell me you cannot say how many drinks you had ? —Yes. 647. You tell us you think you were sober ?—Do you mean to tell me a man is drunk if he takes one or two glasses of whisky ? 648. Some men are ?—Well, not me. 649. You told us a moment ago you could not say how many drinks you had, and that you were sober so far as you know ? —That is correct. 650. Then you do not know with absolute certainty whether you were drunk or sober ? —Yes, I say I was sober. 651. What is your definition of drunkenness : when is a man drunk ? —When I lose memory and do not remember things. Ido not think any man in New Zealand can remember seeing me when I could not walk. 652. Some men usually lose their legs as well as their heads : do you lose 3 r our legs or your head ? —I might get excited a bit. 653. If this honest man Troup swears he never used the words which enabled you to draw the inference that he had proof that would get an innocent man out of gaol, do you say he is perjuring himself ? —I do not believe Troup would perjure himself for £10,000. That is my feeling, but I would say he must have forgotten. 654. Mr. Justice Edwards.] That is rather inconsistent with your view of an honest man. If he is a person keeping concealed a piece of evidence which would release an innocent man from gaol, whatever you call him you cannot call him an honest man. You could call him a blackhearted villain. You say this man told you he had in his possession a piece of evidence that would release a perscn suffering an unjust imprisonment ? —I did not say he told me. He told Mr. James Mabin. 655. He said in your hearing that he had evidence which would release an innocent person from prison. If he said so he was not an honest man. He was a corrupt man and a wicked man ? —I would like to say Mr. Troup was a perfect stranger to me. He was only pointed out in the street to me a little before that, but I have known him ever since. I had a very poor opinion of him at the time of the trial, but afterwards I found him very congenial and honest and straightforward in his dealings. That is all I can say about the man, and what more can a man say about another ? I never found him to quibble in any dealings with me. 656. Dr. Findlay.] From the time he had told you he had evidence which would get an innocent man out of gaol did you not treat him as a blackguard ? —I told him he had better be quiet, because I did not think any man in Southland would take any notice of anything in favour of Meikle. 657. Is that true ? —I do not say those were the exact words. That was the inference drawn from them. How can I tell you the exact words that were said a number of years ago when I was not interested in the case ? All I know is I told Mr. Mabin, "Do you see how he has turned round when he has got the sack ? " Those are the only words I can remember clearly. 658. Mr. Justice Cooper.] What you want us to believe is that Troup told some one in your presence that he had evidence in his possession which would tend to the release of Meikle, who was an innocent man ?—Something of that kind. 659. Dr. Findlay.] And that you, who were a witness for Meikle on his trial, told him to keep his mouth shut ? —You are very wrong if you think I have any sympathy for Meikle. 660. You were called in his defence at his trial, and you nevertheless told Troup when he said he had evidence that would release Meikle from gaol to keep his mouth shut ? —I might have said, " Leave the matter alone," or something to that effect.
H.—2l.
80
[j. TEMPLETON.
661. You indicated lie was to hold his peace ?—That is the inference, as near as I can get it. 662. And you used the words a moment ago, " That no man in Southland would speak in favour of Meikle ? —I never found one, except myself. t ' 663. Mr. Meikle called you at his trial ?—Yes. ; i 664. And you gave evidence in his defence ?—Yes. 665. Now, Mr. Templeton, at the time of Meikle's trial, was Meikle indebted to you ? —He was. • I 666. How much did Meikle owe you when you gave evidence as a witness for his defence ?—I cannot be positive, but I think there was a bill of £90, and probably a running account besides of, perhaps, £120 —something over £100. 667. What kind of business are you carrying on ? —General storekeeping. 668. And a butchery business ? —Not at that time. 669. How long before that had you been carrying on a butchery business ?—Never before that, but it was since then. I gave up my general storekeeping business, and it is within the last six years that I started a butchery business. 670. Then the £90 was not for butcher meat supplied by you to Meikle ? —No ; it was for general goods for the household. 671. And I suppose you were paid in full ? —Not a penny that I remember. I got paid something by the J. G. Ward firm, but I do not remember the amount. 672. Did Meikle give you any of the £500 he got from the Government ? —No. I got a pound for going down to Gore. I think we signed a petition. 673. What did you sign the petition for ?—lt was something about getting money for witnesses. 674. You gave evidence at the trial and you gave evidence when you got Lambert convicted ?— Yes, that is the time I speak of. 675. And he has been owing you this money all this time ?—Of course, I never looked for any money and never expected to get any. 676. Do you expect to get it now ? —No. 677. Are you not very hopeful ?—No. 678. Can you tell us, when Mr. Lambert said to you, " Look here, Jack, the company wants me to go for poor old Meikle, but I will stick to Meikle," if Lambert was sticking to you at that particular moment ? —I think he had his arm round my neck. He appeared to me as a man who would like to tell me something. We were on the best of good terms. 679. Had not each of you had a good deal of drink that night: were you looking after him or was he looking after you ? —I was looking after him. It is quite a common thing. Why, the last time I went to Wyndham a man had his arms round my neck. 680. You must be rather an attractive sort of person ?—I believe I am. 681. At any rate, this man put his arm round your neck and addressed you as " Jack," and you put your arms round him ?—I do not think it. I was tired and wanted to get home. 682. You were helping him along the road ?—No, he was walking pretty well. 683. You told the Court that Lambert told you Boyd had chucked him out ?—All I remember just now is that Boyd wanted me to take Lambert away. 684. In Mr. Meikle's printed book you are credited with having sworn this before the Court, " Lambert told me Boyd had chucked him out of hotel " \— Did I say that ? Well, I suppose if I said it it might be true, but Ido not remember it. I think the record of my evidence will show it. I cannot tell you the exact words. 685. Mr. Atkinson.] There was no question of too many drinks when you gave that evidence ?— No. 686. Were you a willing witness at Meikle's trial ?—Well, I would rather have been out of it. 687. Were you a particular friend of his ?—No. William McGeorgb examined. 688. Mr. Atkinson.] You are a driver now ?—Yes. 689. At the time of Meikle's trial you were driving for the New Zealand Mortgage and Investment Company ?—Yes. 690. You were not called at the trial of Meikle ?—No. 691. You gave evidence at the trial of William Lambert in 1895 ?—Yes. 692. Do you remember when Meikle was charged with sheep-stealing ?—I remember about the time. 693. Were you on the Islay Station when Meikle was arrested ?—No. 694. Had you been there shortly before ?—I was working on the station with a team. 695. Do you remember when you left the station ?—I cannot say exactly. I cannot remember everything now. 696. Can you remember the day of the week ?—I think it was on a Monday morning. 697. In which direction did you go when you left on Monday morning ?—I came down to Mataura and fed the horses, and went on to Mr. Hays at the Halfway Bush. 698. How did you travel ?—I had the team with me. 699. Do you remember meeting anybody on your journey ?—Yes, I met Roderick Barkley just near the paper-mills. Then afterwards I came down to the Mataura and fed the horses, and I met Frank Fraser. 700. About where ?—At Mataura about 12 or 1 o clock. 701. Had you seen Mr. Fraser often lately ?—No. I had not seen him for a long time before 702. Can you remember particularly the name of the locality where you met him ?—lt was just betwixt McGibbons and Cameron's grain-store where I fed the horses.
W. MOGEOEGE.J
81
H.—2l.
703. What building had you been living in when you were at Islay ?—Sometimes at the home station and sometimes out of the pre-emptive right. 704. Was there anybody else on the pre-emptive right with you ?—There was a young chap who was supposed to go out occasionally and look at the sheep, of the name of Robert Cooney, I think, and William Lambert was there too. 705. Was it from there you started that morning ?—Yes. 706. That was from the hut on the pre-emptive right ?—Yes. 707. Did you see Lambert that morning ?—No. 708. Had you any conversation with him bearing on this matter any time before you left ?— Not that I remember much about anything in particular. 709. You did not discuss the case at all ? —Not to my knowledge. 710. Had he made any reference to you shortly before you left ? Had he asked you for anything shortly before you went away, Ido not mean on that day ?—I do not remember exactly. Of course he was getting a bit of mutton now and again when going home to his own place. 711. We sometimes killed a sheep for our own use, and he took a piece with him. 712. Who had charge of the sheepskins on the station ?—No one in particular, you might say, because any sheep that died or that we killed we skinned and put the skins at the back of the hut. 713. Had there been any talk about skins between you and Lambert ?—Not particularly. He said he would like to have one or two to take home for mats, if I remember properly. 714. How long was that before you left for the station ?—lt might have been a week or so. 715. Did you get one or two skins for him ?—No, I did not get them for him. He could help himself to them. They were at the back of the hut. 716. Do you know whether they were got for him ? —I did not give them to him. 717. Do you mean that he asked you for them and that you did not get them—what was the point of the conversation ?—I could not tell you now what the conversation might be. 718. You told us he asked about one or two skins for mats I—Yes, I remember that right enough. 719. He asked you for one or two skins for mats, and I want to know whether he got the skins ?— I would not like to say whether he took them or not. I cannot say. 720. Did you get them for him ? —I did not get them for him. 721. What did he ask you for ?—Really I do not know what his idea would be for asking me at the time. .'22. Had you any carting to do in connection with skins at the station ?—Yes. I took in what skins were there ; but I cannot tell you how many now. 723. Were there any skins hanging about the hut or fence when you left ?—Not that I am aware of. 724. Do you remember the evidence you gave in Lambert's trial in 1893 ?—lndeed, I cannot tell you that now. I suppose it is there in print, and I know that what I said was right. 725. You do not want to alter anything you said ?—No. 726. Mr. Justice Cooper.] What is your age ?—Sixty-four, I think. 727. Dr. Findlay.] Shortly before you gave the evidence to which your attention has been drawn you were in Invercargill—of course you remember giving evidence for Meikle at this perjury trial of Lambert's ? —Yes, in Gore. 728. Now, you know Apuni Creek, Invercargill ?—Yes. 729. Did you not go down to that creek for the purpose of committing suicide before you gave evidence ?—What an idea. 730. I mean, taking it seriously ?—No, sir. 731. Were you not at the time of Lambert's trial in a state of helpless intoxication I —No. I defy any man to say so. . 732. You say Meikle was not supplying you with drink before you gave evidence in this case ?— No. 733. Did you ever have any drink with him before that time ?—I do not think so. Ido not think Meikle ever gave me a drink yet. 734. You swear you cannot remember Meikle ever giving you a drink in your life ?—I cannot remember. I would not like to say he never did.
Dunedin, Monday, 7th May, 1906. William McGeorge further examined. 1. Dr. Findlay.] You remember giving evidence on Friday. Mr. Atkinson asked you some questions ? —Yes. 2. You told Mr. Atkinson, as was quite natural, that you could not remember everything that happened in 1887 at this length of time afterwards ?—-That is so. 3. You told Mr. Atkinson that you did not get any skins for Lambert —that they were at the back of the hut, and he could help himself ?—As far as I remember, that is correct. 4. He could get them just as easily as you could, of course ?—Every bit; they were there. 5. Then I take it that your perfectly frank answer is this : that as far as you remember you did not get two skins for Lambert. The skins were at the back of the hut, and he could get them as easily as you could ? —Yes, that is true enough. 6. Now, I do not want to worry you at all about the evidence you gave when Lambert was convicted eleven years ago. I suppose you do not remember what evidence you gave ?—I could not be 11— H. 21.
82
W. MCGEOEGE.
H.—2l.
certain what I said. I would not like to say that I could stand up here and repeat the words I said " 7. But the evidence you have given here is, as far as you can recollect true ?—I think it is cor'B. Between 1887 and 1895 when you gave evidence against Lambert, what had you been doing ? —I was always following teams of horses. 9. You did not keep a diary I suppose ?—No. 10 I suppose if I had come and asked you eight years afterwards what day you drove a team to a certain place you would find it very hard to give a definite answer ?—lt would puzzle me very lrkely ll. 1 How long would it be after you left the hut on the Islay Station that Meikle first spoke to you ? —That I could not even tell you. . , 12. It would be some time before you gave evidence in Lambert s trial ?— Likely it would be, but I could not say. 13 It would be some time after Meikle got out of Gaol ?—I suppose it would be. 14. It would be a good many years after you left the hut that any one spoke to you about it > Yes 15 I suppose you cannot recollect how Meikle first approached you about this matter ?— As near as I can remember he came to Wyndham to see me, and asked me about this affair, and I told him I did not know anything at all about anything. 16. There was some conversation I suppose ?—Very little, because 1 had not time. 17 You cannot remember what you said to him or what he said to you ?—No. 18 You do not remember whether he gave you a date. Did he tell you he saw you driving the team away on a Monday ?—I cannot say as regards that, but I know it was a Monday I left. 19 You cannot say whether Meikle said he saw you driving the team away on the Monday 1— I cannot say whether he did or not. In fact, "I had no acquaintance with Meikle before that. I had no doubt seeing him passing, and spoken once or twice, that is all. 20. You were in the employ of the company ?—Yes. 21. And you about that time were to leave the Islay Station and go to the Waicola Statron, which is another station belonging to the company ?—Yes, that is so. 22. Who gave you instructions to leave Islay Station and go to Waicola *—I would not like to say at the present time.' My superior at that time was Mr. Troup ;it would be from either Troup or a letter from him. . , . . . _, _ 23. Do you remember going to the Islay homestead on any occasion about this time '.— It 1 remember aright I think I was there on the Sunday. 24. That is where Troup lived ?— It is where he was staying. 25. You would see Troup upon that Sunday ?—ln all probability. 26. It might have been on that Sunday that you got the instructions ?—Quite lrkely I would, but I would not be sure at this day. ___~, , ~, 27. It might have been on the Sunday of the week on which you left the hut that you probably saw Troup at the homestead and got instructions from him ? —Yes. 28. At any rate your best memory is that it was the day before you left that you got the instructions ?—I would not be sure of the day. 29. To the best of your recollection it would be ? —Yes. 30. Now, can you recollect when you were next at the homestead of the Islay Station ?—I did not return. I have not been at the Islay Station since that lam aware of. 31. Can you swear that you were not at the Islay homestead after that Sunday ?—I would not swear, but I was not that I know of. 32. When you went from the hut on the Islay homestead you drove over ?—I think if I remember right I rode over on one of my draught horses. ' 33. Do you remember either on the Sunday or on some day before that driving over to the Islay homestead with your team ?—I was driving my team pretty regularly, so that I could not swear to any day or any time. . 34. I may take it that you could not tell me whether you were at the Islay station with your team a week before this Sunday ?—I would not like to say so. 35. Your memory is quite a blank as to the whole of the circumstances at that time ?—Quite, I never bothered my head about it until I was brought into the case. 36. You never thought there would be any trouble about it until Mr. Meikle saw you ?—No. 37. What you have told us is what happened to the best of your recollection; and if I produced the diary-entries of Mr. Troup—and Mr. Troup will swear to them—you would not like to contradict them ? —I do not know that I would believe him altogether, either. 38. You are in this position : you kept no diary, and do not want to ask these Judges to treat your unaided recollection as being absolutely reliable, do you ?—No, I would not like to say that lam quite reliable. . . . 39. You knew Meikle before he got into trouble ?—I think I saw him once or twice or spoke to him once or twice, that was about all. 40. You lived in the hut that Lambert was staying in ?—Yes. 41. So you were not very far from Meikle's land ? —That is so. 42. Of course, at the time the matter was published in all the papers, and you knew Meikle had got into trouble ?—Yes, I heard the evidence read from the newspapers. 43. You did not send any word to Meikle after hearing the evidence read to you ?—No. 44. Mr. Atkinson.] Were you aware that Meikle was in trouble before you read the evidence in the newspapers ?—No, I did not know particularly that he was. Of course Mr. Troup came to me when I
W. MCGEOEGE,]
83
H.—2l.
was at Waicola and asked me what I knew about this affair, and I said I did not know anything about it, and the best thing he could do was to leave me at home. 45. That was before the trial, and with a view of your giving evidence ?—Yes. 46. Are you aware of having made any mistakes in your evidence at Lambert's trial in 1895 ? — Not that I know of. Alexander McDonald examined. 47. Mr. Atkinson.] You are a farmer residing in the Wyndham Valley ? —Yes. 48. How long have you been a farmer there ?—For twenty years. 49. You held that farm in 1887 when Meikle was convicted ?—Yes. 50. You were a witness for Meikle at his trial ?—Yes. 51. Do you believe the evidence you gave then to be correct ?—Yes. 52. Did you appear in any of the proceedings against Lambert ?—Yes, but not at the Supreme Court. 53. Do you remember whether you were subpoenaed for the Supreme Court ?—Yes, but I was not called. 54. You gave evidence at Meikle's trial of some conversation you had with Lambert, who was a witness in the case ? —Yes. 55. Where did the conversation take place ? —ln Invercargill, in Esk Street. 56. Was that before or after the arrest of Meikle and his son ?—I believe it was after. 57. Was any one else present ?—No. 58. Can you tell us what conversation took place ?—I was going along Esk Street and Lambert was coming along the other way. "He stopped me and asked me if I knew that Meikle was arrested for stealing sheep. I said " No." He said "He was arrested yesterday for stealing sheep." I said "Itis a bad job for Meikle." He said " No, I could easily clear Meikle if I liked." I said " That is all right for Meikle." He said " There is not much in it altogether." 59. Did he make any further reference ? —No, not that day. 60. Did you put any further questions to him ?—No. 61. When did you next meet Mr. Lambert ? —lt would be three or four days afterwards. 62. Where I—ln1 —In the Star Hotel at Invercargill. 63. Were any other people present when you first saw him ?—There were about four or five in the room when we went in. 64. Do you remember any of them ?—I do not remember exactly who they were now. 65. Was Meikle present ?—Yes. 66. Just tell us what took place ?—Meikle " shouted" for the lot. We walked out to the passage. 67. Who walked out ?—Meikle, Lambert, and my brother who was there walked out first. They stood in the passage talking about shearing; and Meikle, after having a few words about shearing, said, " Now, Lambert, be truthful about this case, and tell the truth on both sides." 68. What did Lambert say ? —Lambert said " Yes, but I am waiting to get £10 blood-money out of Stuart." 69. About this time or a little earlier you lost some horses, I think ? —Yes. 70. Just tell us how they came to be lost ?—I took the horses to Wyndham—they were to go to Invercargill to be sold —and I put them into Mr. Templeton's yard and fed them about 9 or 10 o'clock at night. The next morning the horses were gone. I looked all round the township for them, and wrote a letter to Carswell, White, and Co. that the horses were away and could not be brought in that day to the sale. 71. Who were Carswell, White, and Co. ?—Merchants in Invercargill. 72. What had they to do'with the horses ?—I had got seed-oats from them, and they were taking the horses in payment for it. They had a bill of sale over the horses. 73. They had advanced you nothing under the bill of sale ?—No ; the oats were to come later. It was a while afterwards before I got them. 74. The horses were lost before the oats were supplied ?—No. 75. When were the oats supplied ?—I got the oats to sow in the spring, but it was a long time after the bill of sale was taken that the horses were lost. , 76. Were the oats supplied first or the horses lost first ?—The oats were supplied first. 77. Did Mr. Meikle know these horses ?—He knew some of them. 78. You gave evidence in Scott's trial ?—Yes. 79. Do you remember one horse that Meikle had bought from him ? —Yes. 80. Did Meikle know that horse ?—I do not think Meikle ever saw the horse in my presence. 81. What age was that horse ?—Four years old. 82. How long had you had that horse ? —About twelve months. 83. Have you had any conversation with Lambert subsequent to Meikle's conviction ?—Yes. 84. Where did it take place ?—Wyndham. 85. What part of Wyndham ?—Monaghan's Hotel. 86. Meikle's name was brought up ?—Yes. 87. Tell us as nearly as you can recollect how long after Meikle was out of gaol was it the conversation took place ?—lt may have been twelve or eighteen months. 88. Tell us the course the conversation took ?—He and I began talking about Meikle's case and his denying what he told me in Invercargill. 89. You mean, denied to the Court ? —Exactly. 90. What was said with regard to that ?—He said first that he did not remember telling me anything. I said it was very strange : what was wrong with his memory ? He said " I believe I did tell
[A. MCDONALD.
H.—2l.
84
you something like that." He said that he put in Meikle and that he was very sorry to do it, but he could not help it, he had to clear himself in the case. 91. Was there any mention of money ?—Yes, he said he got £50. 92. Did he say anything further about it ?—No ; another party came in then He asked him was he the Lambert that put Meikle in, and Lambert said " Yes." He then said to Lambert, "Then you must be an informer." Then they had a few words over it, and Lambert got up and hrt him on the head with the poker, and the doctor had to put three or four stitches in his head next day. 93. Dr. Findlay.] Yes, go on ?—That is all. 94. Nothing else ?—Nothing else. 95. Let us understand the position about these horses. You and a number of other people gave evidence in the Scott trial ?—Yes. 96. What was the amount due by you to Carswell, White, and Co. when the horses were stolen ?— About £42 or £45. 97. And how many horses had they security over ?—Over four or five. 98. How many horses had you altogether I—Six and sometimes seven. 99. How far is your place from Nichol's ?—I suppose it would be ten miles. 100. You told the Court below when you gave evidence that Meikle knew your horses ?—Yes ; not that horse that was stolen. 101. I suppose Meikle was never at your house at any time ?—No, not that I remember. 102. Do you swear that Meikle was never at your place ?—No, not that I remember. 103. Were you at his place ?—Yes, carting oats. 104. For whom ?—For Meikle. 105. Who paid you ?—Meikle." 106. How long were you engaged carting oats for Meikle ?—Six or seven times altogether. 107. When ?—ln 1886. 108. Did you do any carting for Meikle in 1887 ?—No, Ido not think so. It was only the once— 1886 or 1887. 109. I suggest to you that the carting you did was in 1887—will you deny that ?—No, if you say so. 110. How long were you carting oats for Meikle ?—Two or three weeks. 111. About what time of the year I—lt might be April. 112. Meikle saw the horses you brought there at that time ?—Yes. 113. I suppose you had meals there when you were carting ?—Yes, breakfast and tea, 114. And I suppose you knew young Meikle and the family I —Yes. 115. The horse that was stolen was one of four which Carswell, White, and Co. had security over to the extent of £40 or £50 ?—Yes. 116. It was stolen, you say, at your place ?—From Templeton's yard. 117. By a man named Scott I—Yes. 118. Did you know Scott ?—Yes. 119. What was he I —Working at anything. 120. Will you tell us how the horses got into Templeton's yard ?—I put them into the yard myself. 121. You were down in Wyndham ?—I was taking the horses through to Invercargill. 122. Do you remember what condition you were in on the night the horses were put into Templeton's stable ?—-Yes, very well. 123. Happy ?—No. 124. Miserable, perhaps ?—No. 125. Is this true, that you got very drunk that night ?—There is not a word of truth in it. 126. Then it comes to this : you were in Wyndham, these horses were put in Templeton's yard, they were taken out by Scott, and the brand was altered when you next saw it ? —Yes. 127. You cannot say when or where the brand was altered ?—No. 128. You and Meikle gave evidence against Scott, and Scott was convicted ? —Yes. - 129. I think you gave evidence against Scott the day before Meikle's trial % —Yes. 130. So that you were at the Supreme Court and saw Meikle, who was to go on his trial the day after you, and he gave evidence against Scott ? —Yes, I believe that is right. 131. You told Mr. Atkinson that you met Lambert twice since on the street and that no reference was made to Meikle's horses ?—Yes, he stopped me. 132. What for ? —Just to have a yarn. 133. How did he know you ? —He knew me years before that. 134. Where did you first meet Lambert, and how long before ?—I cannot say. 135. Were you a familiar friend of Lambert ?—Nothing very particular. 136. Can you tell us why he stopped you ? —No. 137. He stopped you to tell you this, that he could have cleared Meikle if he had liked. Was that a surprise to you when he said that there was little in it, and he could get Meikle clear if he liked ?—No, it did not surprise me at all. 138. What did you do when he gave you this intelligence —did you go and tell it to Meikle ? —No. 139. The next time you saw Meikle you swear that you never mentioned it to him ? —The next time I met Meikle I did not mention it to him. 140. Mr. Justice Edwards.] How long after did you meet Meikle ?—At the Supreme Court, 141. The same day ?—No, it might be a fortnight or three weeks after. 142. Mr. Justice Cooper.] You have already said that you met him afterwards ?—Yes, but I never mentioned this to Meikle. 143. When did you next meet Meikle after you were told by Lambert that he could have got Meikle off but that he has to clear himself ?—I could not tell you the date.
85
H.—2l.
A. MCDONALD.]
144. You told us the date —at Hewitt's Hotel ?—Yes. 145. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Why did you say it was a fortnight afterwards \ —No 1 never mentioned it to Mr. Meikle. 146. Dr. Findlay.] How did you come to go to Hewitt's Hotel ?—I walked there with Meikle and my brother. 147. It was after Meikle's arrest, and you walked up the street with him and talked about the weather ?—I do not know. 148. I suppose you talked about his arrest ? —I suppose so. 149. You had been at this man's house, had had breakfast and tea with him, and walked up the street to Hewitt's hotel—will you swear that you did not tell him of this conversation with Lambert ?— No, I did not tell him. 150. Not on the way to the hotel ?—No. 151. When you were in the hotel ?—No. 152. Do you swear that you never mentioned that conversation either on the way to the hotel or in the hotel ?—No, I did not. 153. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Not even when you heard him speak to Lambert about it ? —I heard him speaking. 154. You did not join in and say, " That is all right, Lambert can get you off " ? —No. 155. You said not a word about it ?—No, I did not. It was somebody else who told Meikle of it first. 156. Dr. Findlay.] When you met Meikle on the street and you walked to the hotel and he was good enough to treat you there, why did you not tell him of this very important piece of evidence ?— I do not know. 157. You can give no answer as to why you did not tell Meikle of this conversation with Lambert ? —No, I did not. 158. Mr. Justice And you cannot say why ?—No. 159. Although you were talking to him about the case ?—I never mentioned to him at the hotel that Lambert could clear him if he liked. 160. Dr. Findlay.] Now we come to the conversation two or three days afterwards at Hewitt's hotel. Just tell us again the exact words that were used ?—Meikle " shouted." 161. What took place before Meikle " shouted " I—l1 —I suppose Lambert was there before Meikle " shouted " < —I could not tell you how long Lambert was there before Meikle " shouted." 162. How long did you see Lambert and Meikle before Meikle " shouted" ?—I cannot say. There were five or six in the room —myself, my brother, Meikle, Lambert, and another man named Evans. 163. Anybody else ? —I do not know. 164. Meikle shouted for the lot ?—Yes. 165. He came in with you and your brother ?—Yes. 166. These others were in the room ? —Yes. 167. Was there some conversation at first about shearing ?—Not in the room. 168. Where was that conversation ?—ln the passage. 169. After the " shouting " the conversation took place ? —Yes. 170. What was that conversation ?—Meikle and Lambert started talking about shearing. 171. What conversation took place during the time the " shouting" was going on ?—I could not say. 172. Anything about the case ?—No, not that I heard of. 173. Will you swear that Meikle did not turn to Lambert and ask him something about the case while the " shouting " was going on ? —No. 174. What happened after you had the drink ?—They walked out to the passage, and Meikle said to him something about shearing. Meikle also said, " Now be truthful about this case," and Lambert said he would be truthful. 175. His words were, " Yes, he would be truthful" ? —Yes. 176. What else did he say ?-—He said, "I am waiting till I get £10 blood-money from Stuart." 177. What did you understand by that ?—I do not know. 178. You repeated the very same words that Meikle repeated to us on Friday ? —Yes. 179. Meikle says that he understood by those words that Lambert had put the skins upon Meikle's land and was to get paid for them ?—I do not know whether he put the skins on the land or not. 180. You repeat here the evidence you gave at Lambert's trial for perjury, that he said he was waiting until he got £10 blood-money out of Stuart ? —I suppose he was to get something for doing something. 181. What did you understand by it ?—I do not know. 182. What did you understand Lambert was to get this £10 for ?—I suppose he was to get £10 from Stuart for putting the skins there. 183. Then he was to tell the truth according to your story to get £10 for putting the skins there ? —Yes. 184. Is it not an amazing story ?—[No answer.] 185. You have seen this book [Meikle's pamphlet] ?—Yes, I believe I did. 186. Meikle lectures throughout the colony, and makes a certain amount of profit by selling these books ?—I do not know. 187. You do not know that Meikle has been going throughout the colony selling these books ?— No, I never saw the book until I was in Mr. Atkinson's room here. 188. Had you any conversation with Meikle before you gave evidence here % —Yes.
86
[a. MCDONALt),
H.—2l.
189. When did you first see Meikle about your evidence '—About Thursday or Friday last. 190. When did you arrive in Dunedin ?—On Monday. 191. So that you were here from Monday till Thursday and never had a word with Meikle about the evidence you were going to give ?—No. 192. Now, we come to something quite new. You told Mr. Atkinson that you had a talk with Lambert about a year after Meikle was convicted—in another hotel ?—Yes' 193. And he told you that he was sorry he had to put Meikle in, but he could not help it, as he had to clear himself ? —Yes. 194. And he said he was to get £50 for doing it ?—Yes. 195. And another party came in and he got knocked on the head with a poker by Lambert ?— Yes. 196. Did you give evidence in these proceedings in the lower Court ?—Yes. 197. How did it happen that when you gave evidence on the trial of Lambert—that is, some years after this conversation—there is not one word asked you or said by you about this conversation you have since managed to recollect ?—Because I did not like to say anything against Lambert then. 198. You gave evidence in defence of Meikle on his trial, did you not ?—Yes. 199. There is not one word about it then. Then you gave evidence when he came out of gaol. This evidence did not appear in your evidence then ?—That is so. 200. Why ?—Because I did not want to say anything about it. 201. But you told all the other stories : why did you leave this out ?—I could not help telling the other stories. 202. Why ?—Because I told them in the Court before. 203. Do you seriously want to tell us that you kept back this evidence which you knew would help Meikle because you did not want to tell it ?—I did not tell it. 204. The evidence was briefed by Meikle's lawyer before you gave your evidence ?—Yes. 205. Even in your private interview with his lawyer you kept it all back ?—Yes. 206. When did you tell Meikle ?—Not until the other day. 207. You kept this locked up as a secret in your bosom until the other day ?—Yes, because I had not seen Meikle since he was put in gaol. 208. You must have given evidence on the Lambert trial ?—Yes. 209. Did you not see him then ?—Yes, but Ido not think I have seen him since until the other day. 210. Will you swear that ?—I think I can. 211. How many years ago was this ?—I could not say. 212. It was the end of 1888—that is, eighteen years ago ?—Yes. 213. And the first time you told Meikle was in his solicitor's office the other day, although you had an opportunity of telling him when Lambert was tried ?—That is correct. 214. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Did you tell anybody ?—I told Templeton the other day. 215. Dr. Findlay.] But before that, did you tell anybody else ?—No. 216. Mr. Justice Edwards.] That is rather odd if you knew that Lambert was convicted. You talked about it in the publichouse-bar, why did you not mention it at the trial ?—I could not say. 217. Mr. Atkinson.] Do you know how Meikle found out about your conversation with Lambert ? —No. 218. Did you give evidence willingly at the trral of Meikle ?—Yes, I was summoned. 219. Were you anxious to give evidence against Lambert ?—No, I was not. 220. Or here to-day ?—No. 221. May I put it that you wanted to be kept out of both litigations >. Dr. Findlay : I object to that form of question. 222. Mr. Atkinson!] Would you care to brand a horse in a stall ?—No, I would not. 223. What would be likely to happen to any one who did ?—I think it would be a very risky thing for anybody to start branding a horse in a stall. 224. Were you a particular friend of Meikle's in 1887 ?—I was not any particular friend. 225. How much work had you done beside the job you speak of ?—That is all. 226. You told Dr. Findlay your place was about ten miles off in the north valley from Meikle's ? —Yes, about ten miles off. 227. You did not tell Dr. Findlay what you took the reference to blood-money to mean ? Dr. Findlay :He really took the same view as Meikle—the skins were to be put on the land for the purpose of getting this reward. Witness : That is the only meaning I put on it—that he must have put skins there himself. _ 228. Mr. Atkinson.] Did you conclude which way Lambert was going to give evidence that time ? —I thought he was going to clear Meikle as far as I could gather. Dr. Findlay : This witness says when Lambert used these words he thought Lambert was going to get £10 for putting skins on the land. As far as that, no evidence had been given to that effect, How did he know ? 229. Dr. Findlay.] You say you thought when these words were used that it was to be £10 for puttmg skins on the land ?—He told me the first time that Meikle had nothing to do with the skins or the sheep, and that he could clear him if he liked. 230. That is what you say ?—Yes, that Meikle had nothing to do with it. 231. How did you know anything about them ?—Lambert himself mentioned it. 232. There was no trial at this time ?—He told me that Meikle was arrested the day before for it. He asked, Did I hear that Meikle was arrested for stealing the company's sheep. 233. What skins did you know about ?—I said, " This is a bad job for Meikle," and he said, " I
H.—2l.
A. MCDONALD.]
87
might clear Meikle if I liked :he had nothing to do with either." He told me there were skins found in the barn, and that he could clear Meikle if he liked. 234. Did he tell you how they were branded ?—No, but that they were the company's skins. 235. And that he could clear him if he liked ?—lf he was willing to do it. 236. And after he told you all that, you never mentioned it to Meikle?—No, never. 237. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Did you know Lambert well ?—Yes, I met him a good few times. 238. How many times ?—I could not tell. 239. The reason I ask you is that when you were examined a short time after Meikle's trial you said you would not swear you had seen him more than twice ?—I had seen him more than twice. 240. That is very funny, you do not remember that ?—I had seen him more than twice. 241. How did you not know that at the time ?—I must have made a mistake. 242. Or told a lie, or you are telling a lie now—cne of the several hypotheses to account for it. You must have known whether you knew him or not ?—I must have known him. 243. Will you swear now that you knew you had seen him more than twice ?—Yes, I had seen him at the threshing first. 244. Will you swear you had seen him more than twice ?—Oh, yes, I had. 245. Then why did you tell the Supreme Court that you would not swear you had seen him more than twice ?—lf I swore that I made a mistake. 246. How often had you seen him—a great many times ?—Not a great many times, maybe five or six. 247. You knew him well to talk to ?—Yes. 248. You were more than a-stranger to him ?—I suppose I would be. 249. Then why did you swear you were "no more than a stranger to him " ? Why did you swear at Meikle's trial, when all was fresh in your memory, that you had not seen him more than twice, and were "no more than a stranger to him " ?—I had seen him more than twice, I know. 250. Why did you swear that, sir, when it was fresh in your memory ?—I made a mistake. 251. Or you are swearing falsely now. You could not make a mistake. Some things you can mistake; that, you could not mistake. You could not mistake then whether you had seen this man many a time or not. You could not mistake whether he was a mere stranger to you. Stand down ! James Mabin examined. 252. Mr. Atkinson.] Your name is James Mabin ? —James Mabin. 253. And you are a squatter residing at Sunnyside, near Wyndham ? You own a farm or run ?— Partly. 254. Sheep-farm ? —Yes. 255. How many acres ?—About 1,000, more or less. 256. Have you given evidence in any of these proceedings before ?—No. 257. How long have you been used to farming ?—About fifty years. 258. Do you know Islay Station ?—Yes. 259. Did you ever occupy any part of what was then the Islay property ? —Yes. 260. Which part was that ? —I leased the pre-emptive right. 261. From whom ?—A man called Sutherland. 262. About what time ?— In 1888, I think. lam not quite sure of the date. 263. What season of 1888 «— Either in May or June. 264. That was about six months after Meikle had been sent to gaol ?—Yes, something like that. 265. Was Meikle's stock still on the property when you went there ?—Yes ; they were on the property when I leased the pre-emptive right—for just a week or two. 266. And then ?—They were taken to Gore and sold. 267. Had the company any stock on their land ? I suppose they parted with the pre-emptive right to Sutherland ?—Yes ; but their stock were there still, trespassing. 268. Trespassing ?—Yes ;on what belonged to me in reality. Sutherland, when he leased the reserve, said there were so many stacks of straw 269. First of all, with regard to Meikle's property : had you occasion to go there ever ? —Well, I have been there on several occasions. 270. Did you form any idea as to the feed ?—Well, I had stock on it immediately afterwards, and I thought it was good enough for my stock. 271. What was growing there at this time when you took over the lease ?—Nothing but grass and a few turnips. The harvest was over, and there was nothing but the straw there. 272. You could say what had been growing on parts of it ? —There had been a good deal of crop that was threshed and gone. 273. What crop was that ?—Oat-crop. 274. And there had been some turnips. What about the grass ? —There was a portion in English grass. 275. About how much, roughly ?—I should think perhaps 200 or 300 acres of Englrsh grass. 276. What was the quality of Meikle's land generally ?—Fair good quality—as good as any in the district; in fact, much better than any around. 277. Could you form an opinion as to how he farmed ?—I think him a fairly good farmer ; he seemed to do his work fairly well.---278. Could you say what had been the cultivation of the pre-emptive right ? When you found it, how was it off for English grass '—There was no English grass on it at all. 279. Had there been any on it for the previous year or so ?—The bulk of what was ploughed was in stubble, and some had been in turnips. [A map of the farm was handed to the witness.]
[j. MABIN.
88
H.—2l.
280 In what state was the land marked " Tussock " land then, below the road ?—I am not positive about that, I had nothing to do with that portion of it; it was inside the fence I had my stock. lam not quite sure whether it was broken up or not. 281 Then, going north from the tussock boundary, what was there ?— Stubble land a distance above the road ; and then what was left of the turnip land was on the north of the pre-emptive right. 282. What about the area of the pre-emptive right ?—I think it was 640 acres—the usual pre-emptive-right size. . , 283. Generally speaking, what was the nature of the land ?—Just rrdgy land—some flat and some ridgy —gullies. 284. What proportion could be ploughed ?—I should say about two-thirds ol it. 285 What would be the nature of the rest ?—Gullies, rocks, and creeks. 286. What is the season in Southland for putting sheep on to turnips for them to do any good of them ?— At all times from May to September. 287. In what condition would the turnip-crop be for sheep in October ?—Not worth anything. 288. Why not ?—Because they would be too soft in that time—running to seed. 289 How would turnips in that condition compare with English grass as an attraction for sheep ? —Well naturally, sheep are inclined to hunt for young grass about that season in preference to turnips. 290 How would ordinary natural feed compare with turnips in that condition ?—Of course sheep arc inclined to ramble for feed, even although there is not very much of it. They are more inclined for young grass than turnips that have become short. 291. Will sheep always stay on turnips in the proper season ? Is it safe to leave them without a boundary-fence ? —Oh, no, that-would be a mistake. 292. What was the condition of feed along the Mimihau—going down from there to the southern boundary to the school reserve ?—Ordinary road-line feed. 293" What about the creek ?—Just along the river-bank. 294. Was there any feed there at all ?—The usual tussock feed was there just the same as the rest of the country round about. 295. What was there to stop sheep going down the road and along the creek towards the school reserve ? —Nothing to stop them but the river at the Teserve. 296. Then the two creeks met there just at the corner of the reserve ?—Yes. 297 Supposing a horseman came down along from the pre-emptive right and there were sheep of yours near the road, what would be the natural effect ?—They would naturally run in front of the horseman as far as they could get. . . 298. Where would they be first brought up ?—At the junction of the Mrmrhau and the Waiarikiki 299 Had you any occasion to observe the nature of Meikle's iV es ?— No, I did not take particular notice of them. I know there was a gate at the corner of the fence adjoining the Mimrhau, at the ford. 300. Meikle's land did not adjoin yours ?— No. 301. Who was the manager of Islay Station when you had your lease ?—Mr. Troup. Did you ever have any conversation with him about Meikle's case when Meikle was in gaol ? Yes. 303. Where ?— In Milne's hotel, Wyndham. 304. What is the other name of that hotel—the sign ?—" The Farmers' Arms. 305. Anybody else present ? —Templeton. 306. What part of the hotel were you in ?—The front parlour. 307. You and Templeton were in the room. Just tell us how Troup came along ?—I he landlord came in and told me that there was a gentleman who wanted to see me outside. I asked him to come in and he said he did not think that the gentleman would come. I then went out: it was Troup. We had some disagreement before this about the pre-emptive right—in gettrng stock off. Troup was manager and had to do with it. He told me he was leaving the company and that rf I would go in for damages for the eating of my turnips he would be along wrth me—that he had got the sack from the company virtually. 308 Was Templeton present during this part of the conversation ?—No. 1 asked lroup to come into the hotel, and he came, and a general conversation came up. Meikle's case came up. He said he had documents in his possession that would get Meikle out of gaol. I said he had better be careful or he would get into the same place as Meikle. 309 Do you remember any other expression ?—We had a talk over the matter, and that ended it. 310. Dr. Findlay.] You told Mr. Atkinson that about May or June, 1888, you saw Meikle's farm ? Yes. 311. And you saw the pre-emptive right ?—Yes ;I am not sure of the date. 312. It might have been earlier or later ? —Yes. 313 Your best recollection is June, 1888 ?—Yes, I think so. 314. You cannot say, or do not pretend to say, what the condition of things was in October of the year before ?—No, Ido not know anything about it. 315 Can you say whether the pasture or the feed upon the company s land m October, 1887, was better or worse than that upon Meikle's land at the time ?— No, I could not say. lam just speaking about it as I found it in June. ■ 316 Just so You cannot say the inducements offered to sheep on the company s land were better inducements than those offered on Meikle's land ?—Oh, no, Ido not know anything about that, 317. You were speaking of a period seven or eight months afterwards ? —Yes,
J. MABIN.]
89
H.— 2l.
318. Now, I pass to the incident with Troup. There was litigation you say contemplated for trespass ?—Was it by you against the company or the company against you ?—By me. From the nature of my lease from Sutherland, I had a right to the pre-emptive right with the turnips on it. 319. Had the action been started ?—No. 320. But it had got to the stage of consulting a lawyer ?—I dare say it had. 321. You were in the hotel, and the landlord came to you ?—Yes. 322. Do you remember what time of the evening it was ?—Some time about 7 o'clock. 323. After dark I take it. You do not dine at the same hour as they do in London—at the fashionable time ? —No. 324. Had you dined in the hotel that night ?—No. Templeton and I had some business and went into the hotel for a drink, I think. 325. Was it a humorous kind of business, do you remember ?—No, I do not recollect. 326. Do you remember how many drinks you had ?—No, I do not. 327. Templeton has been here and he finds himself in the same difficulty—he could not tell ? —1 do not think it could be more than one or two or three. Ido not think even that number. I think it would amount to Templeton and myself, one " shouting " for the other. 328. You cannot carry thirty-five ?—Oh, yes, I have done it, too, many a time. 329. Templeton said twenty-five was his maximum, but thirty-five was a fairly good record. What is the vanishing-point with you ?—I never vanished in my lifetime. 330. He said his memory goes when he reaches the number. Is it memory or legs that go with you ?—At what point does your memory go ? —When I find that, I stop the drink. 331. When you have gone as far as thirty-five ?—Whether it is five or thirty-five, when I think it is enough, I stop. 332. You say you have gone as far as thirty-five even and your memory had not gone then ? — No. 333. What could you carry—seventy ? —No, I would not like to. 334. We have some one in the North who can carry twenty-five after dinner without being affected : have you ever heard of him ?—No. 335. Then this conversation took place in the hotel. Templeton came in and told you he had got the sack ?—Yes, had got the sack, and was giving up the books. 336. He was not very friendly to the company ?—No. 337. He said although with the company he was going to give evidence against it ? —Yes. 338. Did he have any drink ?—I cannot remember. He had drink, but Ido not think he had many. I think he is a very temperate man. 339. This man comes to you, says he had a grievance against the company, and that he has some documents which will get Meikle out of gaol ?—Yes, these are the words he used. 340. You did not ask him what the documents were ?—No. 341. You said he had better be careful or he might get into the same place ?—Well, I thought that if he had been giving false evidence and that it came out he might get into trouble. 342. And he knew that I suppose ?—He must have known. 343. Can you account for his coming to you and telling you this, because I understand that that is the construction you put upon it : that he had given false evidence to get this man into gaol ?—I do not think he came to tell me that. I think he came to tell me about another thing. 344. You warned him, and the construction you put upon it was that he was telling you that he had given false evidence to get this man into gaol ?—Yes. 345. What reasons can you suggest to their Honours for this man corning to you and confessing to a crime ? —I could not tell you. 346. Do you remember whether he had a reason ?—I do not know whether he had a reason or not. 347. Had you any reason ?—No. 348. When this man made the statement to you, did you take it seriously ? —No, I did not take it seriously. I did not know whether he was correct in his statements or not. 349. He was talking against the company in a publichouse, and he makes use of this statement, and you did not take him seriously ?—No. 350. Did you refer to the police or report the matter in any way ?—No. 351. Did you communicate with Meikle ?—No, I did not think anything more about it. 352. It escaped your memory ?—Yes. 353. Who came to remind you of it ?—Templeton did. 354. What did he say ?—After I got a summons from Meikle I saw Mr. Templeton, and he reminded me of the fact. 355. But before Mr. Templeton came you had forgotten about the circumstances ? —That is so. 356. It occurred years and years before, and then Mr. Templeton comes and reminds you about it ?—Yes. 357. How long ago did Templeton see you about this ?—lt was in Dunedin here about eight days ago. 358. So, until eight days ago you had forgotten all about it. And can you tell me now about what date it was this conversation took place ?—lt would be about six months after I got possession of my place —in 1888. 359. And from 1888 to 1906—about seventeen years and six months —you had forgotten all about it ? —I had not forgotten the circumstance that Troup told me about it, although it was not troubling me at all. 360. Although as a matter of fact you say you did not take it seriously, and you state that the conversation took place in a publichouse where some chat was going on against this company. Ido 12— H. 21.
90
[j. MAEIN.
H.—2l.
not suggest that the evidence you are giving is unfair, but I put it to you that Templeton suggested it to you, and that suggestion has reached harvest ?—Templeton did not suggest it to me. He asked me if I recollected it, and I said " Yes." 361. He tells you what he wanted you to recollect ?—Yes. 362. And he suggested that you should give evidence upon it ?—Yes. 363. Mr. Atkinson.] Did you or Mr. Templeton recollect most of this conversation ?—Well, it was to me that Troup was addressing himself. 364. Did he seem aggrieved against the company in that conversation ?—Well, he was aggrieved in the other business—in the trespass business. That was his object in his being there. 365. Was there anything to show that Troup was joking when he made this remark about documents ? —No. 366. What do you mean by saying that you did not take rt seriously ?—I drd not think rt was any business of mine. 367. Did you take him to mean what he said ?—Generally a man means what he says. 368. Was'there anything to suggest that he did not mean what he said ?—No. 369. Mr. Justice Edwards] Surely you knew the man was behaving very ill. As you know, a man was serving seven years' sentence, and it was suggested he was wrongfully imprisoned, and yet when this man tells you he has documents in his hands to prove wrongful imprisonment you tell him he had better keep quiet ?—I told him he might get into serious trouble. 370. Surely you must recognise that was a very grave departure from moral duty ?—I was one of the deputation that waited upon the Hon. Mr. Richardson about that time to get Meikle out. 371. That is all the more reason why you should not tell a man to keep quiet. Ido not quite understand you. We do not want to make things unpleasant. You say you did not attach any importance to it. If you had not attached any importance to it I could understand your silence. Now you tell us there is nothing to make you doubt that the man meant what he said. If so, you must recognise that you were guilty of very great breach of duty towards an innocent man. Your duty was not to dissuade the man from saying anything, but to tell him that at any sacrifice it was his duty to make a clean breast of it and get the man out ?—lt may have been, but I did not look at it in that way. 372. Mr. Atkinson.] Have you any particular intimacy with Mr. Meikle ?—No. 373. You told Dr. Findlay you could not say as to the state of the pasture or feed on the two properties the year before ?—No. 374. I want to know whether you can say roughly how long the paddocks you saw at Mr. Meikle's must have been in English grass I—No, I could not say how long. Some of them had been longer than others. 375. Could you not say very roughly ?—Some of them may have been sown the year before, and some of them had been sown for two or three years. Francis Sutherland Fraser examined. 376. Mr. Atkinson.] You are a contractor carrying on business at Gore ?—Yes. 377. How many years have you been in business there ? —I left the Railway Department in 1876, and I have been following contracting since. 378. You have had some big drainage contract on for the Mataura Borough Council recently ?— Yes, the last contract I was at was in Mataura. 379. Was that for the Borough Council ? —Yes. 380. Did you give evidence at Lambert's trial in 1895 ? —Yes. 381. And you gave evidence also before Mr. Hawkins the Magistrate in the same year ? —Yes. 382. Did you see Mr. McGeorge when the case was before the Magistrate at Gore ?—Yes. 383. He was a witness there ? —Yes. 384. When had you last previously met him ?—I met him on a very wet day while I was doing the contract at Mataura. 385. And where exactly was it that you met him % —He came in with a team to Cameron's Hotel, and he left his team at the stables. 386. When had you last seen Mr. McGeorge before that meeting ?—lt was when I was a very young fellow and he was a young man too. I was at that time at Morton Mains, and McGeorge was at the same place in the early days contract ploughing. ■ _ - 387. How many years, roughly speaking, intervened between then and the time you met him afterwards I—l1 —I could not say. I have not looked vp M anything to remind me, but it niust- be fifteen or sixteen years. 388. You say McGeorge had a team with him. Do you know which way he was travelling or what journey he was making ? —He told me he came from the Islay Station and that he was making for Half-way Bush —the actual name of the place was Dacre—Mr. Hayes's place. 389. How long did McGeorge spend with you ?—I could hardly tell. He just came in with his team and fed his horses. We had a good conversation and had dinner together. 390. Did he go on the same day ? —Yes, he went early in the afternoon. 391. Was it a fit day for travelling ?—No; at that particular time it was raining'very hard. 392. But Mr. McGeorge went nevertheless ?—Yes. 393. Did you see Mr. William Stuart of the Islay Estate ?—That would be the gentleman who introduced himself to me when L was in Dunedin. He'said his name was Stuart, but I did not know the gentleman. 394. Then you did not meet him on that day to your knowledge ? —No, 395. Did you see Mr. Lambert that day ?—Yes,
91
H.—2l.
F. 8. PHASER.]
396. Where did you meet him first ? —I was going from Cameron's hotel over to Humphrey's. 397. There are two hotels on the same side of the river ? —No, Humphreys's hotel is on the opposite from Cameron's. 398. Were you actually crossing the bridge when you saw him ?—No, it was just shortly after I crossed. 399. Did you have any conversation with him ? —Yes. 400. Tell us what took place ?—Lambert met me and said, " Come back with me and we will have a 'nip' in Cameron's hotel." I said, "I am just getting away from Cameron's and am going over to Humphreys's." 401. What happened then, which way did you go ?—We went on to Humphreys's. 402. Did anybody come along while you were going there ?—Mr. Leece, the constable, was coming up, and Lambert said to me, "Keep me from this party" —"the -police" were the words I think used. Mr. Leece came straight up after we had been standing a minute or two, and Lambert went over and had some conversation with him. 403. Do you remember how the constable was dressed ? —Yes; at that particular time Mr. Leece was a stranger to me. He had on the spats and leggings, or boots, of the Constabulary Department, and had on a grey jacket and cap. He did not have his uniform on. 404. What happened when Leece and Lambert had finished their conversation : did you join them ?—No, I did not hear any conversation, but Lambert came over to me and we went down to Humphreys's. 405. And then ?—We went into the bar and had a drink. After that we went from the bar into the billiard-room. 406. What time of the day would that be ?—After I had my tea. When I met Lambert it was daylight, and when we went into the billiard-room they were lighting the lights in the billiard-room. 407. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Is there anything turning upon the time or date, Mr. Atkinson.? You have not asked this witness when this was, or what year. Mr. Atkinson : No, Your Honour, but he did meet McGeorge, and he has stated that he had not met him previously for over fifteen years. Mr. Justice Cooper : Can you not fix the period of time a little closer ? Mr. Atkinson : I have not seen the witness before coming to Dunedin. I did not know whether it would be necessary to call him, but from his evidence I think we shall be able to fix about the time. 408. Mr. Justice Edwards (to witness).] Do you know the time you are talking about I—l1 —I did meet McGeorge, and I had not met him for a good many years before. It was on the Monday I met him. 409. Mr. Justice Cooper.] You know the circumstances of Meikle's trial: can you not fix the date in any way from that ?—I think I can get something to fix the time, but I was never asked to do it. 410. Do you know whether it was before or after Lambert's trial ?—Yes. 411. Mr. Justice Cooper.] Was it before Meikle's trial ?—I do not know, I was not interested in Meikle's trial. Mr. Justice Edwards : There is no reason why you should not remember all the same. Mr. Atkinson : lam trying to get at the circumstances. If I had had an opportunity of seeing the witness before at his place of business or elsewhere I should have been better prepared. 412. Mr. Atkinson (to witness).] You say it was on a Monday, Mr. Fraser. Have you any reason for remembering that ? —I had to sink a well for the Mataura Dairy Factory when it was first started. The engineer thought it ought not to go deeper than 21 ft., but after going down some 16 ft. we came to lignite, and the contractors did not think there was enough water. We had then to go' on to another part, and went down 74 ft. I remember that they made me work on Sunday, and we were rather sensitive about working on Sunday. 413. How often before had you worked on a Sunday ?—I had never worked on a Sunday before, except when repairing engines. 414. How long was Mr. Lambert with you in Humphreys's hotel ? —I could not tell you exactly, but I think Lambert had a game after we went into the billiard-room. Ido not play billiards myself. Lambert was very jolly and all that sort of thing. 415. How long was Lambert there with you ? —Lambert was away before me, and I left at 9 o'clock. 416. How long did Lambert stay % —lt might have been half an hour, perhaps more, not less. 417. What sort of night was it for travelling ? —There was a slackness in the rain when I was going down that evening to the hotel, but I had to run pretty quickly when I was going back. I had just my working-clothes on. 418. Do you know the nature of the road from Mataura —I mean the road you believe McGeorge to have travelled from Mataura to Isla\ T ?— 419. Dr. Findlay.] You were speaking this morning to events of eighteen years —in the year 1887 ? —Somewhere about that time. 420. You gave evidence at Lambert's trial ? —Yes. 421. Do you remember where you first gave evidence ? —At the Magistrate's Court at Gore. 422. Could you remember signing the depositions which you then swore to ? —I could not remember signing them. 423. You gave evidence afterwards in the Supreme Court ?—-Yes. 424. May I take it that your recollection in 1895—eleven years ago —of what took place in 1887 was clearer than your recollection to-day. If I can show you that you said something different on oath on Lambert's trial to what you say to-day, I suppose you will be prepared to admit that the statement you made then must be taken in preference to the statement you make now ?—lf I told a thing in 1895, that would be correct probably. Ido not think I told a lie to-day.
H.—2l.
[F. S. FBASEH.
425. You told Mr. Atkinson this morning that " McGeorge came in with a team to Cameron's hotel, I met him." Is that correct ?—Yes. 426. Then you told us afterwards that McGeorge had the team with him. Did you see the team at all on the day you saw McGeorge ?—I could not swear to it. 427. You could not swear you saw the team at all on that day ?—Yes, I think I can now. 428. You are quite sure you saw it that day ? —Yes. 429. Then perhaps you will tell us why you said when the case was heard by Mr. Justice Williams, on page 40 of this printed book I give you an opportunity of recollecting it more carefully : do you swear that you saw McGeorge's team at all on that day in Mataura ?—Excuse me, I said already I was never asked that question. I went to the stable and saw McGeorge's team. 430. Do you swear that you saw McGeorge's team or any team with McGeorge ?—I could not swear that. McGeorge showed me the horses and the horses he was driving. 431. Then you did see the team ? —I did see the team. 432. Why did you say on oath in 1895 " I did not see him with the team " ? —That is perfectly right. What I meant was that I did not see McGeorge coming in or going away with the team. 433. Then I take it that by this statement, "He came in with a team to Cameron's hotel. I met him," you did not mean to say that you saw him coming in with the team ? —No. 434. You did not see him go away with the team ?—No; I went to the stable and saw the team of horses. 435. Afterwards you saw a team which McGeorge said was his team ?—Yes. We were always very much inclined to go and see horses. 436. Where were the horses ?—ln Cameron's stables. 437. Did he take you to see them ?—Yes. 438. What time did he take you to see his team ? —lt would be after dinner. We spent two hours together. 439. Was he one of the mates you wanted to get away that you told Mr. Atkinson about this morning ? —No, that was at night. 440. You spent two hours with him, and you tell us he took you out to see his team ?—We only had to go to the back door of the hotel to pass into the stable where the horses were. 441. It was a very wet day you told us ?—Yes. 442. And he took you from the hotel to the back of the premises to see a team of horses. Was there anything about it ?—I do not say he did it, but he was looking after his horses. 443. You took it that that was his team ?—Yes. 444. How many were there ?—I could not say. 445. You saw some horses there and you assumed they were his team ? —Yes. 446. How many horses were in the stable altogether ?—A great many. 447. You are a friend of Mr. Meikle's I—lf1 —If you call it a friend. lam not an enemy entirely. 448. What would you mean if you were to say that Meikle is a friend ?—Certainly Meikle is a friend. 449. When you meet him you speak to him ?—Yes. 450. When did he first come to you and ask you to recollect what day this was in 1887 ?—I cannot tell you. I told you he came to me two or three times. 451. How long before you gave evidence for him in Lambert's trial ?—I could not tell you that. 452. It would be some time after he came out of gaol at any rate ?—Yes. 453. And .shortly before you gave evidence at Lambert's trial ?—Yes. I did not wish to give evidence. 454. It would be seven or eight years after the event that Meikle first came to you ?—lt might be some time like that. 455. You had no particular occasion to keep this thing in your memory all these years ?—No. 456. This meeting of Mr. McGeorge was not a red-letter day in your life I suppose ?—Yes, it was, and I will tell you why : we were working on the Sunday, and Monday being wet we had a very quiet time. 457. Why are you so absolutely certain it was not the Tuesday after the Sunday which was wet ? —I am not very sure but that we were sorry with ourselves for having worked on Sunday and having to go idle on Monday. 458. That does not seem to answer my question. Why at the period of time when Meikle first spoke to you eight years afterwards were you sure it was not the Tuesday following the Sabbath-break-ing incident ?—I did not go to the Supreme Court to give evidence with regard to any date. When they convinced me that McGeorge met me on Monday the 17th, if the 17th was the date, that was correct. I had not seen McGeorge for fifteen or sixteen years before that. 459. You have taken it on the authority of others that it was a Monday ? —No ; it was a Monday that I met McGeorge. 460. Who convinced you ? —No one convinced me it was a Monday. They convinced me the date was the 17th. They did not convince me it was a Tuesday. 461. You were always quite sure it was the Monday ? —Yes ; I am under that impression to the present time. 462. You are quite sure of it now ?—Yes. 463. Though you were not quite sure when you gave your oath before Mr. Justice Williams ?— What! 464. This is what you swore : " I think it was a Monday, because I had been working on a Sunday for the second time in my life. lam not quite sure " ?—That would be about the date. 465. No. " I think it was a Monday for a certain reason, but lam not quite sure." Why have
92
i\ S. FBASEE.]
93
H.-21.
you grown more sure in the interval ?—I am very sorry you have taken that up, because I think I could convince you with proof. 466. Here you have sworn before Mr. Justice Williams that you were not quite sure it was a Monday, and that only seven years after the event, and now, seventeen years and a half afterwards, you are sure it was a Monday ?—lf I said that in the Court before, I say at the present time that I swear it was the Monday without any hesitation. 467. Your memory seems to improve as the time goes by ?—No. 468. I did not intend to trouble you about your character at all. This may turn out to be an important matter. Before Mr. Justice Williams you swore you were not sure it was a Monday, and eleven years after that you come here and say it was ?—lf that was a Monday, I swore the same in the Court as I swear here. 469. What do you mean ? —That we were working on the Sunday, and Monday became wet, and then we met McGeorge, and McGeorge said it was Monday, and they all told me it was Monday. 470. Who is the " all " ? —I had three or four men with me. 471. They all told you it was the Monday ? Who were they all ?—There was no " all." 472. You used the word just now. I will give you names : Mr. McGeorge ?—No ; McGeorge never said anything about it. 473. Well, Mr. Meikle told you ?—Greaves told me. 474. Did not Meikle come to you, and say it was Monday, 17th October ?—He did. 475. They convinced you it was a Monday ?—They did not convince me. 476. You are not sure it was Monday ?—Yes. 477. Notwithstanding what you said when this man was tried for perjury ? —Yes. 478. I want you to tell me directly. You swore eleven years ago that you were not sure it was a Monday, and you swear now that you are sure. Is that so ? —lt is a long time since, and if I had thought that this question was to be raised I should have taken some little proof in addition to my own word ; but if you will give me time to get back to Gore, I will be quite sure. 479. There is this difference : when you gave your evidence before Judge Williams we had nothing about these teams, and now you come here this morning and say you saw this man come in with his team, and now you say you did not see him coming in with his team, but that you saw his horses ? — I did not see McGeorge with his team. I said I did not see him come in or go out with his team, but that I went in and saw the team in the stable. 480. Meikle is a friend of yours ?—Yes. 481. How long have you known him ?—I have known him for a long time. I think I knew him in the early times in Gore. 482. Did Meikle give evidence for you in any of the charges on which you have been tried and convicted ? —Yes. But I have paid for those offences. 483. You have been convicted of assault, of being drunk and disorderly, of resisting the police, of assault on a bailiff ; you have been charged with common assault, and convicted of common assault, and ordered to find sureties ; you have been eight times before the Court—seven times since the year 1888. That is true, is it not ?—lt must be. 484. Mr. Atkinson.] How did you know that McGeorge had come along that day from Islay ?— I did not know. 485. How did you know that was the day he came fiorn Islay ? —By Mr. McGeorge telling me. 486. Have you any other means but your memory and the wet day by which you can fix this particular day ?—I was sinking this well for the dairy, and the directors asked me to work my men on the Sunday, and, but for Monday becoming wet, we should not have been idle on the Monday. But we were not idle on the Tuesday. Mr. Johnston, the engineer, came from Invercargill to see the dairy factory on the Wednesday. 487. As to fixing that date, was there any business that you did on the Monday ?—Yes ; I went to Mac Gibbon, one of the directors, and I- am confident I drew some money from him to pay the men. 488. That payment could be traced ?—I should think so. 489. Is there any other event ? Can you think of any sales on that day in the neighbourhood ? —Not that I know of. There was nothing to remind me of the day but that it was a wet day and we were idle. William John Winter examined. 490. Mr. Atkinson.] What are you ? —I am a farmer residing at Wyndham. 491. Do you know the Islay Estate and Meikle's property as it then was in 1887 ?—Yes. 492. Did you have occasion to visit the neighbourhood before Meikle was convicted ?—Yes ; I had some cattle on turnips on property belonging to McGettigan. The road passes between McGettigan's and Meikle's properties. 493. You rode through to McGettigan's ? —Yes. 494. Did you see anything that day that would help you to fix the date ?—There was the agreement I made with McGettigan in the month of June. Forsyth and I had an agreement with McGettigan for the turnips and straw that he had. 495. Had you anything to fix the year ? —The block or butt of my cheque-book. The cheque was paid in August, 1887. I can'produce the butt of the cheque-book. 496. It was in August, 1887 ?—lt was in August, 11587, that I paid for the turnips. 497. Was it about that time that you visited him ?—Both before and after this I had occasion to go to McGettigan's land. 498. Was Forsyth with you on any of these occasions ?—lt was between the Ist and 6th of September that we took our beasts.
H.—2l.
94
[W. J. WINTER.
499. What sort of cultivation was the pre-emptive right in at that time ?—I think there was some of the country ploughed, but the bulk of it was in tussock. I was only a short distance over the property. 500. Could you give us any estimate of what proportion of it could be ploughed ?—No. 501. What state was Meikle's cultivation in ? —He had also his ploughed and cultivated with oats, I think. I think Meikle asked us to take the cattle that way for a short cut. 502. Did you go that way ?—No, we kept to the road. 503. Why ?—We had sixty-odd head of cattle, and I did not want to cut the ground up. 504. Was there any English grass on any of these two properties ?—There were paddocks which had been sown down a year or two further back on Meikle's land. 505. What was the general quality of the land as compared with the land in the neighbourhood generally ?—I could not say that there was anything like first- or second-class land. 506. How did Meikle's or the Islay land compare with the other land round there ?—Meikle's land was more cultivated, I should say. 507. Dr. Findlay.] I suppose quite naturally you cannot remember much about it ? —No, I do not remember much about it. 508. You do not remember the area in turnips on the company's land ?—I do not remember. 509. You were there casually with these cattle ? —I was there four times between June and the time I took them away. 510. You cannot undertake to tell their Honours what the respective feed was on the company's land ? —Not a great deal. The land was fairly bare at that time. It was close on September. The spring had not virtually set in. 511. And the pasture would naturally be as bad as it could be ?—Yes. 512. You did not see any turnips on the company's land ?—I did not see any. 513. Do you remember the Meikle trial I —Yes. 514. You were not asked to give evidence ?—No. 515. Did you give evidence later in the trial of Lambert ?—No. 516. When were you first asked to recall what the condition of Meikle's land was in 1887 ?—I cannot say that I was ever asked. The first I heard of it was from Forsyth. I did not expect to be brought here. 517. You do not consider now that you know much about it ? —No. 518. Was Meikle in your debt then ?—Yes. 519. What for ?—For some harness he had got from me. 520. Was it about the time of his conviction ?—Before that a long time. 521. Have you ever been paid ? —No. 522. Were you ever told by him that he would pay you from the proceeds of the sale of a horse ? —Yes ; part of it. 523. Did he tell you where he got the horse from ? —No ; it was a horse on his place. 524. Did you ever tell anybody as to how he got the horse ?—He told me he was going to sell a horse. 525. How did he get it ? —I could not swear, but I understood it was one of the horses he bought off Scott. Mr. Atkinson.] I have received a letter from Mr. Forsyth stating that he has been able to fix the date as the first week in September, 1887. Arthur Perkins examined. 526. Mr. Atkinson.] What are you I—l1 —I am a farmer and coal-pit proprietor near Gore. 527. Did you do some work for Meikle in 1887 ? —Yes. 528. What sort of work ?—Ploughing and helping him in cropping. 529. What part of his land ? —lt was the paddock adjoining the pre-emptive right, pretty near the Mimihau. 530. Have you any means of fixing the date precisely ?—No, it was so long ago. 531. What season of the year was it ? —September. 532. Was the land sown before you left ?—Yes, I left after it was sown. 533. Had you any work to do in connection with the sowing ? —Meikle sowed and I harrowed it in. 534. What was the crop I—Oats.1 —Oats. 535. Did you see Lambert while you were there ?—Yes, he was rabbiting and looking after the sheep on the pre-emptive right. 536. Were there any turnips on Meikle's property then ?—There were turnips where I was ploughing. The turnips were not eaten right down. I was ploughing them in. 537. Did you ever have occasion to say anything about the company's sheep ? —They were running on the turnips and were in the road, and I told him that he would have to take them off. 538. Have you any knowledge how they got there ?—No. 539. When is the season for putting sheep on turnips ?—ln July and August. 540. Were the turnips good feed for sheep in October ?—No, because there is generally a crop put on the land. 541. But supposing the crop is not put in, what condition would the turnips be in in October ?— They would be all rotten. 542. What was the feed on Meikle's property ?—Two or three paddocks had been sown in English grass. 543. About what height would it be ? —When I left him there was one paddock going to be cut for hay to thresh. There was good feed on the place. I had a hack running there and I had no need to feed him.
95
H.—2l.
A. PEBKINS.]
544. What feed was there on the pre-emptive right ?—Only a few odd tussocks. I never saw any feed on the pre-emptive right worth speaking of. 545. Had there been any turnips there that season ? —I do not know. 546. Did you have any conversation with Lambert as to what he was employed for I—He1 —He told me that he had to get Meikle out of the place, that the company wanted the land. 547. Did he say on what terms he was to be employed ? —That he was to get £50 if he could get him out. 548. Did you have any more conversation with him than that ? —No, I do not think I saw him after that until I met him in Gore. 549. Where did you leave for ?—I went away shearing, and then went to Sydney. 550. When did you return to the colony ? —ln 1894. I can fix it by the wreck of the Wairarapa. I came over in the following boat. 551. Have you been in New Zealand ever since then ? —Three times since then. 552. Where were you in 1895 ?—I was in New South Wales part of 1895 and in New Zealand part of 1895. 553. Were you in New Zealand when Lambert was tried ? —I was in New Zealand when he was tried at Gore, but when he was tried at Invercargill I was in Sydney. 554. Do you remember what dogs were about the place ?—Two dogs—a yellow collie and an old black dog. 555. What sort of workers were they ?—I never saw the old black one work. The boys used to go rabbiting with the yellow one. At poisoning time that dog would pick up as many rabbits as a retriever. 555 a. Did you hear either of those dogs make a noise ? —lf you came about the place. 556. Dr. Findlay.] When is the shearing season in that part of New Zealand ?—About the first week in November. I shore at Edendale in November, 1894, I think. 557. You went away after you left Meikle ? —Yes, with a few settlers to Gore. 558. Up to what time did you do shearing that year ? —I shore for two or three settlers around Gore. 559. Up to what time ?—Up to about Christmas. 560. You were in New Zealand during the trial of Meikle for sheep-stealing ?—No. 561. Where were you ? —ln Sydney. 562. Is it true that you were here in Southland up to about Christmas in 1887 ? —Yes. 563. That was the year in which Meikle was convicted ?—I was not in Southland at the time he was convicted. 564. Meikle was first tried on the 18th November, and you were shearing in Southland up to Christmas of that year. Will you swear that you did not hear of his trial ?—No, I was not shearing that year, I was in Sydney when his trial was on. 565. Were you shearing in Southland in Christmas, 1887 ? —No, I was not. 566. Why did you say you were just now ? —lt was the year before. 567. Was it not the year before that you were at Meikle's ploughing ?—I was at Meikle's until September that year. 568. Then you did shear up to Christmas. You were at Meikle's up to September in the year you did the shearing up to Christmas ? —I was at Meikle's two winters, the year before this ploughing. That is the year I was shearing at Edendale. 569. Were you shearing up to Christmas that year ? —Not in 1887, it is so long ago I can hardly remember. 570. That is why I wondered why you were so certain about it. Where did you go when you left Meikle's in September ? —I could not say, I went backwards and forwards so often to Sydney and other places that I could not mention the year. 571. You cannot be certain of the year you were at Meikle's. Why did you swear it was 1887 ?— I cannot swear that. 572. You cannot swear you were at Meikle's in 1887 ? —No, I cannot swear it. 573. First you say you cannot swear that you were at Meikle's until Christmas, 1887, and yet you say you saw Lambert ?—I could not say it was 1887 I was there, but I know that when Lambert was there on the pre-emptive right I was there, but I could not swear as to the year. 574. You did see Lambert there ? —Yes. 575. Where did you see Lambert when he had the conversation with you ?—He was following me with the plough, He was rabbiting and looking after the sheep. 576. On whose land ? —On the pre-emptive right. He was digging out rabbits. 577. He was digging out rabbits on Meikle's land while you were ploughing ? —Yes. 578. How many conversations had you with him ?—When I was in the hut he was talking to me there, and would sit up till 10 or 12 o'clock at night. 579. And I suppose he told you more than once that he was to get Meikle out of it ?—Only once. 580. What did he say ? —He said he was to get Meikle out of the place —that the company wanted the ground. 581. What was he to get for it ?—£so. 582. How was he to do it ? —I do not know. 583. Did he not tell you how he was to do it I—No.1 —No. 584. Was he merely to catch Meikle sheep-stealing —was that the way it was to be done ?—I do not know; I was only a working-man, and it had nothing to do with me. 585. Had you any conversation with him about it afterwards % —Not a word about anything'hfterwards.
H.—2l.
96
[a. peekins.
586. Did you report it to Meikle ?—No. 587. How long after this conversation was it before you left Meikle's employ ? —About a fortnight or three weeks. 588. And you do not know where you went to ? —I went to Wyndham first, and stopped there for a day or two. 589. Perhaps you will tell us the date you went to Sydney ?—I could not say. 590. Did you go there shearing ? —No, to work on a railway contract. 591. I suppose you wandered about a good deal ?—Yes. 592. I suppose your wdiereabouts are about as uncertain as your dates ? —I never keep dates as to where I am. 593. Mr. Atkinson.] Do you know anything about the fences ? —No, very little about them. 594. They had nothing to do with you ? —No. James Connor examined. 595. Mr. Atkinson.] Your name is James Connor ? —Yes. 596. You are a farm labourer ?—Yes. 597. Do you reside in Gore I —Yes. 598. You used to work for Meikle some years ago ?—Yes, four or five years ago. 599. And do you remember the time he was convicted and sent to prison ?—Yes. 600. Did you do any work on the land after he went to prison ? —I was stacking for Mrs. Meikle after that. 601. Before he was convicted, did you ever see the company's sheep on Meikle's land?—l did, often. 602. Did you know how they got there ?—I did know how some of them got in ; I saw them coming through where the company had put up the fence, and the posts in the hollow sprung up and the sheep got through there. 603. From which side did they get in ?—From the hills. 604. Did any come in from the other side ? —Yes, from the pre-emptive right. 605. I suppose you did not keep any account of the numbers ? —No. 606. Did you after Meikle was in gaol ever see any of the company's sheep on his land ? —Twice when I was stacking. 607. On what part of the property was that ?—Well, some of the fence was all right, more was not very good. 608. On which part of the property was it ?—On the pre-emptive right side. 609. I suppose you had not paid any particular attention to the fences ?—No, I did not, sir. 610. Can you say how much of Meikle's land was in grass ?—Three paddocks in English grass. 611. About the time he went to prison ? —At the time when I left he had most of the rest in turnips. The turnips were all sown except a patch on the side of the hill. 612. What was the other ground like ?—lt was in tussock. 613. Dr. Findlay.] You had been in Meikle's employ for some years before he was convicted ? — Yes. 614. How many years ? —Four or five years. lam not sure if I was five years. 615. You were a very great friend of the family ?—No, I have no friends but myself. 616. Well, you liked the place. You were there four or five years ? —I had no fault to it. 617. You stayed after he was convicted ? —No, I did not. I was there stacking. Mrs. Meikle had sent for me. 618. You had been in Court before to help him ?—Yes. 619. When ?—The time of the perjury cases. 620. Even before that you came in to help him ?—I came to tell the truth. 621. What case was that ? —The perjury case. 622. Did you give evidence in both of the perjury cases which were brought against Meikle ? —I gave evidence of what I saw. 623. You gave evidence in the Lambert trial did you not ? —Yes. 624. Did you in any trial before that ?—When he was "pulled" for perjury. 625. Just so You gave evidence for Meikle when he was tried for perjury on two occasions ?— No, only one. 626. Let me recall to you. The case was heard twice before the jury ?—I only gave evidence once in the perjury case. 627. You gave evidence in the Macaulay assault case ?—Yes. 628. You gave evidence that Macaulay did not touch Meikle ?—Yes. 629. And the Magistrate did not believe you ?—No, I was not in Gore in that case. 630. Do you swear you did not give evidence in the assault case ?—I gave evidence in the Supreme Court, but not in Gore. 631. When you gave evidence, did you not say that Meikle did not touch Macaulay ?—I said I saw Macaulay going out, and I did not see Meikle catching him, and he went away. 632. To the effect that no assault had been committed ?—I said all I saw was him coming in and going out, and I did not see Meikle touching him. 633. You said you could have seen an assault if there had been one, and you saw no assault ? — I did not see any assault. 634. And that was the assault for which the Magistrate sent him to gaol for a month ? —He sent him to gaol for the Gore assault. Ido not care that much for Meikle or any other one, but just to tell the truth.
J. SHIELS.']
H.— 2l.
Jane Shiels examined 635. Your name is Jane Shiels ? —Yes. 636. You are a married woman ?—Yes. 637. What is your husband's name ?—Robert Shiels. 638. Does he live in Wyndham ?—At Menzies Ferry. 639. And is a farmer I think ?—Yes. 640. Your maiden name was Geary ? —Yes. 641. You were a servant at Meikle's in 1887 ?—Yes. 642. I think you remember giving evidence on the occasion of his trial ?—Yes, 643. Did you give evidence when Lambert was tried ?—No. 644. Do you remember the reason ?—Yes. 645. Were you ill ? —Yes. 646. A baby was born about that time ?—Yes. 647. What was the baby's birthday ?—July, 1895. 648. At what time in 1887 did you leave Meikle's employment ?—7th October. 649. Did you ever see Lambert at Meikle's ? —Yes. 650. How often would he be there ?—I could not swear how often I saw him—not often. 651. More than once ?—Yes, I saw him more than once. 652-. Did you hear him say anything about what he was employed for ?—Yes. 653. Just tell us what you remember ?—I heard him say he was going to get £50 to get Mr. Meikle convicted. 654. Would there be anybody else present when he talked like that ?—Yes, but I could not swear who else was present. 655. Do you remember anything more bearing on it ?—No, I could not swear to anything more. 656. Did you ever look at the Judge's notes of what you swore in 1887 ?—Yes, I have seen it. 657. Was there anything there you knew to be wrong ?—As far as I could recollect it was correct. 658. But you did not recollect more than you said ?—No. 659. Dr. Findlay.] Your maiden name was Geary ?—Yes. 660. Are you related in any way to Mrs. Meikle ?—No. 661. Is your husband living ? —Yes. 662. You gave evidence at the Magistrate's Court at Wyndham and afterwards at the Supreme Court when Meikle was tried ? —Yes. 663. You were a general servant, I suppose, on Meikle's place for two years and eight months ?— Yes. 664. Let us have a little detail about this meeting of Lambert's. How long after Lambert came was this conversation ?—I could not swear how long it was, but it was after I left. 665. Could you swear who were present ?—Not now. 666. Can you swear to the words that were used ?—To some of them. 667. Only to some ? —I could not remember all that was said. 668. Give us what you remember ?—I remember him talking of going to get £50. 669. For what purpose ?—To get Mr. Meikle convicted. 670. You do not remember how he was to do it, or anything of that sort ?—I do not remember now. 671. All you could remember is that he was to get £50 if he could get Meikle convicted ?—Yes. 672. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Who did he say it to ? He must have been speaking to somebody ? Who was it ?—I think he was speaking to Mr. Meikle. 673. Dr. Findlay.] How many others were present ?—I could not tell you. Some of the children were present, and Mrs. Meikle. 674. You cannot tell who were present—whether any strangers were present or not ?—No, I could not. Thomas Westacote examined. 675. Mr. Atkinson.] You are a butcher ?—Yes, sir. 676. Where are you at present carrying on business ?—I am not carrying on business at present. I was carrying it on in Wyndham. 677. Where are you now ?—I am droving, and doing a little dealing in West Plains and Invercargill. 678. Formerly you were a butcher in Wyndham ? —Yes. 679. What years were you in Wyndham ?—Well, it will be seventeen years the Ist of next July since I was burnt out of Wyndham. Ido not think I resided there for six months after that. 680. How long had you been in business there ?—Between six and seven years. 681. You were there at the time Meikle was in prison ?—Yes. 682. Did you ever visit his property ?—I used to gojip there sometimes for an occasional ride on Sunday. 683. Did you go up to Meikle's ?—Not chiefly to Meikle's—to Mr. McGettigan's. 684. And you would see Meikle's property ? I suppose you would ride through it ?—A corner of the pre-emptive right. 685. Can you remember the state in which the pre-emptive right was—say taking the.October of 1887—can you fix that ?—Well I never saw much feed on the pre-emptive right at any time. 686. Could you remember the last time you rode up before Meikle got into trouble ?—That I could not. 687. What would turnips be good for in October in Southland ?—Well, they would be very slack and scarce in October.
13— H. 21.
97
H.—2l.
98
[t. westacotk.
688. Why would they be in poor condition in October ?—Well, they are pretty run out; they are coming on to the spring grass, and the sheep would come on to the spring grass. 689. Do you remember the actual condition of any turnips there were on the pre-emptive right ? —I cannot say that I noticed much good turnip on the pre-emptive right. It is nineteen years ago now since that time. 690. Would you remember roughly how much was ploughed ?—Really, I could not measure by the eye. 691. Can you tell us anything about the state of the cultivation of Meikle's farm ?—Well, I have been over the lower portion of it, which seemed pretty good grass, and one portion—a few acres of oats —seemed very good. 692. What sort of grass ?—lt seemed pretty good English grass. 693. What was the nature generally of the feed outside ?—I did not take particular notice outside, only coming through the corner of the pre-emptive right, and by the road-line. I generally rode a colt. 694. What would you say generally as to the condition of Meikle's as compared with Islay Station ? —Well, I would prefer the portion of Meikle's that I have been through before anything else in the Islay Estate. It seemed very good what I have been through. 695. How long have you been accustomed to stock ?—I think I have been amongst them, I recollect, since I was only a boy eleven years of age. I was bred and born a butcher amongst stock. 696. You describe yourself as a drover now \— Yes. 697. Do you know the smithy in Meikle's buildings ?—I never took particular notice of the smithy. I know about where, it "is. 698. Would it be an easy job to put in, say twenty or thirty sheep through an 18 in. door in the dark ?—A lunatic might try it, but I should not like to try it in the dark. 699. And suppose there were a 4 ft. door just around the corner ?—Even so, you would knock the stock about more than two days' driving would do, you would do them more harm. 700. What business dealings did you have with Meikle ?—I supplied him with beef and bread, and used to get potatoes and oats off him occasionally. 701. How much would his account with you average for the year ?—The average would be about £60. 702. Have you got your books ?—I am sorry that I have not. As I said, I was burnt out —books, plant, and all. There should be one account here for £26, but it was left at the Supreme Court. 703. Which trial would it have been ? You refer to one of his previous actions ?—I think so. 704. You gave evidence in one of them ?—I think so. I have been twelve months sick, and my recollection is gone a bit; but I must study up a bit. 705. One was produced in the Supreme Court previously ?—Yes. 706. Do you remember what period it covered —what length of time ?—lt was between £9 and £10 for the time. 707. How long would that be for ?—I think for one month —that he had some men ploughing for him. I would not be sure to a few shillings, but I fancy that was the amount. 708. Can you recollect what season he got the most from you, or was it quite variable ?—At harvest time and lambing time he had the most. 709. What is the lambing time ?—From August up to October. 710. Can you remember the items ? I think there was a receipt produced. Do you remember the items for the first part of October of that year ?—I think I could give you nearer the middle of the month. There was a carcase of mutton, 50 lb. corned beef, and 80 lb. steak beef, and so-many loaves, amounting up to £2 6s. or £2 ss. 711. Have you any means of fixing any of the dates covered by these items ?—lt was on a Sundaymorning I gave them to Meikle. It was a very rough Saturday night, and he said he was not going home, and I got up and gave them to him on Sunday morning ; that was the 16th. 712. So youi business was done on Saturday night, and he did not take them away until Sunday morning ?—No. 713. Did you see any sheep-skins ?—I was ordered out of the lower Court, but I saw them outside. 714. Were you put into the box ?—Yes, but I was ordered outside. 715. What was the reason ?—I do not know, but I was ordered out. 716. Was it not that Meikle was charged with stealing skins ? —I do not know as to that; but as soon as I was ordered out I walked out. 717. What sorts of skins were they ?—Dead-wool skins. 718. What does dead-wool skins mean ?—Skins of sheep that died of inflammation. 719. Could you form any idea of the age of them ?—No. 720. Were there any peculiar marks on them ?—Wire-marks. 721. Is that a distinct mark ?—A wire-mark from hanging over a wire fence, head and tail, like that [illustrating the position]. They showed the wire-mark. 722. You were saying something particular about the wire-mark ?—They were not hung head and tail down ; they were hung over this way [illustrating the manner]. 723. Dr. Findlay.] You do not pretend to remember definitely how all the pastures on Meikle's land compared with those on the company's land ?—No. 724. I think you mentioned' a little while ago that you were supplying Meikle with goods ?— Yes. 725. Were you in his debt, or was he in yours ?—He was in debt, undoubtedly. 726. At the time he was tried, how much did he owe you ?—I think it was something between £9 and £10.
T. WESTACOTE.]
1<.—21.
99
727. Did you ask for payment at the time ?—No. 728. Have you got it since ?—No. 729. Do you think you are likely to get it ? —Well, I suppose we will have to let it slide. 730. You may or may not get it—that all depends ? —Yes. 731. Now, you do not suggest it was impossible to drive those sheep through ?—No. 732. Do you know Mr. Wardell, farmer ?—I know him just personally, that is all. 733. He says in giving his evidence if one or two sheep were put in the door the others would draw better ?—Not without a light, sir. 734. But if a lantern were put inside the place first they would draw better ?—lf the lantern was waved about in front of the sheep, and you had a good powerful dog. 735. And a good forcing arm ?—You want a dog that harks well; but it would not be very easy in the dark. 736. When did you first give evidence for Meikle ?—I think it was in the Gore Court. I forget the date. 737. Was that at the trial of Lambert ?—I think so. 738. You gave no evidence at the trial of Meikle ?—-Yes; I just showed the books, that is all. 739. You were not asked anything about the pastures ?—No. 740. You gave evidence for Meikle before Judge Ward in the Supreme Court, when Meikle was tried ?—Yes, just about the meat and bread. 741. You were not asked anything about the skins, then ?—No, I was not. 742. It was not until years afterwards you were asked about the skins ? —About eight years now. I think I was asked at the time Lambert was tried, but I could not trust to my memory exactly. 743. You think it was about the time Lambert was tried that you were first asked about the skins ? -Yes. 744. The skins you say you saw were seen outside the Courthouse ?—Yes. 745. When Meikle was being tried ?—Yes, in Wyndham, outside the Courthouse. 746. Where Meikle was being tried for sheep-stealing ? —Yes. 747. And you then formed the opinion that they were of sheep which had died on the run ?— Yes. 748. Did you tell Meikle that ?—I never mentioned it to Meikle. 749. Then you gave evidence, and still there was nothing said about the skins ?—No. 750. Mr. Atkinson.] You said that with a powerful dog, and a barking dog, and a light, that it might be possible to work the sheep through that 18 in. door ?—Yes. 751. What would you think of a man who would do that when there was a 4 ft. door open at the same place ?—I think he would be a lunatic to try the thing. 752. Would it require a skilled hand to get sheep into an 18 in. door even under the conditions you mention ?—Yes. 753. How was your attention first called to the skins at the Wyndham Court ? —I was brought into the box. The skins were brought out, and Mr. Forsyth ordered me to go out of the Court. I think Mr- Harvey was in the Court at the time, and would not allow me to speak. 754. Who is Mr. Harvey —a solicitor in Invercargill ?—I think so. 755. Do you know for whom he was appearing ?—No, I forget. 756. Was he appearing for Meikle ?—I could not say. I was ordered out of the Court; and I looked at the skins, and went out. 757. Mr. Justice Cooper.] You say you can tell the difference between skins taken from a sheep that has been killed and skins taken from a sheep which has died from natural causes, or inflammation, and that you noticed the difference in this instance in these skins ?—Yes, there was a difference. 758. How did you arrive at the conclusion that these skins had been hung on a wire fence ?— The wire-mark was down through them. - ' 759. Was there any discolouration in the skins ?—There was the inflammation. 760. And there was the discolouration of the wire-mark ?—Yes, just a sort of tinge. 761. But you noticed that distinctly ?—Yes. 762. Mr. Atkinson.] Did you ever buy any meat from Mr. Meikle ?—Certainly not, I never bought a hoof from Meikle. I bought from no one but Mr. Royse, who supplied me chiefly with butter and bacon. When you come to think that the difference in distance in driving the stock from Meikle's would be nearly five miles up and down hill, the cost would be very much greater. The cost from Meikle's would he over £1, and I can do it for 10s. James Meikle examined. 763. Mr. Atkinson.] You are a labourer residing at Sunnyside, Mataura ?—Yes. 764. What kind of a labourer ?—A farm labourer, and any kind of labourer. 765. You are a son of Mr. J. J. Meikle '—Yes. 766. Of course you remember his trial in 1887 ?—Yes. 767. About what age were you then ?—Between twelve and fourteen. 768. What room did you sleep in at the time your father got into trouble ? —ln the room with my brother Arthur. 769. Have you any occasion to remember the 17th October of that year ?—Yes. 770. What can you fix it by ?—On account of Arthur's illness, and father going to a sale. 771. What was the matter with your brother ?• —He was ill in bed. 772. Do you know what the trouble was with him ? —lt was a severe illness from a heavy cold 773. How long that day was he in bed ?—All day. 774. Do you remember the next day or two —what condition was he in ?—He was still ill.
H.—2l.
100
[j. MEIKLE,
775. What sale were you referring to ? —Waters's sale. 776. Did your father go to that sale ? —No. 777. Why did he not go ? —On account of Arthur's illness, and the rough weather. 778. It was a really rough day ? —lt was a rough day. 779. About what time did you get to sleep that night — the night of the wet day of Waters s sale ?—lt was well on to morning. 780. What is your usual time for turning in ? —About 9 or 10. 781. How is it you were up so late that night I—l1 —I was helping to nurse my brotner. 782. Can you say how much of the next day he was in bed ? —All day. 783. Were you nursing him the next night ?—Yes, 1 was still nursing him. 784. Do you know about how long he was ill, roughly speaking ? —A good few days. 785. How many dogs were there about your father's place '—There was only one dog, so far as I can remember. 786. Whose dog was that ?—lt was a dog with a broken leg. 787. You do not remember any other dog ?—No. 788. You had not any,'of your own ? —No. 789. Whose dog was the one with the broken leg ? —lt belonged to the place, just. 790. Did you ever see Mr. Lambert about that time ?—Yes. 791. Where did you see him ? —At our home. 792. Did you see him more than once ? —Yes, he was there several times. 793. Do you know who was .employing him ? —The company. 794. That is the company which owned the Islay Estate ?—Yes 795. Did Lambert say anything about what the company employed him for ?—Yes. 796. What was it, as near as you can recollect ? —He was to get my father put away by putting skins there, and get £50 for it. 797. Did you hear him say that more than once ? —Yes. 798. Who would be present when he was talking like that ?—Several in the house. 799. Dr. Findlay ] What year are you generally led to believe you were born ? —ln 1875. 800. What day ?—l6th March 801. So that you were a few months over twelve years when these events happened ?—Yes 802. And as to these conversations of Lambert's, I suppose you can recollect them quite distinctly ? You were then a little over twelve, and it is nearly nineteen years since. You can recollect distinctly what this man said ? —Yes, I can. 803. If you can remember so distinctly, tell us who were present at the time ?—Father and mother, and the rest of the family, and the servant. 804. Who was the servant ? —There was a servant girl there called Jane Geary. 805. Anyone else ?—William Harvey. 806. Any more ? —No more that I can remember. 807. Now, before all those people, you can remember quite distinctly that this man said he would get your father away by putting skins there ?—Yes. 808. What do you mean by " there ? " Your father said he was going to put them in the barn or smithy ? —Yes, put them on the place. 809. Your father stated that he expressly said he was going to put them in the smithy ?—He said he would put them on the place. 810. I want to know from you was it on the place or in the barn ?•—On the place. 811. Not in the barn ?— No. 812. If your father says " in the barn " that is not your recollection of it ?—No, I heard him say " put them on the place." 813. What were the skins to be put there for ?—To trap my father. 814. And he was to get £50 for getting a conviction ? —Yes. 815. If he put the skins on the place, and got your father convicted, he was to get £50 for it ?— Yes. 816. Did he say who Was in the conspiracy with him, or who was behind him ?—The company. 817. What particular person did he mention as being behind him ? —Cameron and Troup. 818. That is, that they were in this conspiracy to get your father into gaol ? —Yes. 819. What was their aim and object ? —To get him out of the way. 820. Anything else ? —He was coming on them for some damages, as far as I could learn. 821. You gave a more definite reason nineteen years ago . What was the real reason for this horrible conspiracy to get your father into gaol ? Cannot you remember ? —He was suing the company, as far as I can remember. 822. You said, when the thing was fresh in your mind, that the object that these rogues had in view was to get him into trouble before he went to Wellington. He had a petition up there you do not remember, and he wanted to get up to support this petition ?—I know he had a petition up there. 823. Do you not remember that you signed this statement that it was to get your father into trouble before he went to Wellington ? Is that true ? —Yes. Mr. Justice Cooper : Was his evidence taken on a previous occasion ? Dr. Findlay: He gave his evidence in the Court below, before the Magistrate. He was not called in the Court above. Mr. Justice Cooper : Was that in Meikle's trial or Lambert's ? Dr. Findlay: Meikle's. 824. Dr. Findlay (to witness).] This evidence was given on the 21st November, 1887, at Wyndham. You were not asked to give evidence afterwards I—No.1 —No.
101
H.—2l.
.1. MEIKLE. i
825. You were not called into the Supreme Court after that by Mr. McGregor, who appeared for your father ?—No. 826. You have never given evidence in this case since ?—Not so far as I can remember. 827. I see you did give evidence in 1895. You said then that you heard him say this more than once. And you remember something further here : that Lambert was to let Mr. Meikle know the night ? —Yes, that is correct. 828. You did not tell us that in 1887 ; but eight years afterwards you told us that Lambert said this more than once, and that Lambert was to let your father know the night —that is, the night he was to put the skins there ?—Yes. 829. Well, you give us some other information in 1895. Do you remember Lambert saying that the company thought he was too slow with the job; and that another " joker " was coming up to take his place ? —Yes, that is so. 830. Do you remember his saying that in 1887 ?—Yes. 831. You did not tell us that in 1887 either. Perhaps you will remember something else now. Do you remember whether your father was to fire a gun at the joker in the light clothes ? I see that one was to come in dark and the other in light clothes. Your father was to fire at which one ?—The one in the light clothes. 832. What was to be done after he had fired at the one in the light clothes. Was he to go inside and have his tea ?—I do not know what he was to do then. 833. You remember all this clearly as having been said nineteen years ago, when you were a boy of twelve ?—Yes. 834. Although you did not tell the Court when you gave your evidence in 1887 ?—No. 835. Mr. Atkinson.] You said something about your father going to sue the company at the time he got into trouble ?—Yes. 836. Dr. Findlay put it to you that he had a petition on. Is that so ? —Yes. 837. Did you know then the difference between a petition and a writ or a summons ?—No. 838. Do you know the difference now. Can you tell us the difference between a petition and a summons ? —I am not up in these things. 839. Do you remember who appeared for your father before the Justices of the Peace in Wyndham in 1887. Do you know whether there were any lawyers there ? —I cannot remember now so far as lawyers are concerned. 840. Do you remember whether you went to Invercargill when your father was tried ?—Yes, I was at Invercargill for the trial. 841. But you were not called l . —l was not called. 842. Could you say how many times Lambert came to your house ? —He was often there, but I could not say what number of times. 843. He talked about this £50 in the way you stated to Dr. Findlay more than once ? —Yes. 844. I suppose you do not profess to remember the exact words of these conversations in 1887 ? —I can remember him saying he was to get £50 for putting tip father.
Dunedin, Tuesday, Bth May, 1906. Neil Sutherland examined. 1. Mr. Atkinson.] You reside in Dunedin ?—Yes. 2. Your business was that of chemical-manure manufacturer ?—No ; " plant-food expert" I call myself. 3. You have retired from business lately ?—Yes. 4. Have you attended on a subpoena ?—No. 5. Who asked you to give evidence ? —Nobody. I volunteer. 6. Did you know Mr. Meikle at the time you volunteered to give evidence ?—No ; I never saw him, at least to speak to. 7. Did you know Mr. W. R. Cameron ?—I did. 8. What business was he in when you knew him ?—He was a merchant and exporter of produce. 9. Where was his office ? —ln Bond Street, Dunedin. 10. He was formerly manager of the New Zealand Mortgage and Investment Company ?— Yes. 11. Where was your office or store at the time ? —I rented a portion of Mr. Cameron's store in Bond Street for my plant-food. 12. Do you remember having any conversation with him in regard to Meikle's case ?—I do. 13. What was the subject-matter of that conversation ?—lt was something I had seen in one of the provincial newspapers, the Mataura Ensign, in which Mr. Cameron's name was brought into prominence, and I thought it was against his interests that it should be published without refutation. 14. In what connection was the name mentioned in the newspaper ?—lt mentioned Mr. Cameron's name in a defamatory style. 15. In what part of the newspaper was it I—l1 —I cannot recollect that. 16. What sort of an article was it ?—Mr. Meikle had delivered an address down there and it was reported in the paper. 17. It was a report of one of Mr. Meikle's addresses ?—That is so. 18. And it referred to Mr. Cameron ?—lt mentioned his name, otherwise I would not have known anything about it.
H.—2l.
102
K. SUTHEELAND.
19. And the manner in which it was mentioned was defamatory in your opinion ?—Yes. 20. You called his attention to it % —I did. 21. Did you show him the paper ?—No, I did not have the paper. I saw it in the Athenaeum, but gave him the date so that he might have the thing remedied if he thought fit. My idea was that he should have gone for the newspaper for publication, but he did not do anything with the matter. 22. Did the subject come up again, between you and Mr. Cameron ?—Yes. When I learnt through the newspapers somewhere that Mr. Meikle had lost his child while he was in gaol my sympathies were drawn out to Meikle on that account, and I thought it was a great hardship he should suffer the way he did. 23. You expressed that sympathy to Mr. Cameron ?—Yes, certainly, and he did not agree with me at all. He said Meikle deserved all he got and a great deal more. He spoke very forcibly. He grinned—it was the first time I saw his teeth. He ground them as if he had Mr. Meikle under his feet he would have ground him to ashes. 24. Tell us what he said about Meikle \ —He told me that Mr. Meikle had some land down beside the property that he had managed for the company, and that they could not prove him to be a sheepstealer, but he was perfectly convinced that it was Mr. Meikle who was the author of the sheep-stealing business, and that Mr. Meikle's land cut up the company's land—l have never been there at all, this is what he told me—and they wanted to buy the land from Meikle, but Meikle would not sell, and they were determined to get him out of there because they were satisfied he was a sheep-stealer. That was the gist of his complaint. 25. Did the conversation proceed ?—He saw that I had sympathy with Mr. Meikle, of course, and he told me, I fancy in order tobias me, that he had had a talk with Judge Ward in the train, and Judge Ward considered he was guilty. 26. Yes ?—There was no more in connection with that. 27. Did he describe any steps that were taken ?—Yes. He told me that the company were determined to get him out of there and had employed a certain person—he did not mention a name—to lay a trap for Meikle. I understood it was not to test Meikle, but a trap into which he would fall. It was not an honest trap ; it was a dishonest trap. 28. Dr. Findlay.] What did he say ?—I remember him saying distinctly, " I laid a trap for him." 29. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Do you mean to say that this merchant told you he entered into a conspiracy to procure Meikle to be falsely convicted upon a charge of which he was not guilty ?—He said he had laid a trap for Meikle. 30. Dr. Findlay.] The rest is your inference ?—The rest is inference. 31. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Do not tell us what you infer. Tell us what the man said, because you are making a serious charge. If this man did voluntarily confess to you to being guilty of this very serious crime, of course if he can ever be caught he ought to be caught ?—After that when he told me he had employed a man I remember this distinctly :He used the word " instructed." " I instructed him to place sheep-skins in Mr. Meikle's place." I said to him, " Did you give these instructions in writing or were they verbal ?" He told me they were not in writing, they were verbal. I asked him if anybody was present at the time, and he said nobody was present, I said, " Did you give it in writing ?" and he said, " No, I took care of that." Then I made the remark to him that it w r as surely a very foolish thing that he had done. 32. Mr. Atkinson.] Do you remember any other details of the conversation \ —No. I do not remember anything else. 33. Did you do anything as a result of that conversation ? Did you communicate with anybody % —I saw in the newspapers that Mr. Solomon was going down to Invercargill in connection with the case, and some time in the forenoon I called at Mr. Solomon's office and one of the clerks told me he had left that morning for Invercargill, and I had no opportunity of seeing Mr. Solomon. My intention was to tell Mr. Solomon what I am stating now. 34. Did you make any other attempt I —The matter was continually cropping up in newspapers. lam a reader of Hansard, and sometimes I would see it there too. On one occasion I remember going up to see Mr. George Fenwick, editor of the Otago Daily Times, in his private house. I told him that Cameron had told me about laying a trap for Meikle, and asked him if he would allow the columns of the paper to be open to discussion on the matter to draw attention to it ; but he declined, not feeling disposed to do it. 35. Dr. Findlay.] You are a chemical what, Mr. Sutherland ?—I am a plant-food expert. 36. Have you been that all your life ? —No. 37. What else have you been ?—I have been a school-teacher. 38. Have you been connected with any other business ?—Chemical-manure manufacture. 39. Anything else ?—No. 40. Nothing else ?—No. 41. And your occupation to-day is what —old-age pensioner?— Yes. 42. This is a very amazing story you will admit, is it not ?—lt does appear so to me, and it did at the time. 43. Will you tell me what time it was that Mr. W. R. Cameron was general manager of the company here ? —I did not know him when general manager. 44. But you know now that the gentleman whose character is being wrecked, if what you say is true, occupied the high position of general manager of this company ?—I also know he was relieved of that position. 45. He left the position quite honourably. What was the date on which he told you he had instructed some one to put skins on this land ?—I could not give you the date. It was about the time I was occupying portion of his store.
103
H.—2l.
N. SUTHEBLAND.j
46. How long would it be before you went to Mr. Solomon's office ?—I could not say. I simply remember the conversation. 47. Was it a year or two years before ?—lt might have been a year. 48. That would give us some time in 1894. —I suppose so. 49. Two years after Meikle came out of gaol ?—I do not know that. 50. You saw Mr. Solomon's clerk ? —Yes. 51. You went with the intention of telling Mr. Solomon the story ?—Yes. 52. You knew he was going down to prosecute the man who had put the skins on Meikle's land ? —I knew he was going down in connection with Meikle's matter. 53. In fact you knew it was to prosecute the man who was instrumental in putting Meikle in gaol ? —Very likely. 54. Did you tell Mr. Solomon's clerk of this important information ?—No. 55. Why not ? —lt never occurred to me. I went to see Mr. Solomon, and he was gone 56. So that there cannot be any mistake, I will read what you have just said : you expressed the sympathy you had in regard to Meikle about the death of his child to Cameron, and said you thought it was a great hardship that Mr. Meikle had to suffer in the way he did ?—Yes. 57. That was before Cameron told you anything about it ?—Yes. 58. I will read what you said : " I thought it was a great hardship he should suffer in the way he. did. I expressed my sympathy to Cameron, and then Cameron grinned and showed his teeth. He ground his teeth as if he would have liked to grind Mr. Meikle to ashes," and he also said that Meikle deserved a great deal more than he got ?—Yes. 59. You had read the newspapers ? —Yes. 60. You had read Meikle's address appearing in the Mataura Ensign ? —Yes. 61. And there you found the charge laid against Cameron by Meikle ?—Yes. 62. Meikle said that Cameron had been instrumental in getting these skins put on his land ?—I do not remember what the report was. 63. That was the effect of it anyway ? —I suppose it would be that. 64. You read through the report of Meikle's speech in the Ensign ?—Yes. 65. Did you also find there that he charged Mr. McCulloch, the Magistrate, with being a partisan and unjust Magistrate ?—I have no recollection of that. It is only Cameron's name that I remember. 66. Do you remember the charge Meikle made in that speech against Mr. Mac Donald, Crown Prosecutor ?—No. 87. Do you remember the charge made in that speech against Mr. Denniston, now Mr. Justice Denniston ? —No. 68. What else do you remember about it ?—I remember distinctly that Mr. Cameron's name was mentioned. 69. lam putting it to you that a number of names were mentioned ? —I had no interest in them. 70. Did it not occur to you that if none of these men were going to bother their heads about this abuse of the public press Cameron need not trouble himself ?—No; it occurred to me that, being defamatory in my opinion, he should take notice. 71. In the year 1894, probably, you are told by a man that he has been the chief instrument in putting an innocent man into prison—that is the effect of Mr. Cameron's statement to you ?—He did not say he was an innocent man. Meikle was not innocent in Cameron's estimation. 72. It does not matter what his estimate was. He told you he had laid a trap and been the instrument of having skins put on Meikle's land in order to obtain a conviction, and you believed him ?— I could not but believe him. 73. Why did you not write to Mr. Solomon or Mr. Meikle and tell them this statement ? —I thought I had done sufficient when I went to see Mr. Solomon. The clerk told me that Mr. Solomon was gone, and I allowed the subject to rest. 74. Do you mean to tell the Court that you believed this story that Cameron told you, and that you would not in the interests of humanity send word to Mr. Solomon or Mr. Meikle ? You have never communicated with Mr. Meikle or his lawyer the statement you have made in the box to-day ?—No; I had no opportunity. 75. Can you write —you were a schoolmaster ? —I do not think you should ask that. 76. Do 3 r ou mean to tell the gentlemen on the bench that no instinct of humanity told you that you should not have kept this thing a secret in your breast and told no one about it. Why have you kept silent all this time ?—I tried to tell Mr. Solomon and failed, and when the matter came up again in the papers and Hansard I went to Mr. Fenwick and tried to ventilate the matter. 77. What you told Mr. Fenwick was that Cameron told you that he had laid a trap ? —Yes. 78. Did you tell Mr. Fenwick that Mr. Cameron told you that he had put skins on Meikle's land in order to get him convicted ? —Yes. 79. Will you pledge your oath to that ? —Yes. 80. Give us the circumstances. Where did you tell Mr. Fenwick this ?—Outside of his own house in High Street. Mr. Fenwick remembers the visit I made. 81. Was it in the morning or afternoon ? —The morning. 82. About what year ? —lt might be five or six years ago. 83. Which Mr. Fenwick was it?— Mr. George Fenwick. 84. The present editor of the Otago Daily Times ?—Yes. 85. You asked him whether the Times would open its columns, and he refused ?—Yes. 86. You pledge your oath you told him that Cameron told you that the company had permitted the skins to be placed on Meikle's land to secure Meikle's conviction ? —I told him words to that effect. 87. You have been following the Meikle case, seeing you had such a keen interest in it to begin with ? —ln a haphazard way.
[n. sutheeland.
H.—2l.
88. You felt a sympathy in the injured man ? —Surely there is no harm in that. 89. Not at all, but you had a sympathy with the injured man ? —Yes. 90. The sympathy began a great many years ago ?—Yes. 91. Have you ever seen Meikle in your life before ?—No, except on one occasion when addressing a meeting in the streets of Dunedin one night. That is the only time. 92. Did you go to him then and there and say to Mr. Meikle, " I have sympathy with you as an innocent man ; a scoundrel named Cameron told me he was instrumental in putting sheep-skins on to your land in order to get your conviction " ? Did you tell him that ? —No. 93. Why not ?—I did not think it would do any good then. 94. We have heard this for the first time to-day throughout the whole long course of the litigation, and for the first time to-day do the public hear that this man Cameron, who so far has borne a good character, is the disreputable creature your evidence makes him out to be, and that you saw Meikle talking in the streets of Dunedin declaring his innocence and dealing with the proofs of his innocence and you did not go forward like a man and tell him that this wretch and conspirator had told you, and you ask us to believe what you say ? —I cannot help that, lam only telling you'whattook place. It is easier to tell the truth. 95. And we have a saying that " the truth will out" ?—Yes. 96. It has taken twelve years for the truth to get out of you. I suppose you have read a good deal of the Meikle literature ? —I cannot say I have. 97. Have you ever seen a pamphlet which has been circulated throughout the colony in which the evidence in the Meikle case was given ?—No. 98. But you say you have read Hansard referring to this case ?—Yes. 99. And you found there the story. You read in the Mataura Ensign the charge that was made against Cameron ?—Yes. 100. That charge was that Cameron had been instrumental in having skins put upon Meikle's land ?—I cannot say. 101. What do you recollect that the charge made by Meikle against Cameron was % —lt was a very serous charge. 102. What was it ?—ln connection with the skins. 103. Was it not this: Did not Meikle say in Mataura that Cameron has been instrumental in getting skins put on Meikle's land ?—lt might have been. 104. We will find what the report says, and we will find that the charge you are now making against Cameron was the one that Meikle made at Mataura against Cameron. In that report Meikle says Cameron was instrumental in getting skins put upon his land. Will you not admifthat' h in that'report there is a statement by Meikle that Cameron had put skins upon his land ? —I suppose it was there. 105. You had had the statement from Meikle before. You go to Cameron and then Cameron tells you what you already knew from Meikle's report ? —Yes. 106. What is your age ?—Sixty-nine years. 107. Have you invented anything in your life —chemical foods or anything of that sort ?—I think I have. 108. What have you invented ?—A material called " phoshpan." 109. Anything else ?—No. 110. Have you invented perpetual motion. I want to know because the discovery you have made to-day is about as hard to find as the inventor of perpetual motion. You are an inventor ?— Yes. 111. You have no fads except the Meikle one ? —I do not call the belief in Meikle a fad. 112. When did you know that Cameron was out of the colony ?—A few months ago.' 113. Do you know that he has been out of the colony for three years and residing in England ? — I did not know that. ' 114. Do you know that in giving your evidence to-day he is not in the colony to contradict you ? —Yes, I know that. 115. When Cameron told you this startling statement that he had put skins upon the land to get this man convicted, did he tell you whom he had given the instructions to ? —No. 116. He told you that he had employed a man to place skins upon Meikle's place ? —Yes. 117. So that he had led you to believe that he had personally instructed the culprit who had put the skins on Meikle's place ? —Yes, that is what I understood from him. 118. That the general manager of this company had personally instructed this man to do it ?— Yes. 119. Where were these instructions given ? —I do not know. It must have been done on the station. 120. Cameron must have gone down to the station to give the instructions to some one ?—Yes. 121. Did he tell you who was the man he was employing ? —No. I asked him whether there was anybody present, and he said " No." Then I asked him whether it was in writing, and he replied, " I took care of that." I remember that distinctly. 122. Then you made the remark that it was very foolish to have done so ? —Yes. 123. Did you not tell him —instead of saying it was very foolish—" Mr. Cameron, what you have told me shows that you are a blackguard, and I am bound to give this information to the innocent man who has been convicted " ?—I did not go that length. 124. Do you know Mr. Solomon ?—Yes, just to see him. 125. Mr. Solomon has been a resident of this town ever since he secured the conviction of Lambert ? —Yes. 126. He could be found any day in his office or in the Courts. Have you spoken to Mr. Solomon
104
H.—2l.
N. SUTHERLAND.]
105
to tell him of this startling story ?—I saw Mr. Solomon a day or two before the commission sat. I thought he occupied the position that Mr. Atkinson is at present occupying. Mr. Solomon told me he had nothing to do with the matter now. 127. You did not tell Mr. Solomon this story then ?—No, he told me he had nothing to do with it now. iii 128. I suppose you recognise that if what you say is true Mr. Cameron is a blackguard Mr. Justice Edwards : He is more. He is guilty of an offence of a criminal nature. He is a person who ought to be in gaol. 129. Dr. Findlay.] If he did that—His Honour tells you, not me—he may be sent to prrson for a long term of imprisonment ? —Yes. 130. You come here in this man's absence and give this evidence ?—I cannot help his absence. 131. Why did you not give Meikle this information long ago when Cameron was here to confront y OU ?_T cou ld not. I gave it as soon as I had an opportunity when I was introduced to him. 132. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Why did you not write to Mr. Solomon ?—lt never occurred to me . 133. How is it that it did not occur to you. You come here and make an important statement to the gentleman who is conducting the proceedings for Mr. Meikle. How is it that you, who have been a schoolmaster, did not at once write and attempt to have repaired the mischief that had been done ? Why did you not write to him and tell him what you have told us now ?—I have great difficulty in using a pen. . . 134. Mr. Justice Cooper.] Did that difficulty exist twelve years ago ?—Not so bad as it is now or during the last five or six years. 135. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Do you mean to say that you could not write twelve years ago ?— Yes, but it never occurred to me to write. 136. Well, what is the use of telling us that you have a difficulty in using a pen ?—lt never occurred to me. 137. Dr. Findlay.] You have written frequently to the newspapers ?—Yes. 138. When was your last contribution to the newspapers ? —I cannot remember. 139. You knew that Cameron was simply manager of the company and that he had to obey his directors ?—I suppose he had. I did not know him when he was manager of the company. 140. You knew he was manager of the company and would have to consult his directors ?—Yes. 141. Did he tell you that he would have to consult his directors ?—No, directors were never mentioned. '.',.,. . • , r, o 142. Mr. Atkinson.] Was any sum of money mentioned m this conversation with Cameron <— No. 143. Was any name given ?—No, he had just employed some one. 144. Could you give us an estimate of what the interval would be between the first conversation with Cameron about Mataura Ensign and this subsequent one about the trap ?—We had the conversation about the time that I occupied a portion of his store, but I have no record of the date. 145. Dr. Findlay.] This matter, of course, may be taken seriously. In justice to my client and myself I desire to ask a further question with the permission of the Court. (To witness) : Have you always found your memory quite clear ?—I think so, in a general way. 146. Are you not subject to eccentricities ?—I am not aware of it. 147. Are you married ? —Yes. 148. How long ago were you married ?—About eight or nine months ago. 149. How long did your wife stay with you ?—About a couple of months. 150. And then left you ?—She is not with me now. 151. Left you owing to your eccentricities ?—I beg your pardon, I do not want to say anything about it. 152. Not eccentricities at all ?—lt is something else. ' 153. Very well, perhaps Mr. Atkinson would like to find out what it is. [Witnessthen left the box.] Dr. Findlay : This matter comes to me as a complete surprise. It was not opened by Mr. Atkinson. Mr. Justice Cooper : Perhaps Mr. Atkinson did not know it. Mr. Atkinson : I did not know it. Mr. Justice Cooper : Mr. Atkinson would never have omitted to mention it if he had known it. Dr' Findlay : I want at once to say that Mr. Atkinson has acted throughout this case with complete fairness. But I desire to say to the Court that if that matter is to be taken seriously then it is quite obvious that Mr. Cameron's evidence must be taken. He is in England, and it will be necessary that some commission should be obtained to take his evidence. Mr. Justice Edwards : We certainly would not find on that fact without hearing Mr. Cameron's evidence in his own defence. That is all that we can say at present. Dr. Findlay : Very well, we will if necessary have to take his evidence by commission in England. It will be recognised that this is entirely forced upon me by these proceedings. We will require that evidence to be taken if it is within the power and scope of this inquiry. Mr. Justice Edwards : This is a Court with very high powers, my impression is that we have all the powers of the Supreme Court. _ .■»«■« Dr. Findlay : Yes. In that case we will probably apply for a commission to examine Mr. Cameron in England to see whether this story is correct or not. Subsequently, — Dr. Findlay : Your Honours, I understand that the witness Neil Sutherland has asked to be allowed to withdraw certain evidence that he gave this morning, and, seeing that it affects Mr. Cameron's character, perhaps it would be better that it should be done at once.
14— H. 21.
H.—2l.
106
[N. SUTHERLAND.
Neil Sutherland recalled. 154. Mr. Atkinson.] Has your attention been called to a statement you made this morning with regard to Cameron ?—Yes. 155. Has it called your attention to any inaccuracy in it ?—Yes, I was not under the impression that I had said that Cameron told me that he had employed this man to put sheep on Meikle's property. I did not intend to say that, if I said it. Mr. Cameron only told me that he had laid a trap for Meikle. If I said the rest it was not intended. I got a little confused with you, sir. 156. Is there anything else you wish to modify ?—No, that is all. 157. Dr. Findlay.] Then I understand that what you wish to say now is that what Cameron said to you was that he had laid a trap for Meikle ?—Yes. 158. And that any statement you made this morning that he had procured skins to put on Meikle's land was incorrect ? —Yes, it is incorrect. 159. I think it is fair, your Honours, tome to say that I did not lead that statement from the witness. (To witness) : You stated that voluntarily to Mr. Atkinson ?—Yes, I got mixed up. Mr. Justice Edwards : Then I can only say, you must be more careful the next time you give evidence, because you not only said it but you reiterated it when I asked you the question. 160. Mr. Atkinson.] Did I understand you to withdraw the whole conversation ? —No. 161. Just the reference to the sheep-skins ? —Yes. Dr. Findlay : The withdrawal that reflects on Mr. Cameron's character. 162. Mr. Atkinson.] Please continue your statement as to the conversation ?—Cameron told me that he had laid a trap for Meikle, and that he had employed somebody to lay this trap, and instructed him to do something or another ;-and then I inquired of him if he gave these instructions in writing or verbally, and he said he gave them verbally; and in answer to my inquiry " Was anybody present when he gave those instructions " he said, " No, there was no one there but himself and the man he employed." I then asked him if he had given instructions in writing, and he said, "No fear ; I took care of that." 163. Dr. Findlay.] You say now that he told you that he had instructed a man to do something ? —Yes. 164. What was that ? —To lay a trap for Meikle. 165. But you say now he told you he had instructed a man to do something ?—Yes. 166. What was this something he said ?—He told me first of all that he had laid a trap for Meikle, and I understood when he told me that he had employed somebody—and I now know it was Lambert — that he had instructed him to lay the trap. He did not tell me what the trap was. 167. You do not know whether it was to catch a guilty man or not ?—I do not know. 168. Ycu have heard of traps being laid to catch a guilty man ?—Yes, it is a test, and not a trap. That is the difference I make. 169. If I left a sovereign on my table and you came in and took it, you would call that a test, and not a trap ? —Yes. Mr. Atkinson : My last witness was to have been Mrs. Meikle. lam sorry to say that I have received a doctor's certificate that owing to the feeble state of her health it is undesirable that she should be asked to give evidence in open Court. I would recommend that it be taken in Chambers. At any rate I ask to be allowed to call her as soon as the doctor is able to certify that she is fit to give evidence. Mr. Justice Edwards : I suppose you do not object, Dr. Findlay, to this witness being called later on. Dr. Findlay : No ; but I take it that her evidence will be practically the evidence she has already given at the trial. Mr. Atkinson : With regard to the evidence of Duncan and Telfer, my friend is willing to have the evidence as recorded in Mr. Justice Ward's notes taken as their evidence. I have not thought it necessary to put in the evidence of witnesses who are dead. Mr. Justice Edwards : You had better tell us who they are. We do not know who is dead and who is alive ? You had better tell us who are dead and whose evidence we should take from the notes. Mr. Atkinson: I thought you would take into consideration the whole of the previous proceedings without any formal tendering of such evidence. Mr. Justice Edwards : We shall probably go into the whole case; but in regard to some of the evidence you say you have to rely entirely on the notes of the previous evidence : you had better indicate what evidence you refer to. Mr. Atkinson: I will do that, Mr. Justice Edwards : You close your case now, Mr. Atkinson, subject to calling Mrs. Meikle ?— Yes, and there are one or two witnesses to be called in Wellington. Dr. Findlay : May it please your Honours, my learned friend Mr. Atkinson commenced his admirable address by some references to the insistency of Meikle's declaration of his innccence, and his struggle for its recognition both by an official admission and by pecuniary compensation. Incidentally Mr. Atkinson referred to the strenuous struggle and the persistent protestations and pretences of Arthur Orton, the world-renowned impostor, the Tichborne claimant. Mr. Atkinson did not compare his client to Arthur Orton, nor do I; but I have to thank Mr. Atkinson for reminding me of a famous historical illustration of what can be achieved by making a daily business of public agitation, and by loud and persistent protestations, added to a brazen effrontery which never feels a qualm. If we were to judge the case to which my friend has referred—the case of Arthur Orton —by the number of persons who believed his story and subscribed to his fund, then Arthur Orton was indeed the true claimant. I have only to add that Meikle may be guilty or he may not, but the hubbub, the public agitat on,
107
H.—2l
and the interest which he has created is in itself no guarantee that he is not an impudent impostor. Now let us see what Meikle's case really is. What are the few broad facts that have led to the appointment of this Commission. I will state them in the briefest outline lor the purpose of focussing them. The owners of two adjoining farms in Southland are in the year 1887 at loggerheads. One is John James Meikle, the other is a large company— Zealand Mortgage and Investment Company. Both own sheep; and assaults and battery, litigation, perjury trials, parliamentary petitions, and whatnot are the outcome of a bitterness which I shall show was entirely confined to Meikle himself. The company had lost in the year preceding Meikle's arrest twelve or fourteen hundred sheep. It must be obvious that they werc\stolen. But who was the thief ? He long defied detection. The company in the ordinary course appealed to the police. The police admitted themselves unable to discover the culprit, and the po'ice suggested that the company should itself engage a private detective to discover the stealer. At the instance of the police the company employed a man lecommended by the police—viz., William Lambert. He, after a few weeks, reported to the company that Meikle was the thiei, and stated the particulars of what he had een. The company th-jn wont to the police and laid an information for theft against Meikle. 4 The company, to secure his committal, conducted the prosecution by its own solicitor and called its own servants, including Lambert, as its witnesses. If there hid been no case against Meikle on such a prosecution the company would have been liable in heavy damages to Meikle for malicious prosecution. Meikle, however, was committed for trial, and his conviction was obtained. This conviction was entirely due to the company's information and the company's witnesses. Meikle served five years' imprisonment, and then he prosecuted Lambert for perjury, secured his conviction, and had Lambert imprisoned for four years. Meikle then appeals to Parliament, and soon —very soon —is paid £294-odd for his prosecution of Lambert, and gives a receipt in full of all claims and costs for the prosecution of Lambert. Two years later he, on his own petition, obtains a further sum of £500, making in all £794 odd, and gives a receipt in full and final discharge of all the claims he had or thought he had against the Crown. Before he signed that receipt Mr. Kelly, one of his own witnesses, pointedly calls his attention to the fact of these terms, and that they amounted to a promise not to come to the colony again for further compensation. So warned, however, he signs this absolute release and discharge, gets his money, and goes his way. Immediately afterwards he ignores his claim and signed undertaking to accept the money paid him in full and final discharge, and comes knocking at the door of Parliament again demanding two things —first, some formal declaration or admission of his innocence, and second, £15,000 for the wrong he had suffered. Mr. Atkinson : And his family. Dr. Findlay : £15,000 for himself and his family. Not getting any more money, he and his friends finally demand a Royal Commission—a Commission of Supreme Court Judges, who were to hear and settle finally and for ever all questions both of innocence and of money. He gets such a Commission appointed ; his solicitor approves of the terms of the scope of that Commission ; the Government facilitate in every way Meikle's proof of innocence and his claim, pays not only Meikle's personal expenses before the Commission, but it pays his counsel's fees and his counsel's expenses ; it further pays the expenses of every witness Meikle likes to call. All this immense expense is incurred, and then on Friday last, and upon oath, Meikle, after shuffling for some time, had to face the question of accepting your Honours' report as final, and then he told us he was not prepared and would not undertake to accept the findings of the very Commission erected at his instance as final. That, Ido submit, is but a plain parallel of that breach of faith which he had earlier committed when he turned his back upon his own written promise after getting £500 from the public purse and knocked again at the parliamentary door for more. That, sir, is a brief epitome of how we come to be here. At the very threshhold of this inquiry two questions essentially different stand out—one, was Meikle innocent; the second was, if innocent, is he entitled to more compensation from this colony ? Or was he entitled to compensation at all ? Now these questions are confused by Meikle's friends, by himself, and have been confused before this Court by his counsel, Mr. Atkinson. It has been assumed that if he was really innocent the colony was under a moral obligation to compensate him—an assumption in the circumstances of this case unjustified either by reason or by practice, as I hope to show. If a nation through its Government, Executive, or judicial officers does a subject a wrong for which there is no legal redress a moral claim upon the people as a whole arises. But I ask what wrong, legal or moral, has this colony done Meikle ? It has done him no wrong. No judicial officer, executive officer, or public official has been guilty of any misconduct or injustice towards him. What this colony did in 1887 to Meikle and for the five years following it must in the same circumstances do again to-morrow and for ever if society is to exist. If this seems startling, let us for a moment calmly ask ourselves what it had to do and what it did do in 1887. It had to give him a fair and impartial trial. He got that trial; he was ably defended by Mr. John MacGregor of this city ; and twelve of his fellow-colonists found him guilty on the evidence brought before them of sheep-stealing—a charge which every Judge knows is more than any other a difficult one to get a jury to convict for. So found guilty, the Judge had to sentence him and the State to imprison him. What else, then, could the State or the Judge do ? Release him after he had been convicted by a jury ? Surely not even Meikle's wildest advocates suggest that! What wrongful act, then, has this colony been guilty of ? Surely none. How can Mr. Atkinson suggest that the colony as a whole has done Meikle wrong ? Throughout it has acted towards him as it should do—fairly, properly, and inevitably. Then upon what is this claim of £15,000 based ? £10,000 for himself, he says, and £5,000 for his children —all his children, I suppose. Yet he says he bases this claim upon what he and his counsel call a wrongful conviction. Now, what is the meaning of " wrongful conviction " ? Two things—one properly so called, one loosely so called. An improper conviction may be improper on the evidence before the tribunal That is a true improper conviction ; or it may 'oosely include a conviction perfectly proper on the evidence brought before the Court but based upon testimony which is only subsequently declared to be perjured. Here no wrong is done by
H.—2l
108
the tribunal : the wrong is done by the prosecution and tho witnesses : the tribunal has rightfull). convicted. This is plainly Meikle's cr.se if he is innocent. The conviction by the jury was, as far as the. tribunal is concerned, a perfectly proper and right conviction. The jury were bound by their oaths to find according to the evidence before them, and it will be hopeless to contend that the jury, of which Mr. Kelly, Meikle's own witness, was foreman, were not bound by their oaths to convict Meikle. Hence the State has never improperly convicted him —never denied him justice. Who then, it may be asked, has wrongfully injured Meikle if he is innocent ? His neighbour, the New Zealand Mortgage and Investment Company, for it was this company and its servants who secured his conviction. Your Honours must remember that this was not a public prosecution. The information was laid by the company ; the prosecution was started by the company, and it was owing to that prosecution and the company's witnesses that he was convicted. This is his whole case. His whole complaint is against the company —its nefarious conspiracy, and nefarious agents —Lambert, Troup, Cameron, and the rest. His complaint amounts to this : " My neighbour attempts to put me in gaol : he prosecutes me before the Court: he convinces a jury by seemingly overwhelming true evidence tnat lam guilty : he gets me convicted and sent to gaol : subsequently I establish my innocence. Who has done the wrong ? Against whom have la, moral claim ?" " Against the State," say Meikle and Mr. Atkinson. I say it is against the company and its servants, because it was they, if Meikle is innocent, who did this. It will be replied that he cannot get any money out of the company, Lambert, or the others. What difference does that make ? Actions for prosecution and false imprisonment are common enough even in New Zealand. As Mr. Justice Edwards pointed out to Mr. Atkinson, not rarely are men arrested, committed for trial, lsft waiting for trial two or three months, suffering inexpressible mental anguish, lose all their money in the cost of"defence or neglect of business while imprisoned, their character may be ruined in every way—only for what ? Only to be discharged by the Judge : only to be deo'ared innocent. Who has heard of a man who has gone through that experience—l have never heard — coming to the door of Parliament and demanding £15,000 or any other sum ? He is left by law to proceed with his claim against the wrongdoer. He has a civil remedy for wrongful prosecution or for conspiracy against the offender. If that is futile he must suffer his loss. Mr. Justice Edwards : In many cases it is owing to the inefficiency of committing Magistrates, of committing Justices —generally Justices, I am bound to say, although I have met committals by Magistrates which never ought to be made. Really they cannot be blamed themselves. There is no remedy against anybody. Dr. Findlay : There might be more colour for a claim there, because it might be suggested, as in Beck's case, that judicial officers, both low and high, had been guilty of gross neglect. But here there is not a tittle of suggestion that the Magistrates should not have committed Meikle and the jury should not have convicted him. To take a perfectly analogous case : My neighbour is insolvent. To get rid of me he damages my character by atrocious libel, falsely imprisons me, and while I am in prison burns down my house. Here you will observe, my property, character, and freedom have been destroyed. What is the remedy 1 A civil action for damages on the one side, or a criminal action for the crime on the other. Supposing I were to go to Parliament and say I have suffered all this wrong from this insolvent man and wanted £15,000, would I receive serious treatment, or would I not be told to go about my business ? I submit that that is this case. No wrong has been done by the State in the case suggested :no wrong has been done by the State here. My friends may retort that the State imprisoned him. That is the view that occurs to a great many unthinking people ; but the imprisonment by the State followed the conviction secured by the company just as mechanically and irresponsibly as the carriage of a libellous letter posted in the State Post-office follows its posting. Would one so injured by the State have a claim, because by its carriage of such a letter it enabled one's character to be ruined ? The machinery of our imprisonment system follows criminal convictions with the same routine and impartiality as the delivery of a letter follows its posting. Hence Meikle's innocence, even if he establishes it, does not estab'ish a moral claim upon the pockets of this colony any more than he whose house and character had been ruined in the instance I quoted had a claim upon the pocket of the colony. I leave this topic at this stage in the hope that I have to some extent made clear the ground which my learned friend appears to have to some extent misconceived —that the State by the impiisonment of Msikle was the wrongdoer or had done him any injury. Now I pass to the first important question this Commission has to ask : Has Meikle established his innocence ? He was convicted aftsr a fall and fail trial. The onus, Mr. Atkinson admits, lies upon him to stow that beyond all doubt that conviction was wrong. No inference —none of the presumptions of innocence which piecede conviction, are open to him now. These presumptions are now the other way, and it lies upon my friend to show that he was wrongfully convicted beyond all reasonable doubt. It seems to be assumed that because Lambert was convicted for perjury Meikle was innocent. I want to place in the earliest part of my address my entire denial of that proposition. It does not follow at all that Meikle was innocent because Lambert was convicted. Apart altogether from Lambert's evidence at Meikle's trial, there was ample evidence on which a jury could convict Meikle. Lambert's conviction, it will be remembered, did not remove two very strong proofs of guilt. First, it did not remove the fact that twenty-seven sheep of the company were found on Meikle's land at the time of the police search, secondly, it did not remove the fact that two skins plainly marked with the company's brand were found in Meikle's smithy. Now, it is admitted that Lambert did not put these sheep there, and no Court has ever decided that he put the skins there. He swore on the first trial of Meikle that he did not put the skins there, and the informations and indictments on which he was tried for perjury did not charge him with perjury in swearing that he did not put the skins there. The perjury assigned was that of swearing that he saw young Meikle driving sheep from the company's land to his father's, and swearing to the other incidents of that night. His oath that he did not put the skins in the smithy was not included in the perjury indictment, and has never been declared untrue by any tribunal in this colony. Hence Lambert's conviction for perjury leaves two strong evidences of Meikle's guilt abso-
109
H.—2l
luteiy untouched —first, the twenty-seven sheep, and second, the skins so plainly marked by the company's brand. My first main proposition is this : That if Lambert did net put the skins there, Meikle was rightfully convicted ; for it will be remembered that Meikle makes no attempt to explain their presence in his smithy by any accident or mistake. He indeed deliberately shuts this door on himself by showing there was no possibility of accident or mistake. He led evidence to show that there were no skins on his fence which might have been taken by accident into the smithy. Young Arthur Meikle at the moment of arrest jumped at that as an explanation —that they were taken from the fence by mistake. But when you come to the trial of Lambert for perjury, when it was no longer asked of Meikle to prove his innocence, he wanted to prove that Lambert had put them in the smithy ; so he shuts out the possibility of their being there by accident or mistake, and brings himself face to face with this proposition —either Lambert put them there or you, Meikle, have been guilty of putting them there, and what their presence there implied. Meikle tells us, in order to make this quite clear, that these skins in the smithy were counted every morning, and that the smithy door was [kept locked; and he led evidence to show that the very morning before the police raid the skins were counted, and not one of the company's skins was found amongst them. Plainly then, even if Lambert were guilty of the offence for which Meikle was convicted, Meikle is not, ipso facto, clear. The onus lies on Meikle to prove that Lambert put the skins there. That onus has not been discharged by Lambert's conviction for perjury, because the statement that he put them there has not been included in the indictment for perjury. Hence the onus lies on him to prove that Lambert put the skins there. We will see whether he has discharged that onus. If not, we must say that he has been rightfully convicted. I need not go far. If the twenty-seven sheep and the skins were evidence on which the jury might convict- —if Lambert was rightfully convicted or doubtfully convicted, Meikle's conviction was most certainly right. On the same evidence the jury might reasonably have convicted Meikle, even if Lambert's conviction was correct, and, secondly, the jury were bound to convict Meikle if Lambert's evidence was correct. Now I want to make it quite clear that it is not at all essential for me to show that Lambert was wrongfully convicted. I believe, and I quite apprehend the responsibility of the statement —I believe I shall establish to your Honours' complete satisfaction that the man Lambert was indeed innocent; but that is not my main purpose. lam not here as an advocate for Lambert—not here to establish Lambert's innocence. lam here merely to establish the proposition that this Commission cannot find that Meikle was wrongfully convicted in 1887 ; and if, incidentally to that purpose, I prove Lambert innocent, then I take it that lam discharging a good service. Well, your Honours, apart from Lambert's evidence, Meikle has to establish his innocence to show how did twenty-seven of the company's sheep get on his land, and, secondly, how did the skins, plainly branded with the company's brand, find their way into his smithy. I admit that twenty-seven sheep found under ordinary circumstances on a neighbour's land and belonging to an adjoining farmer would not probably raise even a suspicion of guilt. But circumstances are easily conceivable in which the finding of sheep on a neighbour's land is almost coercive proof of guilt; and I propose to submit a few references to the evidence to show that the presence of these twenty-seven sheep on Meikle's land and the attempt made to explain it in 1887 amounts to so grave a suspicion as in itself probably to entitle a jury to find him guilty. Now, the circumstances to which I desire to refer I take in order. First it will be shown that the company in the year preceding Meikle's conviction had lost an enormous number of sheep, most of which had been stolen ; that from an area of 600 or 700 acres—l do not remember trie exact acreage —of land adjoining Meikle's, where there was good turnip-feed, and on which 640 sheep were placed or found to be in August, 1887, two months afterwards, in October, 1887, 640 sheep were found to be reduced to 559. It will be shown that mortality had nothing to do with this—that the difference, amounting to one-seventh or one-eighth of the whole flock, must have disappeared owing to the sheepstealing of some man. It was plainly a case of theft, and, whether Meikle was stealing the sheep or not. some one was stealing sheep belonging to the company. Now these sheep, or twenty-seven of them, were found on Meikle's land. I may be asked how is that to be proved, that these twenty-seven sheep came from the company's land. Well, the pastures at that time of year were such that unless sheep had been on turnip land they could not be in the condition in which the twenty-seven sheep were which were found on Meikle's property. They were fat sheep. They could only have at that time of year been so fattened upon turnips; and those sheep, it will be shown, came from the company's turnip land. Now, to do that they must have come not only through good sheep-proof fences, but they must have left abundant turnip feed for bare land, wandered over this poor land to begin with on the company's tussock land, then on to ploughed land through which the crop had not yet sprung, next through another fence of Mr. Meikle's, and on to pasture which I will undertake to prove could not at that time of year have fattened sheep at ali. Now, your Honours, I want to ask the Commission to mark this very significant fact: In the trial in 1887 the case made by the company was that it had rich pasture from which these sheep—if Meikle is correct —must have strayed, and must have strayed on to pastures which could offer no inducement whatever to sheep. A point was made at the first trial that Meikle's pastures were so poor that they could not and would not induce sheep to go there. The point was made that the pastures of the company were so rich that sheep would remain there undoubtedly. And to to show that was plainly a question at issue, we will see how Mr. Duncan, a witness for Meikle, is examined. On page 28 he is giving evidence as to fences. He says, — " I know fences between prisoner and the company. I was asked to examine them by Constable Leece. Examined fence near pre-emptive right; not sheep-proof. Cross-examined : Sheep expert. Sheep might leave turnips for tussock for a stroll; generally come back. Not likely to leave turnips to get at plough." That means ploughed land, of course. There was the case made by the company in 1887 that these sheep left turnip land for ploughed land, which at that time it was not suggested by anybody had a blade of grass or crop upon it. And how was that evidence answered, your Honours ? There is not one
H.—2l.
word in Meikle's defence that he had any pasture which would induce sheep to come upon thorn. Why ? At that time, in 1887, his farm servants could have gone —any one of them could have gone and examined the pastures there. Then he could have swamped the Court with evidence as to the richness of his pastures ; but there is not one word from any of the witnesses he called to show that he had pastures which would attract sheep. Why ? The old witness who was in his service for so many years, and who gave evidence yesterday, was not even called ; and why ? Mr. Atkinson : He was in the hospital, that is the reason. Dr. Findlay : I deny that. But surely there were farmers enough about who could have gone and looked at Meikle's land in 1887 and could have come into Court and said what has been said here. How is it that we have had to wait first for eleven years and then for another eight years before we can discover these Mr. Forsaith's and Mr. Mabin's and get them into the witness-box to tel! us Meikle had good pastures. Why this unbroken silence in Meikle's case in 1887 if they had those pastures, for that was exactly in contest, and the company's case was that these sheep could not have left the rich turnip pasture of the company and gone on to this ploughed, poor 'and of Meikle's. No attempt is made to give the class of evidence we have had called here during the last three or four days. I do say that is a most significant fact. We know that eighteen years afterwards even honest witnesses may recollect or think they recollect the fact. For instance, Mr. Forsaith or Mr. Winter might be quite honest in saying they believe there were pastures there ; but why ? Here we have a shrewd man like Mr. Meikle, an ex-policeman, who has had experience in preparing perjury cases and assault cases, a man who has shown in the witness-box the expertness with which he can take care of himself —this man had not intelligence enough, had not skill enough, aided by two of the lawyers of Southland, and afterwards by an able lawyer from Dunedin, to put in the box this evidence about the richness of his pastures upon which he now asks your Honours to declare him innocent. And when you remember, as I can show, that on the jury which convicted Meikle there were three or four farmers who knew perfectly well the conditions of farming in Southland, who could tell probably at once whether these stories about a crop in the month of October being 9 in. out of the ground were true or not, he was appealing to a number of jurors who could test and test accurately such evidence as Mr. Forsaith's and Mr. Winter's. But he knew if he brought people to say that his English grass in the year 1887, in the month of October, was able to fatten sheep he would be laughed at; and, further, if any witness had dared to go into that box and declare that this garden of Eden was in such a condition as Meikle now declares, the prosecution could have sent its own witnesses to verify the statements, and they could have come back to refute them. So that your Honours will see the very best reason there is for this unbroken silence about his pastures in 1887, and not a word about it until years afterwards, when it comes to the conviction of Lambert. I ask whether this and other matters must not be viewed with the very gravest suspicion. I ask the Court therefore to infer with me that in 1887 Meik'e presented a case in which twenty-seven sheep had gone through those fences, had gone from this rich pasture on to land which would never induce or fatten sheep at all, and that his own witness, Mr. Duncan, giving evidence in 1887 expresses a well-known truth which is that sheep were not likely to leave turnip land for such land as Meikle's, and if they did they would very soon get back again. And Ido say in view of that that the presence of these twenty-seven sheep presented an exceedingly grave and suspicious circumstance. If your Honours will look at the evidence which was given in 1887 you will see how entirely convincing is this branch of the prosecution. You will find, on page 27, where Arthur Meikle in giving evidence dealt with the question of the condition of the fences, he said — " Father keeps his fences in order. There is a corner at Mincham not in order. It never needed to be mended—no stock to go out; some came in." The word " Mincham " there should have been " Mimihau." That would show, if there were none of his father's stock upon the company's land, which was rich pasture, the land was well fenced. That test is applied, on page 23, by Mr. Fleming. He says — " If I mustered sheep on a large block and found no stragglers from neighbours I should conclude fence in good order." Now, we did muster our flock in the month of October after these thefts, and not one sheep of Meikle's was found on our land. We must therefore assume that the company's pastures were well fenced, and that the fences between them and their neighbours were in good order. And there was the best reason why they should be. The company for a very long time before had been met by the defence, " Oh, yes, some stragglers from your land," whenever any sheep were discovered on Mr. Meikle's land, and the company had set themselves to answer effectively any such defence; and we will show that special care was taken to make those fences sheep-proof so that this kind of defence should not be available to Meikle. Mr. Troup shows that upon page 23 : that the fences were in the condition I suggest. He says — " Sheep were mustered on leasehold in April and August. Meikle keeps sheep. When we mustered, found no sheep of his among ours. We gave notice of muster, and Arthur attended muster. Both Meikle and I agreed that fence sheep-proof." The evidence of Mr. Trotter is to the same effect, on page 22, about these fences, and the evidence of Mr. Stuart also to the same effect. Therefore your Honours will see that before the jury which convicted Meikle there was all this coercive proof that the company's pastures were beyond question better than Meikle's, and that Meikle practically had no pasture to fatten sheep. That was the first test. The sheep would not stray from the company to him ; and, next, these fences were so sheep-proof that they could not have upon any honest explanation have got on Meikle's land. Mr. Justice Edwards : You say this mustering was in April ? Dr. Findlay : Yes, and one in August and one in October. One was made to count the sheep after the report was received from Lambert. Mr. Justice Edwards : When was this one supposed to be ?
110
H.—2l.
Dr. Findlay : The 17th October. We will prove that on that date our sheep were accordingly mustered and counted, and none of Meikle's sheep were there, but eighty-seven, or something like that, had disappeared. Now, what answer was given at the time ? When young Meikle was confronted by the police with the fact that twenty-seven sheep of the company's were on his father's land, what answer did he give ? Did he point to the fences which my learned friend Mr. Atkinson says were not sheepproof and through which sheep could easily go ? No. If you will read Detective Ede's evidence, on page 22, also the evidence given at an earlier stage, Arthur Meikle said the sheep came from the leasehold on the other side away from the pre-emptive right. So that we submit that under these circumstances the explanation given by young Meikle of the finding of the twenty-seven sheep created at least a substantial suspicion, and supports Lambert's statement that he saw them driven there. Of course it was not suggested to a farmer jury that the twenty-seven sheep were in broad daylight driven upon the land; but I understand that it is the recognised method of the practical sheep-stealer to bring upon his land a number —not a large number —say, twenty or thirty sheep, leave them there, and take them in ones or twos as they were required, so that if the owner comes along and the missing sheep are found the thief may say " There they are, in broad, open daylight. There's no concealment about their being here. I would not have left them there if I had stolen them, and you can take them away when you like." That, in practice, has been found to be the method followed by the expert sheep-stealer, and so far as prima facie appearances are concerned, this is just precisely what was done here. Now lam dealing only with the finding of the sheep, and I pass from it to ask your Honours to remember that we ought to look at the case made by Meikle in 1887 as the best Case he could make in answer to our case that our pastures were so good that sheep would not stray from them ; and your Honours will see on a perusal of the evidence given then that there is no evidence at all from Harvey or anyone else about this excellent English grass or this 9 in. crop which we are told of by witnesses who come into the box eighteen or nineteen years afterwards. If the sheep being there under such circumstances as these is not sufficient proof to warrant the conviction, sureiy these sheep added to the discovery of the skins completes the chain required. Now I ask your Honours to treat these skins and the means by which they got there as the crux of the whole case. I submit that the twenty-seven sheep plus the skins at the smithy —for Meikle does not show Lambert took them there —convicts Meikle, or at least shows that his conviction in 1887 was not unreasonable. Meikle says Lambert put the skins there, and. as I have said, the burden of proving this is on Meikle. And with what sort of story does he attempt to prove this % Now, a story may be rejected as untrue for the following reasons : either the preponderance of negative proof may be so great as to reject it, or the unreliability of the witnesses may be so marked as to warrant its rejection, or its own inherent improbability may be so great as to completely discredit it. The testimony required to support a statement is in inverse ratio to its probability. The more probable the less evidence, the less probable the more evidence is required. Well, improbability ultimately reaches a point where no evidence of witnesses would establish its truth. Now, I hope to show that not only is the evidence of the witnesses who tell this story utterly unreliable, for reasons I will show, but that Meikle's story of how Lambert came on the place and placed these skins in Meikle's smithy is only fit for a place in a book of nursery fairy tales. It might well be described as a new Arabian yarn, or how a lunatic got himself convicted in attempting to convict somebody else ; a story, I submit, that Meikle might perhaps gravely tell a child or tell his grandame over a winter's fire ; a story so crude, silly, and improbable that it does almost as little credit to his imagination as it does to his veracity. Surely, your Honours, it is nothing, if one goes through it, but a broad farce. Here it is pieced together. I take Meikle's evidence from the various parts of the transcript. Pieced together, in words or in effect Mr. Meikle puts it thus :"I am John James Meikle, a man who " —I use his own words— " since I landed forty years ago in this colony have never by word, thought, or deed done anything of which I need be ashamed." Well, that is a pretty big order. "I, a man with such a saintly record as that, am tormented by a rascally company whose servant I caught in the very act of shearing six of my sheep, a company whose manager, Mr. Macaulay, got me put in gaol for a month with hard labour for-a purely imaginary assault, and further got me committed for perjury and tried twice by a jury who could not agree as to whether I was innocent or not, although I was as innocent as the babe unborn. This company, to prevent my going to Wellington to support a petition there to expose its nefarious practices, and also for the miserable purpose of getting hold of my farm, enters into a conspiracy with three or four rogues to secure my conviction for sheep-stealing." According to Meikle, he had never done anything wrong ; he had given them no cause for this ; it was all pure malice on their part, and on his there was nothing but the patient innocence of spotless virtue. Yet, says Meikle, the company engaged a man named Lambert to carry out this horrible design. He was a private detective, " but he was not to detect me, for I was not doing anything to detect." He was not to detect anybody, for nobody was doing anything of that sort. He was not, indeed, to be a private detective at all; he was to be a kind of strawfoot man ; he was to spy out Meikle's land and manufacture proofs of Meikle's having stolen sheep ; he was to plant sheep-skins in one of his buildings and then he was to run away and tell the police, and they were to find the skins so planted, and the innocent Meikle was to be taken and convicted and sent to g.iol. Mr. Lambert was to get £50 from the company for carrying through this pretty little plot. Now let us see what this really amounts to. Before Lambert could get this £50 he must first get some sheep-skins marked with the company's brand. He must then secretly, silently, and surreptitiously put them in one of Meikle's buildings ; Meikle must not be able to prove he (Lambert) put them there, or else there would be no conviction. He must secure Meikle's conviction. That was the little task which Lambert had set himself, according to Meikle. Now, Lambert had been a private detective before, or had done some little work of that nature, and he may be presumed to know something of his business ; but Meikle asks us to believe this, that this somewhat experienced private detective set about earning his £50 in this way. Meikle says there was a rap at the door. He went and found Lambert there. Lambert says, " I have something to tell you, Mr. Meikle." Mr.
111
112
H.—2l
Meikle says, " Come inside." On another occasion the words were, " Come inside and say all you have to say before the people there." Lambert tells the inmates of the house all about the plot. He tells them' that he (Lambert) was to get £50 for planting some skins on Meikle's land, and that Troup and Cameron are behind him, and that the police are to come and find the skins there. Meikle is to be convicted and then he (Lambert) was to get the £50. Now, not only (Meikle says) did he tell the people inside the house—namely, Mrs. Meikle, the servant girl, Harvey, Arthur Meikle, James Meikle and I do not know how many others—but he told this to people outside. Harvey says he was constantly talking about it. He seems to have done everything but publish the plot m the local papers. It is not yet proved that he did that, but he came as near to it as his facilities enabled him. Then the plot thickens —I am still following closely Meikle's evidence—a joker is added to the pack. Lambeit tells Meikle of this joker's advent. An assistant is to be sent because Lambert is too slow. Lambert tells Meikle exactly where the skins are to be put. They are to be put in the smithy, not anywhere else, and he is to tell him the very night that he is to put them in the smithy so that Meikle may be there. Ihe joker and Lambert then are to come like Nicodemus privily and by night. The joker is to be m white clothes and Lambert is to be in dark clothes. One of them, Meikle was not sure which, he says it was not settled which, was to advance to the smithy with the skins, Meikle was to be m waiting with the gun he was to fire at the man who advanced, but he was not to hurt him, because I feel sure Mr. Meikle would no more think of hurting a man than he would of stealing a sheep. He was to fire blank cartridge. What particular purpose the firing of a blank cartridge was to serve I am not sure but perhaps it was to add dramatic effect to the story. Having fired his blank cartridge, Meikle tells us, he was to rush forward and secure the man with the skins, or the man in black or the man m white, as the case might be, and hand him over to the man in blue—that is, the policeman. It is not shown whether the policeman is to be there on the spot; but Meikle proposes to tie up the culprit—it might be Lambert or it might be Mr. Joker—he was to tie him and hand him over to the police. And then, Meikle says he was going to get the joker, or Lambert, as the case might be, as long a term of imprisonment as he could get him. Now, this is Meikle's story, repeated by all the phonographs he has put into the box ; and I do appeal to my learned friend, Is it not very like the programme Bully Bottom the Weaver outlined of the play of " Pyramus and Thisbe" before the Duke ? In this conspiracy Lambert the Lunatic was to play the chief part, for if all this evidence means anything it means that Lambert was to lose his £50 and get a long period in His Majesty's gaol instead. Surely this whole story is so inherently absurd as to be almost unworthy of serious examination; and yet this story, which lie would ask your Honours to believe, accounts for the presence of the skins in that barn; and with the exception of letting him know that he was going to put them there, the rest of-the story was carried out by this lunatic Lambert. But that is not all. The story is not finished yet, and the real heart of it is to follow Lambert had repeatedly told Meikle the place where he wns going to plant the skms. They were to be planted in th« smithy. He was to tell him the night, and if your Houours believe Meikle Lambert it seems had not the decency to keep his promise. Mr. Meikle's wife said in the Court below,'and no doubt will say again, that on the night he came with, the mystery-bag, the night before the police came, Lambert said to Mr. Meikle, " Depend upon it, old man, it is not to be to-night Well, now I come to the first real grievance Meikle has. Mr. Meikle has a real grievance Lambert promised him sincerely and honestly that he would tell him the night it was to be done Instead of telling him he came without the joker, and he came with a bag and without notice. This, I admit, was a grave breach of faith and therein it seems Lambert was not honest with this innocent man But, your Honours I think I am entitled to say this in Lambert's favour: He did not tell him the night, but he was at least faithful in one part of the promise. He was faithful in that part of the promise m which he said he would put the skins in the smithy; and you can see throughout Lambert s conduct a fane manly disposition to carry out that promise at all hazards. He might very easily have put the skms in the unlocked stable. The police could with quite equal effect have found them there. He might have put them in a dozen other places about the farm with indeed far greater effect, because if they had been found in some hole or corner about the place suspicion would have been increased He might have done all that without the slightest difficulty, but having promised Meikle that he would put them in the smithy, into the smithy they must go. So he brings the bag and leaves it in so conspicuous a position that Meikle can see it 26 ft. off at night, and tell from its size and appearance m the dark that it was just such a bag as would hold two sheep-skins. This is his evidence :— " I saw a bag standing up like a flour-bushel bag at the corner of the pines. It was a bulky-looking sack, standing up. It would hold two sheepskins, as I saw it, comfortably." ' Well your Honours, after leaving the bag in this conspicuous way outside the smithy, Lambert, nuite unnecessarily, but true to his promise, sets himself to leave them in the smithy. The smithy is locked • but being a lunatic, he has one of those fine flashes of genius not uncommon to madness. He knows there is a grindstone in the building, and, although it was 10 o'clock at night, he pretends that he wants to get into the smithy in order to sharpen his knife. He got Arthur Meikle to let him in, and by that means was able to deposit the sheepskins in the smithy. The elder Meikle swears that he Iked Lambert " What time at night is this to get a knife sharpened ? But Lambert is a resolute man and must keep his promise. Arthur has come out with his key, the grindstone is set turning but the mysterious bag is left outside in order to reveal its guiltiness to the watchful eye of Meikle and his son No doubt Lambert might have smuggled it in before the old man came out at all He might have smuggled it in when he went .to get his knife sharpened. But that was not Lambert s plan His plan was to leave it outside in order that Meikle could look at it and tell the jury in Invercargill that it would just comfortably hold two mysterious sheepskins. Well, the father goes and sees something else He watches Mr. Lambert. He does not like, it would seem, his being there at 10 o clock at night, He observes his countenance. He observes the furtive look with which Lambert casts his eyes up to the ceiling where I suppose these sheepskins were. It was an ugly look; and Meikle says he did not
H.—2l.
like the look. Then he goes outside and sees the bag, and asks what is in the bag. "My blankets," says Lambert. Meikle stands 26 ft. off; but although he noticed this and was waiting for the night on which the deed was going to be done, yet, with all this mystery, he does not go over to the bag and look at it. He is not suspicious enough for that. But yet, if you believe him, he kept the smithy locked, and every day had a search made for these mysterious sheepskins. Well, the knife has been sharpened, and the .skins wickedly put into the smithy. Lambert has done his evil work, and he p goes into the house and Meikle says the clock struck ten. He remembers it nineteen years ago. Your Honours will remember that in the tragedy of Bluebeard and a great deal of the literature of that class the clock always strikes something at the critical moment, and here the clock struck ten. Mr. Lambert, if his story is correct, put the skins where he had already told everybody about the district he was going to put them, and the police came and found them there, and Meikle was convicted. But, more wonderful still, Lambert is a common visitor at this house. Harvey says he was there every day. Harvey says his hour for examining the skins was between 7 and 8 o'clock every morning for a period of nearly six weeks. So that it is reasonable to infer that Lambert knew of this practice at the Meikle household. He knew when he put the skins there the night before that next morning at 7 they would be discovered by Harvey, and when the police came they would find nothing at all. But that is not all. Lambert's notice to his employers that sheep had been stolen was given on the 19th or 20th OctobeT, ten days before the police came. He did not know when after that the police would make the raid. So, then, we are to believe that he waits after giving notice for eleven days before he goes with this horrible false evidence to Meikle's, and deposited it in the smithy. I ask your Honours is any part of this rigmarole of Meikle's credible ? Surely it is_all palpably absurd. The fact that he had got a number of witnesses since his conviction to come and tell this story about the man in white and the man in black, and all the rest of it, simply shows what an expert he is in making people believe what never happened, or in inducing dishonest people to perjure themselves. But how did Meikle act when the skins were found ? If his story and that of the others is correct, he was quite aware that the skins were to be marked and brought in this way and put there by Lambert. How then, in those circumstances, would you expect Meikle to act when the skins were discovered ? If Meikle's story is correct, he must have known as soon as ever the police discovered the skins there that the man who put them there was Lambert, and no one else. Your Honours will remember that Lambert had told everybody that he was going to put the skins there. Harvey swears that he heard him say so repeatedly. Arthur Meikle knew, and swears he heard him say so. Nobody but Lambert, it is said, was there the night before the police arrived. Harvey swears that he searched the skins the morning of the day before the police arrived, so that on their own evidence the skins were not there the day before the visit of the police. The only person who had had access to the smithy was Lambert. Could any one, then, have the faintest doubt when the skins were found who the culprit was % But what is the answer given when the police came ? When Harvey, who knew all this, and Arthur Meikle, who knew all this, were confronted with the skins and asked to explain, what was their answer ? If they knew of this conspiracy—if Lambert was, as they say, the man who was paid to do and did this business—why did not Harvey, when these skins were found in the smithy, say, " That is the work of Lambert" ? Why did not young Meikle, when the skins were found in the smithy say, " That is the work of Lambert." Why was some such explanation not given as to their being there ? But what does Arthur Meikle say ? When asked by the police how the skins got there he says they must have been taken off the fence by mistake. Harvey, who hears that explanation given, keeps silence, and does not give the show away. As far as these two men are concerned, after the oath they have taken that they knew the whole plan and believed that none but Lambert could have left the skins there, is it explicable that they did not at once clear themselves by saying, " This is part of the plot; these skins were put there by Lambert, and we will prove it" ? But no, one gives a false reason, and one keeps his mouth shut. Now, let us see how this experienced gentleman, who has various ups and downs in the world (Mr. Meikle), how he acts when the police raid the place and he hears that they have discovered two sheepskins on it. Does he come at once and tell them about this plot—about the black and the white man, and all the rest of it ? Meikle sees Lambert on the Bth November, the day after Meikle was arrested; and I ask your Honours to look at the evidence he swears to, and say whether that can be credited for a moment. He meets this man Lambert, the arch-conspirator, in the Star Hotel. He has been arrested. He knows the skins have been found, and does not say, " Why did not you tell me you were going to put those skins there ? " Instead of that he says, " Speak truthfully, whatever way it is." Now, Mr. McDonald, the witness who was in the box yesterday, says that he heard Meikle ask Lambert to speak truthfully, and that Lambert said he would. He answered " Yes, but I want £10 blood-money from Stuart." Well, now, your Honours, I submit with some confidence that that statement credited to Lambert is absolutely and manifestly false and absurd. Lambert is to speak the truth. He is to give away this plot, and say how he came to put the skins there ; and at the same time he was to get £10 blood-money from Stuart. How is he to get the blood-money from Stuart ? His £50 was dependent upon the conviction. Now, on the 14th, Meikle, who had now had six days more to think it over —six more days in which to recognise that no man but Lambert put those skins there —writes to Lambert and asks him to come and shear for him, and tells him he has nothing to fear, and to listen to no reports, and that Constable Leece would get into serious trouble. ' That is perfectly inconsistent with the story Meikle now asks us to believe. " You had nothing to fear, and listen to no reports." There was a previous letter which will be proved by both Mrs. Lambert and her husband which, if read along with this witness, will give an entirely different meaning from the document than that which Mr. Meikle now attempts to put upon it. In the letter which he wrote earlier he asks Lambert to keep his mouth shut, and it was on the assumption that he kept his mouth shut that he had nothing to fear. Pieced out besides the other letter, " You keep your mouth shut and there is nothing to fear, and listen to no reports." That, it is submitted, is the reasonable and fair interpretation of this document of 14tb November, He is to give his
15— H. 21.
113
H.—2l
114
promise. Now, Lambert will tell you he was to go to shear sheep. The original arrangement was he was to go and shear sheep. These sheep were to include sheep belonging to the company —stolen from the company—and it was part of Lambert's plan to detect the sheep-stealer when this arrangement was made. At any rate that letter Mr. Atkinson : What was the date of the letter ? Dr. Findlay : I have not the date here, but it will be deposed to by two witnesses. It has been deposed to previously, my learned friend will find out in the evidence. Now, your Honours, I am dealing with the possibility of creating this whole story, and I ask your Honours to look at the obviously invented evidence which Meikle has given since this tria' in 1887. In the Magistrate's Court at Wyndham, when he was first tried, his own son went into the box Mr. Atkinson : Arthur Meikle was not in the box before the Magistrate. Dr. Findlay :He was, at any rate, in the higher Court. Harvey was in the witness-box in the lower Court, and might have been asked with regard to this bag. Meikle says that Harvey heard him asking Lambert, " What bag is that ? " and Meikle says that Harvey heard the reply, and his son also heard it; but there is not one word in the trial of 1887 about this bag. Look what important evidence it was. If true it was an important link in the chain of Lambert's guilt Mr. Atkinson : You are making a mistake about Harvey. Dr. Findlay : Arthur Meikle, we are told, was there and heard the whole thing. It is quite unimportant whether one or more was there, but my point is this : that Arthur Meikle is in the box after he had seen Mr. MacGregor, and after Meikle had had an opportunity of preparing his case, and Arthur Meikle is not asked one word about that bag or the subsequent conversation. Can it be possible that the bag had no existence ? Meikle says'that he saw a furtive look, and other suspicious circumstances. This bag not only attracted his notice, but provoked the remark which he says he made. But on his trial before the jury, and in the Court below, not one word is said about it. I put it to the Commission with confidence that the evidence is deliberately manufactured ; and if Meikle has manufactured evidence, in this respect, we are entitled to assume that he will manufacture it in other respects, where necessary. Nor is that all : we heard him tell your Honours how he gave instructions to Harvey to have the smithy locked, and the skins counted. Yet there was not one word in the trial of 1887 about having given any instructions, and not one word about the place having been locked up. Harvey tried to commit himself to a misstatement, as I will show, and had to put that misstatement right. In the Court below he said he took the skins from the fence, and two or three days before the visit of the police he counted them. Before the jury he tried to make out that he counted the skins every day for several weeks. When his statement in the lower Court was brought before him he altered his evidence to agree with it. Yet at Lambert's trial he repeated the evidence, and further swore that he had counted the skins from the middle of September —a period of about six weeks. But not one word of this is found in the evidence of 1887. Ido submit that an expert like Meikle —with his knowledge of evidence, and his experience in the Police Force, and his experience of cases before that date—it is impossible to suppose that he would not have brought that evidence forward in his own defence if it had been true. The explanation given now is ridiculous. He says he handed written notes to Mr. MacGregor, reminding him of certain things, and that Mr. MacGregor tore them up without reading them. Sir, I decline to believe that a careful counsel like Mr. MacGregor would have done anything like that. But that does not help him. He conducted his own case in the lower Court, and he asked Harvey no questions about this; and not one word was said by Harvey or any one else about these precautions. Harvey was a servant of Meikle's, and surely had been fairly coached ; but when one looks at Harvey's evidence one recognises why the jury who tried Meikle rejected it as untrustworthy ; and what one feels astonished at is that it could have had any influence on the jury that tried Lambert. He tells us this story. He says the barn was locked from about the middle of September, when the story was first told him by Lambert, until the beginning of November. It was kept locked, so that no one could get in without the key. Yet this man Harvey pledges his oath that he went into this locked building between 7 and 8 every morning, and went through the farce of counting these skins. On his evidence in the Lambert trial he must have counted these skins forty times, and in a locked building. On the first occasion, in 1887, he says that he only counted the skins two or three times, and in a higher Court he only tried to say he counted them forty times. But in 1895 he took his oath that he counted them every morning—that is, over forty times —and kept the place locked. Surely such inconsistency as that only shows the material out of which Meikle attempts to establish his innocence. Then you come to this significant fact: all along one finds that the evidence that Meikle adduces, instead of getting less as time goes by, it increases and increases in details. We heard from Meikle for the first time last week that Lambert told him he had put the skins in the smithy. Up to that time we had been told that he said he would put the skins on the place or in the buildings ; but no building was specified, and it was just as likely that they would be put in the stable or one of the other buildings as in the smithy. But to-day, at the eleventh hour, and nineteen years after the event, we find that Meikle invents for the first time some new statement to bolster up his case. I have been arraying the items of evidence given at the different trials to show that the story of Lambert having put these two skins in Meikle's smithy was, firstly, inherently absurd, and, secondly, was not believed by Meikle himself at the time. And his conduct shows that he did not believe the skins were placed there by Lambert at all ; and, lastly, that this whole story which he got vp —first, as a shield, and, secondly, as a sword : as a shield to defend himself on the charge of sheepstealing, and as a sword to get a conviction against Lambert. My learned friend has said that as Meikle's story stood in 1887 it might well be the jury discredited it, but as the story stood in 1895 the jury accepted it; and it is suggested that one reason why the jury in 1895 believed the story is that McGeorge then gave evidence for the first time. Now, I take leave to think that McGeorge's evidence in the hands of an advocate like Mr. Solomon had a great deal of weight with the jury at the trial of Lambert. The jury who tried Lambert heard from McGeorge a story which he was asked to repeat in the
115
H,—2l
box the other day. He could not do it. If your Honours win compare he evidence he gave in 1895 with the evidence he gave here yesterday you will see what a complete somersault that witness has turned. In 1895 he said :— " William McGeorge : lam a farming man ; was so in 1887. In employment of Mortgage Company. Meikle lived close by. I remember when Meikle was charged with sheep-stealing. I left that particular station of company and went to another station in 1887. I would not like to say 1 know date I left that station. I know Roderick Barclay. I saw Barclay the day I left that station. I had known him for a long time, meeting him backward and forward. I am sure I met him that day. I know a man Frank Fraser. I met him that day. I had not seen Frank Fraser for two or three years before that. I had not seen him again since. I saw him at Gore about two months ago. I met Fraser at Hugh Cameron's, at Mataura Bridge. About, .perhaps, half past 11. I know Lambert. He was in employ of company also. He slept in same hut as me. He would know I had gone. Before I left —maybe a week or a fortnight —Lambert said he wanted a couple of sheepskins for mats. I left them for him on the fences. I expect it would be last trip I went to station on Saturday. I know I left station on the Monday. On two different occasions I brought skins in from station. The skins were there left; he could see for himself. They were the company's skins. Cross-examined : I had brought in skins to the homestead twice. I was told by Troup to take the skins in. I had to take skins into the home station. I left the two skins hanging on the wire fence alongside of Lambert's hut. I could not tell whether they w r ere fresh or old skins, or whether they were branded or not. I could not be sure if they were hanging on the fence when I left on the Monday. I was not a witness in Supreme Court when Meikle tried. There were sheep where the turnips were. There were some odd ones there when 1 left; more than twenty or thirty —perhaps three or four hundred. While I was there sheep could not have been taken past hut without my knowing. Dogs would have barked. I did not see Lambert the day I left. Re-examined : I have no friendship with Meikle. Only met him once or twice. The night I left station was very wet. I was pretty well wet through. It was a very dark night. I had three horses and a dray with me." Mr. McGeorge's evidence now is this : — " Mr. Atkinson.] Did you get one or two skins for him ?—No, I did not get them for him; he could help himself to them. They were at the back of the hut. "Do you know whether they were got for him ? —I did not give them to him. " Do you mean that he asked you for them and that you did not get them : what was the point of the conversation ?—I could not tell you now what the conversation might be. " You told us he asked about one or two skins for nrats ? —Yes, I remember that right enough. " He asked you for one or two skins for mats, and I want to know whether he got the skins ? — I would not like to say whether he took them or not. I cannot say. " Did you get them for him ? —I did not get them for him. " What did he ask you for ?—Really, I do not know what his idea would be for asking me at the time." I have read you the evidence given by McGeorge in 1895 and the evidence given by him in 1906. We saw McGeorge here, and in answ 7 er to myself he told vs —he certainly was quite sober when he gave his evidence here —that he was repeating all he knew on this question of the sheepskins in 1887. But I take leave to say this, that the evidence given and the words used by McGeorge in 1895, upon which Lambert was convicted, were words and evidence implanted in that old man's mind by the strong will of John James Meikle ; and when he came here and gave his evidence frankly and fully before the Commission he could not repeat the evidence which secured Lambert's conviction in 1895. And I say that the whole of this story of having got skins for Lambert was the fabrication of the man who is now sitting beside Mr. Atkinson (Mr. Meikle). Apart from the complete somersault which I submit this man has made, there is the inherent absurdity of the story. There can be no doubt from what he says now that plenty of skins were at the back of the hut, and were perfectly open to any one who chose to go and take them. Why, then, should Lambert—who was not, you will see when he goes into the box, a fool or a lunatic —why should he go to this old man after he had told everybody he was going to put skins on Meikle's land, and ask him for skins ? The thing is absurd on the face of it. And when you have the witness coming here —that witness upon whose evidence chiefly hinged Lambert's conviction —when you have him coming here and practically revoking all he said ; when you have that, and the improbabilities of the case added to it, I do submit that we must treat McGeorge's evidence as being absolutely unreliable. It may, too, be open to us to ask whether McGeorge had any right to give Lambert the skins, or to any other person —to have given them to Lambert, as McGeorge admitted, would have been dishonest. Mr. Justice Edwards : They were the company's property, and if they were used by the company's servants you would not call that dishonest. Dr. Findlay : McGeorge, at any rate, said they were at the back of the hut, and anybody might take them. His was the evidence which in 1895 was gravely pressed upon the jury—that he had to bring them in and leave them on the fence for Lambert that he might complete his nefarious plan. Now, Lambert gave evidence as to having seen young Meikle drive the sheep from the company's farm to his father's place. There are two distinct branches of proof. There was the evidence of Lambert that on the night of the 17th October, or about then, he saw these sheep driven on the land and one of the sheep killed. There is in addition to that the two sheep-skins which were found in the smithy. Now, I ask you to notice that that part of the case with which I was dealing —the presence of the two skins in the smithy —is as evidence absolutely apart and independent from and of the story told by Lambert as to the theft committed by young Meikle, And I submit that the conviction on that branch of the evidence was a rightful one, even if Lambert was rightfully convicted.
H.—21..
Mr. Justice Cooper : If Lambert was rightfully convicted of perjury, must we not excise the whole of his evidence ? Dr. Findlay : I am content with that Mr. Justice Cooper: Then you say, excising the whole of Lambert's evidence, there was a case to go to the jury ? Dr. Findlay : Yes. Mr. Justice Cooper : Of course, that is what you must say. I mean, supposing we come to the conclusion after the case is finished, that Lambert was rightfully convicted of perjury—-that is the first branch —that is upon the perjury assigned in the indictment preferred against him. Dr. Findlay: Yes. Mr. Justice Cooper : That beingjjso, and he being a perjured witness, upon that assumption can any portion of his evidence be relied upon ? Although I think it follows that if a man in the course of his evidence has upon material points been rightly convicted of perjury, the question is can you place any reliance whatever upon his evidence ? Dr. Findlay : I do not require it. Mr. Justice Cooper : Then you must say that, excising the whole of Lambert's evidence, there was still a case to go to the jury based upon the presence of the sheep and the finding of the skins. Does not the finding of the skins depend a great deal upon some portion of Lambert's evidence ? Dr. Findlay : No, I submit it does not. Mr. Justice Cooper : I do not say you are wrong, or that Mr. Atkinson is wrong ; but I want to see how far your argument goes, because it is quite clear to me that if a man is convicted of perjury in any material part of the evidence given by him at a trial you cannot place any reliance upon any part of his evidence unless it is corroborated by independent witnesses. Mr. Justice Edwards : Of course there might be something that you could rely upon. There might be something sworn to by such a witness which was corroborated by documentary evidence. Mr. Justice Cooper : Yes, if it was corroborated by independent evidence. I wanted to see how far Dr. Findlay could legitimately go with his argument, I simply stated it as a general proposition. I do not say that it must apply in this case. Dr. Findlay : What one must do is to look at the case of perjury which was attempted to be made out. What the prosecution did was to take the story told by Lambert with regard to the 17th October as untrue. No attempt was made to show, because no assignment of perjury was made in respect to it, that Lambert perjured himself in saying that the skins were not put there by him, and no Court has found that he put the skins there, or has found that he committed perjury in denying that he put them there. Mr. Atkinson: Ido not think he denied it in 1887. Dr. Findlay : Yes, he did ; he was cross-examined. Of course, it was part of their case that he put the skins there. As it appears now by my learned friend that it was not part of their case that the skins were put there by Lambert Mr. Atkinson : Ido not know that it was. I was not conducting the case, and I was not aw r are that it was in evidence. Dr. Findlay : The next broad question is, was Lambert guilty ? As Mr. Justice Cooper has pointed out, my first main proposition is that the conviction of Meikle stands, whether Lambert was guilty or not. I now deal with the question, was Lambert guilty ? Now, your Honours, this case is unique, as my friend has pointed out. Meikle has protested his innocence with the vehemence to be expected from a man of his energies; Lambert has protested his innocence, if not with the same vehemence, certainly with the same consistency. Lambert has not the faculty of collecting people at streetcorners in various parts of the colony and addressing them on his wrongs; but if I were disposed to follow my friend in a somewhat rhetorical description of Lambert's wrongs, I might perhaps describe the sufferings on the part of an innocent Lambert much as my friend has so vividly and so eloquently described those suffered by Meikle. Lambert, too, had a wife, and he had six children ; they, too, had to suffer the loss of the breadwinner and all the disgrace following on his conviction. If in the course of my duty I can show you this man was innocent, or at least create in your Honours' impartial mind some grave doubt of his guilt, then I feel I am doing a service to the interests of justice generally. Might I ask you, in opening up this wide question, to look at the position in which Lambert stood ? Here on the one side is J. J. Meikle, a strong, forceful, cunning man. He had long been in contest with a large investment and land company —a company owning several stations and many thousands of sheep. In any contest between this small farmer and this large land company the sympathy of Meikle's neighbours must naturally lie with him, and not in favour of the impersonal corporation possessing such wealth and means. In the first place, therefore, it would be easier for Meikle to find assistance in this conflict —at any rate so far as the evidence of neighbours was concerned—than for this company. But it was infinitely easier for Meikle to get assistance from his neighbours as witnesses than it was for this informer Lambert. There lives in. the prejudices of British people some traces of that old day when the law was more honoured in the breach than in the observance, and when an informer was a man more to be detested than believed. This blind prejudice lives on still, and an informer in our own day carries on his back an amount of obloquy which in the cool light of reason is absolutely wrong. You have learned that this man Lambert had to suffer the contemptuous epithet of " informer " to be applied to him. We are told that he rounded upon a man once, and struck him. It illustrates to your Honours, apart from the guilt or innocence of Meikle, the kind of feeling the neighbourhood would extend towards Lambert. And when Lambert turned to look for evidence, so far from finding volunteers, he found the cold shoulders of many who might have assisted him. And I ask you in considering the evidence that he was to receive £1 per week—and £50 if he could bring the thief to justice—in considering that evidence and the inference to be drawn from it that you should consider also the inference that
116
117
H.—2l
he stood alone and friendless; and all down these years the backs of possible witnesses have been turned upon the informer —upon the man whose evidence secured the conviction. So that when we come to face it fairly, the man who has had the greatest trouble to vindicate himself —though innocent —has been the self-same Lambert. Now, your Honours, it is easy—my learned friend did not overdo it—it is easy at a street-corner to create a prejudice against another who gives his services for money to secure the conviction of a criminal. Properly investigated, it is difficult to see why. But it is so, and I have to begin with the admission, not likely to influence your Honours very much, that Lambert was to act as detective to secure the man who was stealing the company's sheep. I want to say here how this employment of Lambert arose. It will be proved both by the police who will be called, and by Troup and others. His employment arose in this way : the police were utterly unable to find out who were stealing large numbers of these sheep. Constable Leece declared that he could do no more, that the company must employ a detective of their own, and the police recommended to the company the man Lambert, who had done some work of that kind before, and who was believed to be a skilful and an honest man, a man who has no record against him as far as I have been able to ascertain, and who was recommended by the police. __ Justice Edwards : Who employed him 'I Dr. Findlay : I believe Troup actually employed him; but the matter came before the board of directors, and it was declared by a resolution of the board that a private detective should be employed to secure the conviction of the man who was stealing thejjompany's sheep—— Mr. Justice Edwards : The reason I asked was that it was suggested that Cameron had personally employed him. Dr. Findlay : That is not so, your Honour. The course was, Mr. McDonald tells me, and I shall prove it in Mr. Troup's evidence, that Cameron instructed Troup after the resolution of the board to employ Lambert. Mr. Justice Edwards : As far as your instructions go, Lambert was not employed by Cameron at a personal interview ? Dr. Findlay : That is so, your Honour. We can prove it beyond question Mr. Justice Edwards : That is what I wanted to know, because Sutherland still sticks to that. Mr. Justice Cooper : So that he never came into personal contact with Lambert ? Dr. Findlay : I think not, sir. Mr. McDonald joins me in the view that Cameron never in point offjtfct came into contact with Lambert. There was really a trial of Lambert for perjury in 1887, because the whole defence raised by Meikle in his trial was that Lambert had committed perjury. Your Honours will find that eight witnesses in all are led by Meikle for that purpose —Tempi eton, Harvey, Shiels, Davie, Meikle, Waters, Alex. McDonald, and Burgess. Each of these witnesses' evidence is to be found in the printed booklet in your Honours' possession, and they will be found to give evidence the object of which was to show that Lambert had committed peijury. In preparing his defence of that date, Meikle must have sought for every scrap of evidence he could get to prove that perjury; and Mr. MacGregor, tor the defence, stated to the Court that every particle of evidence had been collected. Mr. MacGregor admitted this at the time of the trial. Meikle says that he knew definitely on the Bth November Lambert had put the skins there. He had Lambert's evidence in his hands a month before his trial; he had the evidence given in Wyndham in his hands a month before his trial; he was out on bail; he had experience, as we can see, in preparing case;. —an experience both of his own and as a policeman ; and we have also seen with what force and energy he could conduct such a matter as this. Is it not a fair inference that the case of perjury he made out against Lambert on the 16th December, 1887, was the strongest he could make, when all the witnesses were on the spot in the neighbourhood, when the events were fresh, and when tests of fences, pastures, and other disputed facts were easy ? Take the case for perjury made in 1887. The only new witness I submit of any importance at all that he got in 1895, was McGeorge ; and I think we may dispose of McGeorge very shortly. Take the case he made out for perjury in 1887 : could any jury have reasonably convicted Lambert of perjury on the evidence led in 1887 i I submit that a perusal of that evidence and the complete refutation it receives from the other side, places beyond question the suggestion that he could have been convicted merely on the evidence in itself. It required the lapse of seven or eight years to strengthen the case against him sufficiently to get a verdict. Meikle was out of gaol Mr. Justice Cooper : In 1887 Meikle was not competent as a witness. Dr. Findlay : Quite so ; but he could make a statement, and there a single statement he could make that his witnesses could not make too. There was no knowledge peculiar to him ; the whole of these witnesses could speak to the same story. He got out of gaol on the 10th November, 1892, and the first case against Lambert in the lower Court does not start until nearly two years afterwards —15th August, 1894. Mr. Atkinson has frankly told us what Meikle was doing—he was his own solicitor ; preparing his own brief —to use Mr. Atkinson's own words —he prepared the brief on which Lambert was convicted ; and I rely very much on that statement, that Meikle did prepare the brief, and prepared it very effectively. If you will contrast the evidence of 1887 with that of 1895, I submit that your Honours could extract from the difference no other conclusion than that the whole of the additional evidence between 1887 and 1895 is manufactured. It is evidence that could have been given better and clearer in 1887, as I propose to show. Meikle says, as regards himself, that his mouth was shut, and he was able to bring out things for the first time in 1895 which he was prevented from leading the Court in in 1887. With all due respect, this is absurd ; he could hive made a statement. There is not one piece of new evidence in 1895 that could not have been given by the witnesses he called in 1887, or could not have been obtained by cross-examination of the witnesses on the other side. Your Honours will put side by side the varying evidence of such a chief witness as Harvey. Harvey was evidently Meikle's sheet-anchor. Put the evidence that Harvey gave in 1887 beside the
H.-21
118
evidence he gave in 1895, and the conclusion you will be forced to draw is practically that which Mr. Atkinson frankly told you he was bound to draw when he told you he could not rely upon the evidence of Harvey Mr. Atkinson : On his chronology. Mr. Justice Cooper : He is hopelessly out in his dates. Dr. Findlay : And he is obviously anxious to alter his evidence for the purpose of helping Meikle. He alters it curiously in 1895 in the higher Court, showing that the witness was perfectly biassed and unfair. It would be wearisome, and perhaps not very profitable, to put the evidence of these two occasions side by side ; and really you would hardly discover the relationship—you could hardly realise that an honest witness could give the evidence he did in 1887, when the events were fresh, and in 1895 improve it, strengthen it, and alter it for the purpose of securing Lambert's conviction. Some things, of course, you would not expect to be the same, but all the facts essential to Meikle in 1887 you would certainly expect to be made by such a man as Harvey, assisted by Meikle himself, and by the legal assistance he had. If you read the evidence of young Meikle and Harvey, who were able to speakto all that the elder Meikle was able to speak to —because they were present at the interview —you will see how the story is embellished and increased as the years have elapsed. You will hear for the first time in 1895, that Lambert had said Meikle was to go first, Kelloh next, and Jack Reid next; that the night before the police came, Lambert said, " Depend upon it, old man, it is not to be done tonight." You wil l hear for the first time of this attractive story—that one man was to appear in light clothes, and the other in dark. Why is it that that was not mentioned by any of the witnesses in 1887 1 You have a lot of other details —you are told in 1887 that he is to get £50, and Cameron and Troup are at the back of him ; but, curiously enough, from all the witnesses in 1887, there was not a syllable of this picturesque story of the two men coming, one in light and the other in dark, to put skins there. Where did it come from ? Is there any other explanation except pure manufacture ? Then you have another illustration of how the evidence was piled up against Lambert. When Harvey goes into the box in 1895, what does he tell us ? He tells you that from the first time Lambert told them that skins were to be put on the land he got instructions from Meikle to keep the place locked, and to make a search. When would that be ? Meikle says about the middle of September, so that you have half of September to the first of November —about forty-eight days. This place was locked, and these skins were counted every morning. If you find that these witnesses have found it necessary to create this fanciful story —that they have deliberately set themselves to manufacture this fanciful story —how can you place any confidence in their evidence ? For the first time in 1895 do we hear anything about the locking of the smithy. Harvey does not say a word about the locking of the smithy in 1887, neither does Arthur Meikle. If this had been locked for forty-eight days, and Arthur Meikle and Harvey aware of it, is it credible that they were not asked about it ? I submit the explanation can be only that it was manufactured, for no such fact was there to correspond with the explanation given in 1905. Meikle states that he gave instructions to do this locking and searching. Not a word about instructions in 1887 —it is all new. Next you have the most significant fact that—evidence which might have impressed the jury—a bag is imported into the case for the first time in 1895. I ask your Honours, in the name of all that is reasonable, why was not young Meikle asked at the previous trial, " Did you not hear your father ask about the bag that was standing against this building ? " And, more wonderful still, how is it that in the cross-examination of Lambert in the lower Court and in the upper Court Lambert is never asked a word about the bag having been there on the night before the police came ? Surely this is a question you would expect a competent man like Meikle to have asked, or a competent lawyer to ask for him ? When you come to 1895, and Meikle gives a graphic description of this bag, it is quite easy to see that in the hands of skilful advocacy a jury might be misled. I ask the Court to look with the greatest suspicion on this steady increase of the evidence in essential facts from 1887 to 1895, and even to 1906. We heard here for the first time of Lambert's furtive look. Meikle gave evidence in 1895, but not a word was there then of this furtive look, and of the other things ; that is all new. For the first time he was able to swear that he heard Lambert say the building in which he was to put the skins was the barn. That appears in 1906, and it illustrates how a case in the hands of an industrious and unconscientious man can be made stronger as time elapses, and not weaker. The position Lambert stood in, if he were an innocent man in 1887, was entirely different from that in which he stood in 1895. In 1895, eight years afterwards, the condition of the fences, of course, had been altered ; pastures had been altered ; and no mere inspection of Meikle's farm or the company's land could settle the disputed facts then before the Court. So that Meikle was able to bring before the Court in 1895 evidence as to his pastures and the rest of it, which, if true, would have been much more easily presented to the jury which tried him in 1887. If your Honours will look at Harvey's evidence in 1887 and Harvey's evidence in 1895, you will find the differences I now shortly enumerate : and I am entitled to ask the Court to remember that Harvey was a man at that time in the employ of Meikle, who was coached by Meikle, and who altered his evidence between 1887 and 1895 at the instance of Meikle, for the purpose of securing Lambert's conviction. Firstly, there is not a word about the locking of the smithy ; secondly, the counting of the skins was confined to two or three days in 1887 — in 1895 it is every day for a period of forty-eight days—he swears to receiving orders, in 1895, which he never admitted in 1887—orders as to examining the skins every morning ; he swears to examining them every morning between 7 and 8 o'clock —swears to a very careful examination every morning before breakfast; swears he intended to examine them the day the police came, so that if he had examined them according to his practice, they must have been examined at 7 o'clock, and no trace of the skins would have been there when the police arrived. Then you have the evidence of Mr. Ryder, who has not been called. He referred to some expression of Mr. Lambert's in which it was stated that he said, " I put them there all right" ; and he assumed he referred to the skins. Mr. Ryder has not been called, and if his evidence is to be used, then I am going to ask permission to call some evidence which may be obtained in the police records.
119
H.—2l
Mr. Justice Cooper : He admits he was convicted of perjury. Dr. Findlay : That is only a comma in the story of his record. But he is in New Zealand, I am instructed; and if his evidence is to be pressed upon the Court I will undertake to have him found. I will undertake to have him brought to Wellington, because the record of the man now in my hands is such that it is imperative that his record should be known to the Judges. Mr. Atkinson : You should give the records of your own people. Dr. Findlay : If you ask me for the record of Lambert I tell you I did apply to the police, and there is not one conviction against him. You will have him in the box presently, and you will see how far that is true. Mr. Justice Edwards : Are you relying on Ryder, or shall we strike him out ? Dr. Findlay : I will ask the Court to strike him out. Mr. Justice Edwards (to Mr. Atkinson) : Do you wish to strike him out ? Mr. Atkinson : I thought all the Supreme Court notes were going in. Mr. Justice Edwards : Dr. Findlay is not content to let Ryder's evidence go. Dr. Findlay : Not this evidence of Ryder's. Mr. Justice Edwards : Then you will have to find him, Dr. Findlay, if you can. In any case, we are entitled to know what he is, I suppose. Dr. Findlay : If I do not secure him I at least will put before the Commission the police record of what he has been doing. Now, the next witness my friend relies on, and the witness he relied on in the prosecution of 1895, is Westacote, a butcher. He was called to witness in Meikle's trial in the Court below. What he was prepared to say we can infer was known both to Meikle and those who were advising him. He was not called in Meikle's trial in the Supreme Court, although if he were able to give the evidence which he gave here the other day that evidence would be of importance. Mr. Justice Cooper : And he seems to have been called in the Police Court ? Dr. Findlay : But not in the other Court. Mr. Justice Cooper : I understand you are going to put all the depositions in ? Dr. Findlay : I will, if the Commission will permit, give a bound copy of the depositions in all the trials, as I have given to Mr. Atkinson. Everything I have I will supply the Commission with. Mr. Atkinson : He was put in the box in 1887 before the Justices of the Peace, and they ruled him out. Dr. Findlay : The evidence he could give was obviously known to Meikle and his legal adviser, and he might, of course, have been called in the Supreme Court. Now, he says he saw the skins outside the Court, and that they were skins from dead sheep; but curiously enough he was called to give that evidence in 1895 when eight years had elapsed, and the skins could no longer be produced to confront or support him. Although his evidence was evidently well known to Meikle his evidence was not called in 1887, and he is reserved for eight years later, when he is able to say that the skins were taken from dead sheep, and not from sheep which had been killed, or, as he put it here in answer to Mr. Justice Cooper, from sheep which had died from inflammation. Now, lamin a position to show that that evidence, though it may be quite honest, is absolutely inaccurate. The skins were particularly closely examined by experts. They were particularly closely examined by a man who can claim to know as much, lam told, as Mr. Westacote. He examined the skins carefully, having them in his possession for some time, and he will be able to give you a minute description of the skins, and give what seems to me conclusive proof that those skins came from sheep which had been killed in the ordinary way. I am informed by four witnesses—experts, all of them—that if a sheep has died from inflammation, as suggested by Westacote, traces of the nature of its death are left most clearly upon the skin. It is marked with blood-marks, or red marks, and presents an entirely different appearance from that of a skin taken from a sheep killed in the ordinary way. Three of these witnesses, speaking from a close inspection of the skins, and the fourth as an expert, quite support the proposition I am making, that the difference is quite clear. These four witnesses will show that Mr. Westacote's recollection, assuming him to be an honest witness, is entirely at fault, And is it credible that an old sheep-farmer, a man who had been at the business as Meikle had been for some twelve years or more, would not have brought evidence in 1887 of the fact if that skin came from a dead sheep upon the run ? Because, your Honours, the case there which they set themselves to answer was this : Lambert did not see the sheep killed in the smithy. These skins were not skins taken from sheep stolen from the company. Now, what would have been more conclusive proof than this proved by expert evidence, that these skins were taken from sheep that had died from inflammation and not from sheep that had been killed with the knife at all ? Why was that evidence not given at the time ? Why is it that a farmer with the knowledge of Meikle did not bring some evidence in the case of 1887 to prove that the skins came from dead sheep ? That is left for eight years later, when the skins had disappeared, and when Lambert is no longer able to bring them before experts. And is it a fair way to manufacture evidence of perjury against another ? The absence of evidence in 1887 on this point can only be explained on the ground that such evidence could not be obtained, simply because no witness who saw the skin would swear it came from a sheep that died from inflammation. The next new witness is a man named Connor, the old man who gave evidence here yesterday. His evidence is on page 41. There is no attempt at an explanation of why this witness was not called in 1887. He was living on the farm ; he was a farm labourer. " I was on Meikle's place after he went to gaol. I was there as a servant. On two occasions I found sheep of the company's coming through the fence. I was working for Meikle before ; I was five years with him before he was convicted. I saw their sheep on his land hundreds of times. He kept his fences in good order. The fences were not good all along. I have seen Meikle's sheep on the company's place. I stayed in the hut where Harvey stayed when I was there. No oats or grassseed kept there. Grass-seed was kept in the barn. The barn and smithy are all in one building."
120
H.—2l
My friend Mr. Atkinson, quite rightly, though with a note of triumph in his address, asked what was to become of the theory about fences being sheep-proof when a witness actually swore he saw sheep coming through ; and he read you the evidence of Mr. Connor. I admit the force of that, but why was not Connor called in 1887 ? He was there, he was living on this place for some time before the trial, and he could have been called to say what he saw. Mr. Atkinson : I am instructed that he was in the hospital. Dr. Findlay : That I decline to accept as an explanation. It is mentioned nowhere. Mr. Atkinson : He was in the hospital in Dunedin. Dr. Findlay : That does not appear on the records before us, and he was not asked. Further than that, when he gives his evidence at the perjury trial he is not asked " Why did you not give evidence before ? " You would have expected the counsel, Mr. Solomon, to have said " You did not give evidence before in 1887 because you were in hospital ? " But not a word about that from Mr. Solomon. Supposing this old man had been called for the defence eleven or twelve days after the police raid, and he had said, " I saw two sheep getting through the fence," what would the reply have been ? "My good sir, come and point out the place, or tell us where this place was." The test could have been easily applied ; but when you keep a man eight years, until the nature of the fence is entirely altered, it is a very easy thing for him to say, " I saw two sheep coming through the fence at some particular place." I ask your honours to accept the suggestion I make to you—for this is not an isolated case ; it is not as if this were the only instance, but this is of a piece with all the rest —that where a witness who might have been called in 1887, and whose evidence could then have been tested either to complete support or complete refutation, is not called, but is allowed to stand by for eight years, when the whole condition of things is changed, and then steps into the box to secure Lambert's conviction for perjury, he ought to be disbelieved. Ido not wonder that this method did secure the conviction of Lambert in the hands of a man who has spent a considerable part of his life in preparing cases both of his own and of other people—a man who has evidently nothing to do but go round the country-side collecting and fabricating evidence. There should be no difficulty in the thing, especially when operating against a penniless man like Lambert. Lambert had to find his own defence. He was the informer, and hence unpopular enough in all conscience, and it was much easier to get Lambert, though innocent, convicted than it was in 1887 to secure the conviction, though guilty, of Meikle. He, too, had plenty of means, on his own showing, and was able thus to provide the best counsel for his own defence. According to his lawyer's statement he had collected every scrap of evidence which would be of assistance to him. Mr. Justice Edwards : This question of the condition of the fences I suppose was raised in 1887 ? Dr. Findlay : Very seriously raised. It was one of the main points of contest. Our side called evidence about it, and yet this man was not called. Mr. Justice Edwards : It is very unsatisfactory, of course, that there was nothing as to the condition of the fences at that time. It is, of course, obvious enough that after a lapse of eight years a man might swear almost anything he likes about the fences. Mr. Justice Cooper : Mr. Atkinson pointed out that some witnesses called for the prosecution in 1887 spoke about the fences not being sheep-proof. Mr. Duncan, for instance. Mr. Atkinson : Duncan and Davie. They were instructed by the police, and called for the defence. They had been employed by the company. Dr. Findlay : My point is that additional evidence and witnesses were called on the conviction of Lambert in 1895—a1l available in 1887 —whereas if that evidence had been called in 1887 Lambert would have had an opportunity of testing it by existing conditions. And then, your Honours, the question of the respective condition of the cultivation upon the land of the company and the land of Meikle was in contest in 1895. On page 33 of Meikle's own evidence, he says,— " One side of my property, though the best, is still unfenced. At that time there was no cultivation on the company's land." - Now, our case was that on our land there was a large area of turnips, and that there was cultivation of grain and other pasture. Well, that conflict as to what the condition of the pastures was, curiously enough, never raised in 1887. I said this morning, and I hope lam not wearying you by repeating it, that my learned friend to-day and right through the case has brought new evidence to show that on the ploughed land stood a crop 9 in. high, and that there was a good deal of grass that could fatterr sheep, and all the rest of it. Not one word of that evidence, although the question was in conflict, was called in 1887. In 1895 Meikle swears there was no cultivation upon the company's land, the purpose, of course, being to show that he had good pasture and the company had not. Mr. Justice Cooper : In 1887 the prosecution led evidence to show the condition of the company's feed ; but I have not been able to see that the defence led any evidence to show the condition of Meikle's property, except that one witness speaks to there being grass on the river-bank. Dr. Findlay : Oh, yes, that is another matter. That is the fog and cocksfoot on the river-bank. Mr. Justice Edwards : It seems to me that a crop of oats 9 in. high would be quite sufficient inducement for sheep without any grass at all. Dr. Findlay : That is so. That evidence must surely have been available in 1887. The companywere relying upon the excellence of their pasture as a reason why the sheep should not stray. Mr. Justice Cooper : There is no doubt that that evidence was available in 1887, because the oats must have been there then. Dr. Findlay : Yes, your Honour, they could have sent twenty or thirty men down to 9 in. high growing upon Meikle's land. Mr. Justice Cooper : The evidence not being called in 1887, you ask us to infer that the oats were not in existence ? Dr. Findlay : That is so.
121
H.—2l.
Mr. Justice Edwards : It is obvious enough that a witness might eight years later believe oats 9 in. high to be there that year if they were there the year before or after. Dr. Findlay : Mr. Forsaith could not say whether it was in 1886 or 1887 that he saw the land. Your Honours will see that both Mr. Winter and Mr. Forsaith had no possible reason for remembering it. They say they were there with some cattle nineteen years ago, but they are unable to tell us what the nature of the pasture was. It would be only a fleeting impression, and it just shows you how easy it is to get an honest witness to tell a story which may put a man in gaol for perjury if you only allow a long enough time to elapse. Ido ask the Court to bear in mind that the case the company made was that their sheep must have strayed from rich pasture land on to bare land —on to this ploughed land which was repeatedly referred to in 1887. It is referred to as ploughed land in 1887 right throughout the case. No one then had the hardihood to suggest it had a crop of oats 9 in. high upon it. You have to wait a good many years before that could grow. Now, after nearly nineteen years have passed .we have the vague Mr. Perkins, who did not know exactly where he was, telling us of the crop then ; and you have Mr. Forsaith, and Mr. Winter, and others, whose evidence was quite available apparently at that time as now, put into the box so many years afterwards. Mr. Atkinson : Perkins was in Australia. Dr. Findlay : Even so, what Mr. Perkins saw I suppose any one could have seen; and, in fact, you could have called the whole country-side in support of the fact that there was a crop 9 in. high. Mr. Atkinson : A witness was called to prove that oats were sown in September. Dr. Findlay : That still further shows that if the oats were sown Meikle had an opportunity of inviting his neighbours to come and see them, and testifying to having seen them in Court, and the same in regard to Duncan, who had examined the fences and had been over the property. Why did he not say there was a crop upon the ploughed land ? He had been working there, and was a witness for the defence. Here we have to wait nineteen years until this crop grows in the rich, fertile imagination of Mr. J. J. Meikle. Ido submit, then, that this additional evidence which was imported into the case in 1895 and since must be viewed with such grave suspicion that it cannot be relied upon at all; and we are entitled, I submit, to go back to the case made against Lambert in 1887 and ask whether the charge then made against him proved him to be guilty of perjury. Now, what was his story ? He will tell it himself, and whether he makes a good witness or a bad witness I beg leave to say this: that he will give his evidence with more frankness and less shuffling than the man who stands opposed to him to-day— than Mr. J. J. Meikle, because I am inclined to think that your Honours have seldom had a witness who attempted to deny the truth longer, more persistently, or more astutely than that same witness did when under cross-examination. Whatever Lambert may be, he will tell you his story simply; and he will give my learned friend one-tenth part of the trouble Mr. Meikle gave me. What is his story ? In July, 1887, Mr. Troup, the manager, found traces of sheep, the footsteps of a man and a dog in the snow, which traces showed clearly that sheep had been driven from the leasehold on to Meikle's place. A log which had been placed under the fence to make it sheep-proof had been removed, and that log had not been put back in the bed it had occupied before its removal. This was reported to Mr. Cameron, the manager of the company, by Mr. Troup, who pointed out that these sheep must have been driven from the company's leasehold on to Meikle's, and your Honours will remember the company had been losing sheep at the rate of twelve hundred in the twelve months. A report was sent to the manager, and the manager instructed Mr. Troup to see the police. Mr. Troup saw Constable Leece. Now, we will call Constable Leece ; Fand I take leave to think my learned friend will not dispute the absolute honesty of Constable Leece in this matter. He saw Constable Leece at Mataura, and the police said that it would not do for him to be watching Meikle's property several miles away from the police-station. The police were then asked, " Well, what do you propose should be done. We believe Meikle is stealing our sheep." Constable Leece suggested to Troup that the company must employ a private detective, and he (Leece) named Lambert, who was afterwards employed about the beginning of September, 1887. That, your Honours, is how Lambert came to be employed. He was recommended by the police after the company had appealed to the police for some means of detecting these thieves. Now, my learned friend has skilfully criticized the arrangement made between the company and Lambert. The arrangement was this, he was to get £1 a week, he was to live upon the company's land, and if he discovered the real thief of the sheep from the company's land he was to get a sum of £50. Your Honours have heard the criticism of that arrangement. Well, I ask, it you are going to employ a private detective, is there anything inherently wrong in such a contract ? My learned friend said in vigorous language that it was a very improper arrangement to make. But, your Honours, if my sheep are being stolen time after time, and if the police of the colony cannot protect me and my property, am I not at liberty to adopt any honourable means open to me to secure the conviction of the thief ? The arrangement made in this case was quite an honourable one. He was to get the evidence which would satisfy the Court that the man he was watching was a thief, and he was to receive for his efforts a sum of £50. Mr. Justice Edwards : The principle of no cure no pay is, of course, common in this business. It prevails in regard to the rewards offered by the Government. It is done by the authorities here, and also by the Home Secretary in England. But there is this to be said about it: in the case of a witness who has a monetary interest in the proving of a crime it is necessary to scrutinise that evidence very closely. Beyond that Ido not say anything about it. Dr. Findlay : To that I submit. If one has got interest to secure a conviction the evidence must be very narrowly looked .into. But may Uadd to your observations this observation :If a man sets himself to earn a sum of £50, or any other sum, and had some experience as a private detective, his story would have all the appearance of consistency and of bona fides. He may be credited with sitting down to invent a story ; but, if so, he would invent one that would not be composed of inconsistencies of time or place, or inconsistencies of any other nature. And what I say about Lambert
I(3—H. 21.
H.—2l
122
is this: if he set himself to invent a story he could have escaped every pitfall that my learned friend says he fell into, as I will show in a few moments. It is admitted that the evidence of one who has a pecuniary interest in a conviction must be looked to narrowly, but I will submit that this man's story and all its surroundings has all the genuine ring of truth. Let us begin with these observations. Lambert knew the man he was dealing with. He knew Meikle, and what he had not learned from him personally he had learned from reputation. He knew he was dealing with a man who was an old policeman ;he knew he was dealing with a cunning man whose detection would be difficult; and he set himself to adopt those means which he thought would best arrive at the discovery of the thefts. What was that ? He boldly went to Meikle. He was asked right off by Meikle, " What is your business here ? " He says he met Meikle picking up stones in one of his fields, and he replied to Meikle, " I am sent here to find out who is stealing the company's sheep " ; but he added with a significant something which led Meikle to infer that Meikle had no reason to be afraid. Now, lam going to put things in a certain order and prove them afterwards, and you will see how much • stronger this case is than my learned friend would make it to be. Lambert had the permission of the company to give away certain grass-seed. Grass-seed is referred to in the evidence, but this is the part it played in this detection. He impressed upon the wily Mr. Meikle the fact that he (Lambert) was not going to have very open eyes about the place. He said, in the course of conversation, " I find some grass-seed at the hut. lam not going to use it." Mr. Atkinson : You did not cross-examine Mr. Meikle on that. Are you going to cross-examine him ? Dr. Findlay : I will cross-examine him if you like. I had not the opportunity of going through Lambert's evidence until after Meikle had left the box, and if Meikle wants to deny it he can go into the box. Meikle was told by Lambert that there was grass-seed at the hut, and he (Lambert) was not going to sow it, and Meikle could have it. Meikle sent Arthur, his son, that night to Lambert's hut. The seed was not given that night, but Lambert was invited to call at Meikle's house —to come and visit Meikle's house. The following evening Arthur came and took away the grass-seed. Now, your Honours, that was done deliberately. It was done by Lambert for the purpose of impressing upon Meikle that he (Lambert) was not going to use his eyes to secure Meikle's detection. Your Honours will see that giving that grass-seed away would in the eyes of Meikle expose Lambert to very serious criticism by the company, because Meikle assumed the seed was given to him by Lambert improperly and with a view to defraud the company. It was not so given. It was given with the knowledge of the company. That relationship being established, Lambert secured his first step towards the confidence of Meikle, and he was invited to come over to the house. He went over. Your Honours will remember that about that time the horse for which Scott was afterwards imprisoned was on the property of Meikle, and that horse had been worked for some time after Scott left it there. It had been wcrked for three or four weeks, they tell us. It had been worked for some weeks, at any rate, after Meikle swore he had bought it from Scott. The hour for its sale had arrived. Mr. Meikle must sell this horse, and when Lambert visited Meikle's he found Arthur Meikle doctorirg the brand. He was not altering it with a hot iron or anything of that kind. The brand had been altered before by Scott or Meikle, and what they were doing when Lambert went over was bathing it or washing it to remove a scab which made the alteration far too obvious. That is the operation which Lambert swears he saw when he visited Meikle's land. He held his per.ee about it, and an additional confidence was established between the two men. He told Meikle that he was to receive £50 to secure his (Meikle's) conviction. He was to get £50 il he caught Meikle stealing the company's sheep. Now, your Honours, the purpose of this is quite obvious. It is just precisely what a detective in the employ of the Government would have to do in similar circumstanoes. It is just the kind of thing the detectives of this colony have to do every day to meet the wiles and tricks and the watchful eye of a criminal. Mr. Justice Edwards : Something like what they did in London the other day. They got hold of a receiver's house, and the police rxted as receivers of stolen goods for some days. Dr. Findlay : You must adapt your methods of detection to the skill of the thief, and I have no doubt whatever if Lambert had gone prowling about Meikle's land with a suspicious look about him that Meik'e would have taken precious care that no sheep from the company's land came over to h : m. Th-3 first thing a ski'ful detective would have to do in dca'ing with Meikle would be to estab'ish this friend'y relationship wh : ch apparently was ultimately established. Mrs. Meikle puts the thing in a nutshell. She says, "He gammoned to be our friend." On page 20 of the printed evidence before your H mours, Lambert says — " This was three weeks after I came there. I did say I was to get £50 if I got a conviction against any one for stea'ing sheep ; not against him." That was said on cross-examination, and my learned friend used it as if this money was to be paid to Lambert for a conviction against Meik'e only. What the company wanted to get was a conviefcon against the sheep stealer, and no doubt Lambert thought, and a'so no doubt rightly, that Meikle was the sheep-stea'er. Now this statement is doubtfess the exceeding'y small and minute basis on which has been b-iilt this whole story about getting £50, putting skins on the ground, the dark and white man, and the rest of it. This has been developed into the fairy-tale my lef.rned friend and his client ask the Court to believe. Well, some weeks having passed, and this re'ationslrp having been established, you come to the night on which the sheep were stolen. May I pause here to remark the very important fact that in the Court when Lambert was first examined he did not pledge himself to the 17th October. His depositions will show that he. said " About the 17th October" ; and if he had maintained that statement it is submitted he never cou'd have been convicted of perjury. What was done at his trial for perjury was this : It was shown in the Supreme Court on Meikle's conviction that he did swear, or at least evidence was led to show that he did swear, precisely to the 17th, and Mr. Solomon called witness after witness to show that on the night of the 17th young Meikle was too ill to be out, that Lambert
123
H.- 21
was at Mataura, and a great many other things which happened to make it impossible. Mr. Justice Williams, as my learned friend shows, pointed out to the jury that the date itself was not the one cardinal fact, although supposing the date to be wrong it might amount to suspicion. But the reason the 17th was fixed on definitely was that given by Lambert, and it is perfectly true. He said in the Court below that it was about the 17th. He kept no diary, and says he took a note of the day but not of the date. Between that time and the Supreme Court trial he went to Mr. Gregg and said, "Do you remember the night I called at your house and you accompanied me, what date was that " ? and Gregg told him it was the 17th. He was assured that was the date, and Lambert swore definitely to the 17th in the Supreme Court. When it came to the perjury trial, seven years afterwards, Mr. Solomon established a strong alibi to show that neither Arthur Meikle nor Lambert could have been there that night. Well, sir, I do not know what answer was made by the solicitor who defended Mr. Lambert, and I am not going to say about his defence. All I am going to say is that the prosecution was conducted with that force and brilliancy for which Mr. Solomon among the advocates of South stands pre-eminent. But, your Honours, there was no need to allow the whole case to hang upon a date at all. The essence of Lambert's oath was :— " I say the sheep were stolen on the night I called at Gregg's house. I say the sheep were stolen the night Gregg accompanied me from his house towards the pre-emptive right." Was there such a night ? There can be no doubt or question that there was such a night and that Lambert did call at Gregg's house and that Gregg did accompany Lambert some distance until Lambert was heard speaking to a man whose voice Gregg says was very like Arthur Meikle's. Who was Gregg ? No one can suggest that Gregg was in this conspiracy. He was a respectable farmer. It is not suggested that there was any feud between him and Meikle. Gregg gave his evidence in the lower and the higher Court, and would have been here to-day if we could have found him. My learned friend concedes that. He cannot be found in the colony, and is probably dead. Mr. Gregg, a respectable farmer, accused of no bias, a man, I submit, absolutely fair in the circumstances, swears that on a night which he believed was the 17th October Lambert called at his house and he accompanied Lambert towards the pre-emptive right. That, your Honours, was the night of the theft. It is true Lambert fixed it as the 17th. But if your Honours sitting as a jury were satisfied that there was a night on which this man saw a theft, and fixed it by the visit to the friend's house, would your Honours discredit the testimony if you found out that the date was wrong and that it was the 18th or some other date ? What I wish to impress on your Honours is that he did not fix the 17th as the essential point, but the night on wh : ch he visited Gregg's house was the test, the date ranged afterwards. Now, your Honours, it may be, and probably is, that the night he visited Gregg's house was the 18th, and not the 17th October. You will remember, too, he first said that it was about the Nth. I am now in a position. I believe, to place before you something which is almost conclusive that that was the date. Your Honours will remember how very much was made at the perjury trial by Mr. Solomon and his witnesses to show that on the 17th that young Meikle was ill, that Lambert was not there, and so on, and a whole string of circumstances to show that it could not have been on the 17th. But not one of these difficulties apply to the 18th. Now, was it the 18th ? They fixed the date by the going-away of the old man McGeorge; and the question arises, what date did McGeorge leave ? Meikle says he saw McGeorge leaving on Monday morning about 8 o'clock. Very well, Fraser says that he met McGeorge at dinner—that is the 12 o'clock meal —and that the team was in the stable, because he says he went out afterwards with McGeorge and saw the team in the stable. So we have this fact that between the time Meikle saw the man with his team and before midday he must have driven from his hut to Mataura. I will lead evidence to show that he could not have traversed the distance in the time. Further, the day was, as has been described by Meikle, one of the worst days he has known in the colony. This old man on a day of that character would never have left his hut to drive a team over those roads all that distance. You will be told by the manager that it would be absurd. There was no urgency about it, and no one suggests that there was. He could well have remained if he had chosen till the following day, if, indeed, he had arranged to leave on the 17th October. Now I will prove that McGeorge left the hut not to go to Mataura. He may have been at Mataura on Monday, because when a man living in a hut and having out-door work to do on a very wet day it is quite common for him to leave the hut and go to the nearest hotel and put in the time there; and if McGeorge was at Mataura on Monday he was there without his team and for the purpose of filling in time instead of reading literature, prohibition or otherwise, in his hut. At any rate I will prove from evidence that McGeorge left the hut with his team to go to the home station and brought from the hut to the home station the skins which he already says were at the hut. That is not all, your Honours. The manager kept the diary. I propose to produce that diary. Naturally enough, because Troup left the employ of the company years and years ago, the diary was found among the papers of the company on a search made since I came to this city. The diary has been found, and that diary will show that McGeorge left the hut on the 18th and left the home station for Waikola on the 19th. I have seen the entry, and it is not one that could have been interpolated. It is the first entry made on the 19th, and is followed by other entries, and I think after you have seen it your Honours will be placed beyond all doubt that the day all took to be the 17th was indeed the 18th, and that Lambert was tried and convicted on the assumption that he had sworn to an impossible date —namely, the 17th —as the day that McGeorge went away. I put it this way :if this evidence lam now putting before the Court had been available to the jury on Lambert's trial that man would never have been convicted, because the whole burden of Mr. Solomon's case was to commit the man to a date which was an impossible one, and therefore contend that he had concocted the whole story. But if this evidence had been before the jury that tried Lambert he would never have seen the inside of a gaol. Now, your Honours, dealing with the probabilities of this expert Lambert fixing a false date : We are told he fixed the 17th as the date in a concocted story—that he fixed the 17th as the date knowing that he himself had gone to Meikle's house on the 18th and asked how young Meikle was. Meikle
124
EL—2l
says that Lambert admits he was told that young Meikle was ill, and went on the 18th ana asked how he was. The date is not fixed by Lambert, but by Meikle and his witnesses, who swear that young Meikle was ill on the night of the 17th and that Lambert came next day and asked how he was: And that is true. But is it likely that this experienced man was going to fix a date man imaginary tale which he knew was one on which young Meikle was lying too ill to be out Yet that is what my learned friend will have to show. I can prove that Lambert knew of young Meikle s illness, and by fixing the 17th he was fixing on a date that would work his conviction. I point this out to show that Lambert did not designedly fix the 17th at all, but because Gregg fixed that as the date tor McGeorge's going away. Commission adjourned till 10.30 a.m. on the 9th.
Dunedin, Wednesday, 9th May, 1906. Dr Findlay • At the adjournment last night I was endeavouring to show that a critical feature of Lambert's trial was the date he had fixed for this theft by young Meikle, and I was endeavouring to impress upon the Commission that it was e'ear Lambert fixed that theft not by a date, but by an event He fixed the theft by the event of his having called at Gregg's house on a night m October, and by Gregg having gone with him some distance towards the pre-emptive right. Whether he gave the right date or not, it is perfectly plain that he gave the true event. He did not invent the event, because my learned friend has not attempted to state that Gregg's evidence and Lambert's evidence as to Lambert having called at Gregg's house is perfectly true. Indeed my friend's evidence goes to show that Lambert called at Gregg's house for matches. So that this—whether the date given by Lambert was true or not—the event was true beyond all question. My friend's case must be put m this way ■ he says that Lambert was a professional private detective—presumably he had had some experience and was to some extent expert. May I put it this way :if a man—credited with some experience—is setting himself to manufacture evidence, would he not select a night when it was clear that young Meikle was there, when it was clear that the elder Meikle was there, and when it was clear that Lambert himself was there ? A priori, if he was an evidence manufacturer, he would certainly select a night—and he could easily have done so—when the three chief actors in this tragedy—as my friend calls it—were present. Yet we are told by Mr. Atkinson that this expert liar selected a night when to his own knowledge, Arthur Meikle was too ill to be out; secondly, a night which was so boisterous that scarcely a human being could be found to drive sheep at all; and, thirdly, he was to select a day when he could be proved to have been in Mataura. I should have thought that a witness who had plenty of time to build up a story, who was not taken by surprise in the witness-box—if he was a fabricator he certainly would not have chosen that day of all days when he could have been confronted so completely—as doubtless Mr. Solomon did confront him—upon his perjury trial. I take leave to put this to the Commission : that if it had not been for the misstatement as to the date Lambert would not have been convicted ; and I think I can make that very plain by just showing you the whole case against him is made to turn on this statement as to the date. This morning I was somewhat surprised to find that no fewer than nine witnesses at Lambert's trial had given evidence as to Lambert's misstatement of the date. , Mr. Justice Cooper : What was the actual assignment of the perjury against Lambert { Dr. Findlay : I have it here. Mr Justice Cooper : It will assist us in following your argument. Dr. Findlay : I should have put it in earlier. [Document put in.] Your Honours will see that no part of the indictment refers to any statement or denial by Lambert as to his putting skins m the smithy. But when you come to look at the evidence which supports that indictment you find this : that so far as the essence of Lambert's story is concerned—that is, the meeting with young Meikle and the driving of the sheep—the only evidence directly against him is that of the elder Meikle, no other witness. With regard to the date upon which it was'alleged he saw young Meikle, you have no fewer than nine witnesses You have Henderson on page 32, who swears " that was the only date "—the 17th—he spoke to as to seeing Arthur Meikle driving the sheep. Then Kelly is called (page 32) for the sole purpose of proving, it seems to me, the date. He says, — . " I remember sitting on a common jury to try indictment against Merkle m 1887. I was foreman of jury. I remember prisoner giving evidence. I heard him speak as to meeting Arthur Meikle on a certain date driving sheep. The date Lambert spoke to all through his evidence was the 17th October, 1887. I could not say, speaking from memory, what he said. He spoke as to seeing Arthur Meikle driving sheep that night." Then John James Meikle says, at page 32, — "In Lambert's evidence at Wyndham he said, 'I remember the 17th October, when I was at Gregg's. I took a note of it.' On that date said, further, Arthur Meikle made no attempt to conceal his movements with regard to the sheep." That fixed the 17th October when McGeorge left for good. Then at page 35 there is the following :— " Archibald McGibbon, Auctioneer, Invercargill : I remember 1887. In October m that yjar I held a sale on behalf of Waters in Wyndham district. It was 17th October. It was a cold, wet day; a very dark and stormy night. I should not think a person could have driven sheep m a rough country on such a night. Cross-examined by Macalister : I have been to Meikle's. The roads as far as I remember were formed but not gravelled. I never had any experience in driving sheep." Of course, this is no doubt skilfully done. The 17th is fixed, and then they show that that was such a night that a man could not drive sheep, and it is shown that Lambert swore expressly to that date. Then you have Harvey's evidence at page 38. He says,—
125
H.—2i
" I did not see any sheep killed before 17th October. Ido not believe there were any killed before or after, about that time. Ido not recollect saying Meikle killed sheep before and after 17th October." Then, on page 38, John Waddell says, — " I know a man Barclay. He generally has done this. He is a veterinary surgeon. I keep a notebook. I made a note of the time of cutting at the time. In 1887 Barclay visited me to geld my colts, on 17th October Lambert was with me." Then on page 39 you have McGeorge fixing the date as being a Monday following a Sunday upon which he did work. One can see easily what the effect of this would be upon a jury. You firstly satisfy the juries that Lambert swore to a specific date. You then show an alibi. In addition to that you show that it was such a day and such a night " As ne'er fair Christian was abroad in "—at any rate, such a night as no man could drive sheep. Then you have travelled a large portion of the journey towards the conviction of Lambert for perjury. But, as lam going to show—and I think I shall succeed in this instance with the aid of a diary which I shall produce—the date should have been the 18th—that the date McGeorge left was the 18th. If I can satisfy you by the means I have suggested that the 18th was the date, then all the difficulties with which Lambert was confronted —and I submit by virtue of which he was convicted—disappear ; the alibi of young Meikle disappears ; and all the other difficulties that I refer to disappear. But what lam anxious to impress upon the Court principally is this : that this man Lambert fixed the date as to seeing young Meikle by an event—we have proof of it—and not by a date. Now, I would like to put this test question : What wrong evidence other than this wrong statement of the date has been proved against Lambert ? And I desire to show that there is not a single important discrepancy or fact refuted other than the statement as to the date. Mr. Justice Cooper : By witnesses outside the Meikle family ? Dr. Findlay : Yes. Mr. Justice Cooper : Because the assignment of perjury was as to transactions on the 17th. Dr. Findlay : The essential witnesses as to essential questions are only Lambert on the one side and Meikle on the other, the boy having died. Now, let me run rapidly over the story as told by Lambert. Lambert tells this story first: — " I know prisoner's son Arthur. Was on friendly terms with prisoner. On night 17th October was at Meikle's first, then went over to Gregg's (marked blue)." It is significant to notice that Meikle admits that Lambert was at his place on the 18th. He says that Lambert came to his place the night after his boy was ill and asked how he was. He says that night was the 17th. Lambert therefore was at Meikle's house on the 18th October. Lambert says,— "On night 17th October was at Meikle's first, then went over to Gregg's (marked blue). Saw Gregg at fence when I got over to his place. I was speaking to him fm a few minutes and then he came half-way to hut with me ; left Gregg's between 9 and 10." Then John Gregg, at page 21, says, — " I know Lambert. Saw him at my place on 17th October, about 9 p.m. I know hut Lambert occupied then. Lambert was at house then. I went with him across boundary-fence towards his hut as near half-way as I could get, then returned home. After I left I heard Lambert speaking. Other did not speak loud. Could not swear to voice positively. I know Arthur Meikle well. Cross-ex-amined : I was asking Lambert about MacGregor going away that night. Had no conversation with Lambert that I remember. Been speaking about it. Re-examined :To best of my ability, when I heard voice speaking to Lambert, it was lika Arthur Meikle's." There is the evidence of a man whose apparent fairness, as far as I understand, has never been questioned. He says, — " Left Gregg's between 9 and 10. He left me half-way between hut and bis house. Shortly after—l had just got acioss fence and on to road-line —I met Arthur Meikle with mob of sheep. It was not very dirk." Gregg was with him. It could not have been a stormy night or else we would not find Gregg strolling with him half a mile towards the hut. Then he goes on, — " I spoke to Meikle. He had dog with him. I asked him where he wist iking the sheep. He said he was takina them home to get a fat one. Road they were on was between turnips and Meikle's house." You will remember that this is some month or six weeks after a friendship had begun between Lambert and the Meikles, and, as I told your Honours yesterday, I am in a position to prove it beyond question by calling the servants of the company. Lambert had reported to Troup and to Cameron that he was permitting Meikle to take grass-seed from the hut under the impression that Lambert was really giving away surreptitiously and dishonestly what belonged to the company ; and that by that means and by calling at Meikle's house friendly relations had been created between Lambert and Meikle. Young Meikle used to go over to Lambert's hut, and you will hear that young Meikle used to go over and chat with Lambert. They were friends. So that the suggestion that young Meikle should not say what he was doing is met by the answer that the whole family, and young Meikle in particular, had by this time treated Lambert as one of his staunch friends—as one who was not going to give them away. Lambert says, — " I spoke to Arthur Meikle. He had dog with him. I asked him where he was taking the sheep. He said he was taking them home to get a fat one. Road they were on was between turnips and Meikle's house. I went past him 30 or 40 yards towards my hut; then turned back and followed him. When he got opposite Meikle's house —there is a white gate there —he put sheep through this gate, took them down a little paddock, and put them into sheep-yards. After they were in yards, his father (prisoner) came with a lantern. They put them all into .a blacksmith's shop, and felt which were fat and which were poor. There were twenty fat, seven poor, and ram. They counted them out of blacksmith's
H.—2l.
shop again into yards. They said (as above). Prisoner said company had had a lot of his sheep, and he didn't see why he should not have some of theirs. When they came with lantern I saw brand, A (with bar above, in red). That is the brand the company have on their sheep now, and had on the sheep then on turnips. After fat sheep were drafted out Arthur Meikle caught one and killed it. Prisoner knew of my presence all this time. Elder prisoner had gone over to house. After sheep dressed he returned, told his son to cut fire brand and ear-mark off, and to cut them up into small pieces. That was done. Ear-mark was two notches, either back or front. That was company's ear-mark. I did not see brand on sheep that was killed. Skin was put on some bags. Hsad was hung up on wall. Prisoner said he would defy company or any one else. After that I had gone over to Meikle's men's hut for a stick that Harvey had given me. When I came out I met prisoner w r ith lantern, carrying dressed sheep. The brand was on side of nose. I only saw ear-mark on that sheep, but it was one of the mob driven in. I had conversation with prisoner about shearing before this —seven or fourteen days." What did my learned friend and Mr. Solomon do ? First, they established an alibi —or they thought they had — for young Meikle ; they established that the night was rough to drive sheep about, and probably if it be true that Lambert had fixed the 17th, or the date on which young Meikle was ill, the conclusion might have been reasonably taken as correct. But when you come to discover that the night was one on which Gregg could wa'k with Lambert half-way to his hut the whole case takes a different complexion. Nearly all the witnesses assume that the night of the driving of the sheep was the 17th, when all the physical conditions of darkness, rain, and storm were opposed to the driving. But that is the class of evidence that was given. There was the evidence of a boy —doubtless of great experience in the driving of sh.eep---th.at this boy drove twenty-seven sheep from the company's land to his father's place. The next point is that he could not drive them through an 18 in. door ; but before we come to that my learned friend, Mr. Atkinson, attempted to make a very great deal of capital from the fact that he drove them through an 18 in. door when he might have driven them through a door 4 ft. wide. The answer is easy. The 18 in. door opens off a small yard. Your Honours will see the position of the doors and the yard from the photographs. Mr. Atkinson stated in his opening address that it would be absurd for Meikle to choose an 18 in. door when a 4 ft. door was available ; but on looking at the photographs your Honours will see that it bears quite a different complexion when you recognise that by putting them into the yard first they were in a small enclosure from which they could not escape, and they could be forcibly put through the small door. So that your Honours will see that Meikle was not quite as stupid as suggested, nor was the story quite so startling when we find that the little door led off the yard into which the sheep were first driven. Would you not assume this rather a priori : would not you assume that they were driven through that door. Lambert was familiar with the building. If he had been concocting a story would he have mentioned the small door instead of the wide door if improbable ? The fact that he mentioned that the sheep were driven through the small door is rather in his favour than against him. Mr. Justice Cooper : He could not select anything but the small door once the sheep were in the enclosure. Dr. Findlay : It is assumed that he is building up a story. You would have expected him to evolve his story by putting them in through the 4 ft. gate if that were easier. lam not relying on this as a weapon, but as a shield. I say this evidence was not against him, but, in the light of the evidence which we have, that was the better place for Meikle to take in the sheep; that is, if he wished to do what he did do—select one for killing purposes. That is the improbability upon which Mr. Atkinson relied so much and upon which he spoke at such length in his opening address—the improbability of sheep being driven through this narrow door. I think in view of what I have said that the improbability becomes a strong probability. It is also said that the sheep could not have been driven through that door. There is the evidence of Lambert, and from that you will see how easily it could be done. He says, — ." When he (Arthur Meikle) got opposite Meikle's house —there is a white gate there —he put sheep through this gate, took them down a litt'e paddock, and put them into sheep-yards. After they were in yards, his father (prisoner) came with a lantern. They put them all into a blacksmith's shop, and felt which were fat and which were poor. There were twenty fat, seven poor, and ram. They counted them out of the blacksmith's shop again into yards." We were told that the lantern was put inside the building. We were told by one of my friend's witnesses that if a light were put inside a building at night the sheep will draw. Then it was said that the lantern was put on a bag of lime, or something. Obviously the bag of lime must have been inside, and the lantern was put upon it. You have my friend's own evidence that if a light is put inside a building at night the sheep will draw. Lambert says that one or two sheep were pushed through. It has been explained to me that if one or two sheep are pushed through, the others will draw. So the evidence I have led—l take it the evidence of one of my friend's witnesses also—shows that the sheep could be easily put through that door. Again, is it likely that this would be part of an invented story if it has inherent probability. They say this was so dark and stormy a night that they could not be driven, but that has been disposed of. On the night of the 18th October they could certainly be driven by an expert driver and dog from the pre-emptive right to Meikle's place ; then they were taken into the yard ; the other difficulties disappear when you look at the circumstances. Where is the improbability in Lambert's story ? It is all gone if the date is altered —and it is submitted that the rest is a, probable story. That brings one back to the point that this man was convicted on the skilful emphasis Mr. Solomon placed on the date. lam sure the date should be the 18th, and not the 17th. Lambert fixed it honestly enough, because he got it from Gregg. And why should he take a date when he was not there and none of the other actors in this affair were present ? Now, another point which my friend made much of was that Lambert did not say Meikle took off the paint brand. It was somewhat
126
127
H.—2l
triumphantly pointed out to your Honours that Lambert swore the ears were cut off and the fire brand was cut off, but he did not say the paint brand was cut off, and, as Mr. Atkinson put it, the sheep-skin was left with the very best evidence possible of its belonging to the company, and he asked could you believe that. I should be surprised, too, if the evidence had been of that nature. What follows ? Lambert throughout every trial has said, " When the marks were cut off, Meikle stated, ' Now we can defy the company.' " How he could, with a paint brand staring him in the face, defy the company is difficult to appreciate. What is the explanation ? At the first trial before the Magistrates, when these depositions wore taken, Lambert swore that the paint-mark was combed out. It may be said that this is an afterthought. lamin a position to put the police constable into the box who was present, and can have no reason for inventing this, and he will tell you that Lambert said on the first trial, " In addition to cutting off the ears and the fire brand, the paint brand was combed out"—an easy process, apparently, with a knife —and so the entire marks on the skins are disposed of. I admit, seeing that it is not in the print before your Honours, you may be asked to look with some suspicion on this evidence; and if I were not in the position to bring the police here it may be that you would reject the evidence. But it is proved indirectly, because how could Meikle say, " Now we can defy the company " unless all the company's marks of ownership had been removed ? Lambert surely is not a fool. If Meikle had contented himself with cutting off the ears and the fire brand and left this big painted A and bar, how could he say he could defy the company ? Mr. Justice Cooper : The skin that was found had the brand A and the bar on it. Dr. Findlay : There were two skins found, your Honour, both with the A and the bar. Arthur Meikle states they were taken off the fence Mr. Atkinson : Arthur Meikle suggested they must have come off the fence. Mr. Justice Cooper : This skin, which Lambert says was altered in this way, was not produced at the trial. Neither of the skins had the paint brand effaced. Dr. Findlay : Neither. The skins which Lambert saw could not be identified. His Honour : Not if that evidence is true. Dr. Findlay : If I were depending only on Lambert's evidence, it would be a very serious thing to believe, but the police constable (and mind you it was not a police but a private prosecution) will be put into the box, and will tell you that part of Lambert's story in 1887 was that this paint brand was combed out with a knife, as must have been done if Meikle was able to declare that he could defy the company. It must also be remembered that the police raid was fourteen or fifteen days after this date. Well, now my friend made much of the long delay between the night when Lambert saw the theft and the arrival of the police. But I will call Stuart, who was manager then, and he will tell you the explanation of that. As a matter of fact Lambert reported it within a day or two. Lambert had nothing to do with the delay :he made his report. It is true that he also reported that, in addition to the sheep which had been taken there by young Meikle, he (Lambert) w&s to shear sheep belonging to both the company and others. Stuart was told that, and one reason for the delay was that Lambert was to be called upon to shear, and so add still further to the proofs against Meikle. At any rate, it was not Lambert's delay : Stuart swears that, and Lambert swears it. When these reports were made shortly after the 17th or IBth October, and there was no reason why Stuart should not have informed the police, and why the raid should not have been made days before the Ist November. Now, we call in as a witness one not called on any of these trials—Scott : and I want to inform you why he was not examined on Meikle's trial. He was tried the day before Meikle, and convicted. He sent word to the Crown Prosecutor, Mr. McDonald, that he was prepared to give evidence in support of the case against Meikle. At that time Mr. McDonald prepared the necessary papers for his examination, and these will be produced to show that the Crown up to the last moment intended to call Stuart to support Lambert's c.ise. It is rather curious, and has a striking bearing on the case. In a letter written by Scott to the authorities—he left for the North Island after he got out of gaol, and went to live somewhere away in from Napiei—he did not know of the conviction of Lambert for perjury, but curiously enough he writes, " I was there on the 18th," quite independently fixing the date so definitely on which he saw the theft of the sheep. He will be called in Wellington, and he will tell your Honours that he was there, and obviously he was there if we take the admissions of young Meikle. Young Meikle says in his evidence on Scott's trial " that he brought the horses about a month before and came again about a fortnight later." That would place Scott's visit just about the date we assign for this theft. It is no new feature :if you look at the evidence on Meikle's trial you will find he was there. He was a fellow-criminal apparently, and probably would be in the confidence of these men in the same way as Lambert was. Scott will tell you he was present, and what he saw. In the letter he has written to the authorities I believe he states he saw a number of sheep being driven by young Meikle on the 18th October on to his father's land. " Magna est Veritas et prevalebit," and although it is often long before justice does prevail, somehow it has a way of prevailing, and I believe that in my private room last night a complete vindication of this man Lambert was found. I would like to state briefly the circumstances. Mr. Atkinson discovered a man named Sutherland who was prepared to tell a story very damaging to the character of Cameron. In the hope that something might be found amongst Cameron's papers which would afford protection against such a charge, a visit was paid to Mrs. Cameron, who is at present in Dunedin, and she was asked if she had any old diaries or papers which could afford me some means of determining Cameron's movements, or at any rate some means of meeting this charge which my friend's latest witness was going to make against her husband's character. Curiously enough, this happened : . She searched through some rubbish and there came across an old diary, scribbled over by the children, amongst the papers missing. That diary was kept on the station in 1887, first by Troup and, after he loft, by Stuart; and lam going to put it before your Honours in the complete confidence that that diary is from beginning to end a truthful record of what it contains. Now follows the sequel. My learned friend occupied much of his address in trying to show you that
128
H.—2l
the number of the sheep stated in the information as twenty-seven was only put in alter the police raid, and that that number was only known to be on Meikle's land after the police raid of the 2nd and 3rd November: they went twice, discovering a certain number the first time, and some additional ones the second time. At any rate my friend's case is that the company did not know what number of sheep were on Meikle's land be'onging to the company until the police gave information, and that therefore Lambert's oath that twenty-eight were driven there, and one killed—twenty-seven being the exact number left—was plainly a concoction. And I admit that it was very curious indeed if the evidence I am now going to refer to was not forthcoming. Now listen, Lambert, it appeared, had no means of knowing that twenty-seven sheep including one ram were upon Meikle's land until after the police raid, and I agree with my friend that if Lambert's story is not true there was no other means of knowing. If Lambert's story is not true there was no means of knowing, before the police raid, how many sheep were on Meikle's land. Conversely, if the company knew between 18th October and the police raid the exact number of their sheep on Meikle's land—not only knew it in numbers, but even in the detail of twenty-six sheep and one ram —then he was telling a truthful story of what he saw. I have a diary entry which came to light only last night. My learned friend Mr. McDonald and I were turning over the pages in this old diary, and quite accidentally—no witness pointed it out to us—came across an entry which I at once had explained, and in that explanation I do believe we have a complete vindication of this man Lambert. I will take leave to come near to the bench to explain it to you. In this stationdiary, the entries were in Troup's handwriting [illustrating certain entries]. Troup was leaving and then the entries in Stuart's handwriting begin. Here is an entry made by a shepherd nimed Trotter, on the 26th October, six days before the raid. He says he went over the pre-emptive right for the purpose of mustering some sheep, ajid you will see here his count —there was a total of three hundred and two, and he states here that twenty-seven sheep are on Meikle's land including one ram —the precise number that six days afterwards were discovered on Meikle's land. Now I would like to tell you that that diary was brought to us by Troup, who got it from Mrs. Cameron. It has not been in Troup's possession for nineteen years, and the man who wrote that entry, Trotter, when I sent for him, as I did at once last night, at first did not remember it, and then he remembered that he had mustered these sheep and that he had got the information regarding the twenty-seven either from Stuart or Lambert, who was with him. Mr. Justice Edwards : Trotter has not had possession of the book ? Dr. Findlay : He has not even seen the book. He was doubtful about his own handwriting until he looked well at it. Troup got it from Mrs. Cameron :he will tell you how he got it. As your Honour can see it has been scribbled over by children. The diaiy was brought to Mr. T. M. McDonald by Troup, and was searched, first to see'if we could find out when McGeorge left. You will see an entry there is made ac the 19th October : " McGeorge left the homestead for Waicola." My learned friend in his opening, and throughout the whole conduct of this case, has maintained that we only knew these twenty-seven sheep were there by the police search—how now can he answer this ? Very long has justice been in finding out that the true criminal is there [pointing to Meikle] and the innocent man is there [indicating Lambert]. There is the number, your Honour, twenty-six sheep and one ram —the precise number Lambeit reported. It is still more curious because Lambert says in his evidence twentyeight weie taken, one was killed—leaving twenty-seven. Stuart says that was the report made by Lambert immediately after the theft, and it is embalmed there for Mr. Atkinson to answer if he can. I do not know what change my learned friend may feel compelled to make in his case now. _ With the candour that characterizes him Ido not expect him to make any change. It is obviously impossible that unless we got that number before the raid, and unless Lambert's story is true, for it to be embalmed there in that old diary. I pass from that, and just a few words in conclusion : with regard to this—l advisedly characterize it—this impudent claim of Meikle's—£ls,ooo, £10,000 for himself and £5,000 for his children. I want to make it clear that this is not a mere visionary demand ; he is not prepared to reduce it. In Wellington I will be able to call a gentleman who stands as his lieutenant, Mr. Jamieson, and who told the Premier that there was no use in talking about anything less; that Meikle must get £15,000 ; that he would not take anything less. Mr. Atkinson : Ido not know about him being Meikle's lieutenant; you might call him his friend. Mr. Justice Edwards : Perhaps Mr. Atkinson might tell us by-and-by. So far as I xemember, Mr. Atkinson has given us no means of estimating what Mr. Meikle ought to have. It is that sort of damage that you cannot estimate. In fact, there is no compensation for seven years in gaol, and what is allowed in respect of it depends upon the jury, I dare say, in any case. You say that he wants to be his own jury. Dr. Findlay : Meikle has told us that he does not consider himself bound by your Honours' findings if he does not like them. I want to say one word about the evidence generally in this case. My friend asked, in opening, how could the Court believe Lambert's story, but how can the Court believe this grotesque story of the skins having been put in the smithy by Lambert when Mrs. Meikle, Harvey, Meikle himself, Meikle's son, and I do not know how many others, all said they heaid Lambert say he was going to put them there. That kind of evidence was illustrated yesterday by Sutherland. Here you have a forceful man, such as Meikle is, suggesting and impressing upon the minds of weaker people what Lambert said, and mixing a little friendship so that the witnesses may be found to repeat and swear to the words mentioned. Take the case of Sutherland yesterday. He was found, comes to my friend, comes into the box, swears that Cameron told him he had been instrumental in putting these skins upon Meikle's land to obtain his conviction. Where did he get that idea from ? lam not sure that he was an honest witness at all;' but if lam going to give him credit for honesty he got that idea from Meikle's speech at Mataura. He got that from Meikle's speech at Matauia, and then, being a sympathizer, he evidently converted it into a statement made by Cameron, and so came here and in the course of my friend's examination swore that Cameron had said he got the skins put there. He swore he told Mr. Fenwick that Cameron had said he had got the skins put there, and he repeated in
H.—2l.
the box again and again that statement. But then, in the afternoon he comes back and tell us that the statement was not correct. Now, if your Honours are to give him credit for being, not a perjurer, but a mistaken witness, it must have been due entirely to misstatements made by Meikle at Mataura, and not due to anything that Cameron said. Well, if that can happen to Sutherland, Jiow much more likely is it to happen to people like Shiels and others who had been repeating these stories of Meikle's all these years. Is that evidence upon which this Court ought to rely to sustain the conviction of Lambert. Now, it leally comes down to this, does it not, the two actors in this miserable business are in Court to-day. Here you have Meikle swearing that he was not present on the night that these sheep were stolen, and was not a party to che theft. Here you have Lambert who will come and swear to what he had already suffered imprisonment for. He will say it again without fear, although he may be again liable for peijury. He will repeat his story although technically he may again be put in gaol for perjury. You have these two men confronting each other and, when you put away all the argument with which my learned friend endeavoured to smother the issue in the two days and a half which he occupied in opening, you come down to this : Which of these two men are you to believe ? Now, I said yesterday that there was no blot of any kind against this man Lambert. Last night, however, he came to me and informed me that that statement required this small correction : Over twenty years ago he was fined ss. or 10s. for some minor assault in some publichouse, I believe ; and twelve or thirteen years ago there was a second assault, for which he was fined in all, including witnesses' expenses, £1 10s. With that exception this man Lambert stands without a blemish on his character. He has never been charged with perjury, except at the instance of Meikle. But how does Meikle stand ? When you go down, as you must, to the bed-rock of the credibility of these witnesses, how does Meikle stand beside Lambert ? First, I submit, the Court is entitled to infer that Meikle committed deliberate perjury in 1884 ; that he was convicted of assault upon Macaulay—a brutal assault for which the Magistrate who heard the case thought him entitled to a month's imprisonment with hard labour. He swore—and he repeated it here —that he never touched the man. At any rate he was convicted of assault, and although he appealed to the Supreme Court he still had to serve his sentence. He was tried for perjury twice, and the jury who heard the case were unable to agree. Now, your Honours, it might well be that a jury would look with some leniency upon the matter, seeing that this man had already suffered a month's imprisonment. The jury might feel that having suffered imprisonment for assault, to punish him for perjury a month later was too severe. At any rate the jury would not acquit him of perjury ; and, in fact, the two juries disagreed as to whether he had committed perjury or not. Contrast that with Macaulay's case. Meikle having been sent to gaol for this assault subsequently retaliated by charging perjury against Macaulay, but the Grand Jury threw out the bill. Can there be any doubt, therefore, that this man commenced his career, if not earlier than 1884, at any rate with the assault, and by deliberate perjury; and lam going to ask your Honours to see and ascertain that Mr. Meikle has himself convicted himself of perjury in this inquiry. In my capacity as advocate I cannot afford to allow the exhibition of flagrant perjury which Meikle went through here last week to remain unnoticed ; because, as I have said, we are now dealing with the question of whether we are to accept the testimony of Lambert or of Meikle. Ido not suppose that your Honours have ever in your experience as Judges listened to more persistent perjury, more deliberate perjury, than Meikle committed on two days of last week. In the hurry of cross-examination one is apt to omit to notice the true nature, the damning nature —it is submitted here—of the answers given. If your Honours will permit me to refer just shortly to them I will do so. My first question is quite general. I asked, — " Have you ever since you came out of gaol stayed with that young woman, whose name was mentioned, for some time in a house in Invercargill" ? —" No, I never stopped with that young woman in any house in Invercargill." Then he was asked a series of questions. "I am taking your answers with the utmost gravity, and I presume we have them down. Did you not stop at the house of Mrs. Daniels at any time and occupy the same room as the young woman did ? —My nephew may have done, but not me—never." Now, there in addition to the deliberate fasehood, we have the furtive attempt to throw the guilt of this upon his nephew. Then he is asked in regard to the statement made to a police officer. He was shown a statement signed by the woman, and I brought the statement before his notice. Mr. Justice Edwards says, — " You had better think well over this, and be careful, because I need hardly remind you this comes as a surprise I suppose to everybody, and while this specific matter may not be material to your case, you may be liable for perjury." There is a grave warning from the Judge who has listened to the evidence. The witness then says, "He makes out that I stopped with this woman for immoral purposes." I asked him, " Did you ever hear that story before ? " He swears that he did not. Then Mrs. Daniels was brought into Court, and he persisted in his oath. Then the statement was read to him at length. Now, we know that sometimes a man is excused—at any rate some people will excuse a man for pledging an oath to protect a woman ; but what have you got here ? The name is before him, the woman's signed statement that he was the man is read to him. The words in her statement, " Mr. J. J. Meikle and I were the only persons in that room on Wednesday night last and Thursday morning." I asked whether that statement was true, and his answer was that the woman was telling a lie. So that it was not to protect a woman ;in fact, he called h.er a liar when he denied this misconduct on his part. He is again warned by the Judge for the way in which he was fencing. He is asked whether he paid a bill for the board. He fences that until he is reprimanded by the Bench, and he left me on Thursday night with this, statement, " I have never been in a bedroom with Miss Mills in my life." That was all I could get out of him at the end of three-quarters of an hour when it was being put to him in every possible way. He had endeavoured to throw the guilt upon his nephew, and he continued to deny his own 17— H. 21.
129
H.—2l.
guilt, and went on fencing until finally as the toils closed round him and as I was going to produce the envelopes pieced together to prove his perjury—only when he saw the door of the gaol open itself to receive him—did he admit his guilt, and admit in effect that for nearly an hour and a half he had been deliberately perjuring himself; and not to save a woman, because he called the woman a liar, but to bolster up a character that he might secure from this Commission heavy damages. And if he swears, as he did, that he was not at Mrs. Daniels's place for immoral purposes, what are you to infer ? What purpose was he there for ? I read to him the girl's statement as to the blood-stains and the rest of it. Mr. Justice Edwards: He admitted it afterwards. Dr. Findlay : He denied repeatedly that he ever slept with Miss Mills, and he admitted afterwards that what he had said was untrue, and that he had been having immoral intercourse with her for a period of many years, was not there for immoral purposes, then he must have been there for something worse, which r I do not propose to name just now. At any rate, it is sufficient for my purpose. He comes appealing through his counsel on behalf of his honour and his character, and yet it has been proved that here is a man with a wife keeping a mistress, who has four children of which he cannot deny he is the father, and this woman he has been giving money to. That is the class of man who has been appealing to the honest public for all these years. I submit that this Commission has exposed one of the biggest hypocrites that has been attempting to get money from the public purse in the whole history of this colony. And on the other side, stands this man Lambert. Your Honours will see— my learned friend can ask any questions he likes about his character—that until he suffered for his alleged perjury there was nothing worse against him than these two trivial assaults to which I have referred, and which quite plainly will not affect your Honours' view of this case, or I should say any balance of credit as to whether that man tells the truth or the other man will no doubt be the point upon which your Honours will decide. Ido not propose to occupy more than a few moments longer, and I finish with a short reference to the settlement Mr. Meikle made, as it has reference to this part of our case. The agitation had been carried on by Meikle for a very long time. He had got nearly £300 for his costs in prosecuting Lambert. He persisted in further demands, and on the recommendation of a Parliamentary Committee the Premier interviewed those who purported to be helping Meikle —among them particularly Mr. McNab—and he informed Mr. McNab that he wanted to have done with this interminable Meikle business, and he said that if Meikle would accept £500 in full and final settlement of all possible claim he had, or thought he had, his Government would put that sum on the estimates. Now, so Mr. Seddon informs me, Mr. McNab went away and saw Meikle, so Mr. McNab says, and he came back and assured Mr. Seddon that Mr. Meikle would honestly accept the sum of £500, and give quittance, not on paper only, but a genuine bond—a morally binding quittance to trouble this colony no further. It was only upon that assurance that Mr. Seddon placed upon the estimates and paid over to Meikle the sum of £500. Well, your Honours have the receipt, and it speaks for itself. In addition to that, we have the admissions of Mr. Kelly that he called Meikle's attention to the receipt. and yet after it was signed Meikle has the courage to say he was advised that he could gravely sign what amounts to a promise that he would not come again to claim money from this colony—he says he was advised by Sir Robert Stout, now the Chief Justice, that he could sign a document of that kind and yet turn round upon his own undertaking, and knock again demanding money at the door of Parliament. As I said at the time, and say still, I decline to believe that story ; and Ido submit that if there is to be no finality between men in these settlements—if there is to be no finality at all in claims of this kind, and if a man is not to be bound by what he ultimately gravely signs, in terms unequivocal and beyond question, then it will be injurious to every suppliant who comes to Parliament. If a suppliant is to be permitted to come to Parliament and have his grievance investigated by a Committee, and then, after giving a complete discharge, he is according to the ethics of this country to be permitted to turn round on his own undertaking and come again to demand money, then I submit the attitude .the Crown will be compelled to take will be one of a deaf ear to genuine claims. If it is to be said in future by suppliants who have taken money as Meikle did, and have given a full discharge for it, " Oh, yes, I gave a full discharge, but I cite Meikle's case, and he did that, and he got more money," then a precedent will be established which will be injurious not so much to the public purse, but it will bear hardly upon genuine cases, because the Crown will have to turn a sterner face on these cases than it has done in the past. I have done ; and I believe that this case is going to illustrate that it is not the first time in the history of the race that the engineer is hoist with his own petard. This man has agitated for this Commission, and, in my judgment, on the evidence to be adduced he will leave this Court finally convicted as the guilty man, and the man he has so long pursued will leave it with a declaration from this Court of his innocence. Robert Troup, examined. 1. Dr. Findlay.] What are you ?—A farmer. 2. Where is your farm ?—ln the Waikawa Survey District, Southland. 3. At one time, many years ago, you were in the employ of the New Zealand Investment Company ?—Yes. 4. And were the manager of the Islay Station ? —Yes. 5. Do you remember when you began to be manager ?—ln February, 1887. 6. How long did you continue to be manager there before you left and went in the Nelson direction ! —Up to the 19th October that year. 7. When did you return after that ?—Just immediately after the Supreme Court case in Invercargill—Meikle's trial. 8. I want you to look at this plan which has been referred to by Mr. Atkinson. It is a plan of the Islay|Estate. Have you seen it before ?—Yes. I see something marked " Turnips " here. The part marked " Turnips " was not turnips. The greater part of that land was oats.
130
K. THOTJP.
131
H.—2l.
9. How many acres of turnips were there, speaking roughly ?—I do not remember. 10. Can you not give us any idea at all ?—I should say, from memory, 30 acres, more or less. There were oats up towards Fortification Creek, and turnips towards the southern part. That is down to what is marked "7." 11. What was the condition of the fence around the turnip land ?—lt was a new fence on the north side. 12. And as to the rest of the fencing ? —lt was in good order. 13. lam going to take you shortly over this. How many sheep of the were on this turnip land ? —646 were put on in about the month of August. 14. "Was the land upon which the sheep were put sheep-proof fenced ?—Oh, yes. 15. In addition to that was there good pasture for sheep there in the month of October ?—Well, by the time October had arrived, and between August and October, it had been pretty well knocked about, but the turnips were still there. 16. You know, or knew, the condition of the land upon which these 646 sheep were put, and you told us about, Now, what was the condition of Meikle's land in the month of October when you left ?— I did not inspect Meikle's land particularly, but it did not seem to be overstocked. 17. Did you inspect the land subsequently, before you gave evidence ?—Yes. 18. That was a fortnight or so later—some time before the Court case at any rate ?—Yes ; immediately before the Supreme Court case in September. 19. What was the condition of Meikle's land then as regards stock—carrying capacity ?—lt was not overstocked. There was feed about. 20. Was there anything upon Meikle's land, or a want of anything on the company's land, to induce sheep to leave the company's land for Meikle's in October ?—Oh, no ; there was nothing extra in the . way of feed on Meikle's; it was all being ploughed over and used up. 21. If sheep were leaving the company's land on the pre-emptive right, what would they have to go through to get to any pasture upon. Meikle's land ?—They would have to pass where the hut was situated, and a dog was chained between the hut and this piece of land where the turnips were. 22. What would they have to do after that ?—They would have to go through Meikle's fence as well. 23. What sort of land would they pass over ? —Tussock land. 24. Do you remember Meikle's ploughed land in October ?—lf I remember aright, it was put down in oats. 25. Were any oats above the ground in October ?—Very little, if any. 26. Would the oats be 9 in. above the ground ?—No ; it would take it some time for the rabbits to allow it to get up. 27. How would you describe the condition of the crop on the ploughed land. Was there any food for sheep there ? —No. 28. Why ?—lt had not got the length of being feed. 29. I understand you to say that on the company's land there were turnips and ample teed for the sheep that were there ? —Yes ; the sheep were fattening. 30. Was the company losing sheep during the part of the year you were there ?—They had been losing sheep during my time, and also before. 31. What number of sheep had been lost for previous to the 19th October ?—The book showed a leakage of over one thousand. 32. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Out of how many ?—There might have been two thousand put on that land. 33. Dr. Findlay.] So that about half had disappeared ? —Yes. They did not disappear in a bunch. They went off at different times. .34. They were going off in dribs and drabs for some time before ?—They disappeared somewhere. 35. What was the first hint you got that Meikle might be the culprit ?—About the month of July there was a fall of snow, and I remember well being out on the leasehold portion (the portion coloured drab on the plan is the leasehold I refer to). I w r ent on to the back of a piece of bush where it was very steep, and went down towards the Mimehau, and in riding down the steep part I saw tracks of sheep as if they were being collected. I followed the tracks of the sheep, and gradually they were drawn towards the boundary-fence between Meikle's and the company's land. 36. What tracks were there ?—Tracks of sheep, track of a man, and the track of a dog. I followed the tracks, and the sheep had been conducted by the dog to a dip in the fence. There was a log in this dip to which the wire was attached, and the log had been lifted away and put back again, but not into the exact position in which it had been before. The sheep had been taken through into Meikle's land at that point. I saw the tracks of the dog and sheep and man. 37. That was some time in July ?—Yes. 38. What did you do about that ?—I reported the matter to the office of the company in Dunedin. 39. Who was in charge at Dunedin then ?—Mr. W. R. Cameron. 40. What followed ?—He wrote a letter to me asking me to meet him at the Mataura Railwaystation at a given day. 41. Did you meet him ?—Yes. ■ 42. Who were present ?—When he arrived he spoke of these sheep having disappeared through the boundary-fence with a man and dog accompanying them, and he asked me what I thought should best be done, and I said, "I do not know." He told me to go over and see Constable Leece, as he wanted to see him. Constable Leece came over, and, after consultation, Constable Leece said that he had hr.d previous complaints from me about the leakage. Mr. Leece said he could not afford the time
132
H.—2l.
[c. troup.
to go and do what he thought would be necessary in the matter. We were all standing at the railwaycrossing at Mataura Township. Constable Leece said his duties were such that he could not give the whole of his time to watching this particular part of the district where the sheep were disappearing. 43. What else did he say ? —He said it would be better to put a man there, as the theft might be repeated. 44. To do what ?—To keep an eye on the district generally. 45. To put a man there to see who was stealing the sheep, I suppose '( —Yes. 46. Was anything else said ?—Mr. Leece said that some arrangement for more than a wage might be necessary. 47. Had anything been suggested about a wage before ? —Yes ; Mr. Cameron said he would be quite willing to give good wages to a man who could be relied on. 48. Was any wage mentioned ? —I do not think so at the time. 49. But Leece said that something more than a wage might be necessary ? —Mr. Cameron said he did not know whether it would be in order to give more than a wage, and Leece said it would be quite in order : then Mr. Cameron said he would have to go to Dunedin to put the matter before his Board before he could take action of that sort to give anything more than a wage. 50. Was any name mentioned ? —lt was discussed whether we could get a man. I did not know of any one who would be suitable just at the time, and we asked Constable Leece it he knew of any one about, and he mentioned William Lambert. 51. Did he tell you anything about Lambert ? —He said he had kiiown him doing similar work before —detective work. The conclusion come to then was that it would be better to keep the thing in abeyance until Mr. Cameron went-to Dunedin and saw his Board. 52. Before you finally heard from Cameron, had you any interview with him on the matter ?—I am not sure but that Cameron went to Islay Station with me that day. 53. Do you remember anything that happened there ?—He discussed the matter with me that, if he went to Dunedin and his Board sanctioned a sum of money more than a wage, he would instruct someone to see Leece and Lambert, and then put the thing in hand by engaging Lambert to watch for whoever was stealing the sheep. 54. Mr. Cameron went back to Dunedin ?—Yes. 55. Did you hear from him afterwards ? —He wrote a letter. 56. Is that the letter dated 25th August ?—Yes. 57. In that letter he said he had seen the Board, and the Board had agreed to a premium of £50 ? —Yes. [Letter dated 25th August, Cameron to Troup put in.] 58. Having got instructions to employ this man with the consent of the Board, w-hat did you do ? —I went and showed Lambert the letter, and I also showed it to Constable Leece. 59. Where did you see Leece ? —At Mataura. 60. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Who got Lambert to come to you ? —Constable Leece. 61. Did you know Lambert previously ? —Yes ; he had been shearing at Islay, and was a good man for any station work. 62. Dr. Findlay.] He was not at Islay at that time ?—No. 63. Where did Lambert come to you ?—He came to the station. 64. What was the arrangement made with Lambert ?—He was to get £1 a week and found. 65. What else ?—This bonus if a conviction was obtained of the man who was stealing the Islay sheep. 66. Now, we may as well come at once to this story of Mr. Meikle. Mr. Meikle says that Lambert stated he was to get £50 for putting sheep or sheep-skins on to his land in order to get his conviction : Did you ever make any such bargain with Lambert ?—No. I am not made that way. I know all about the story, and I am very glad of this opportunity to be able to tell the public that no arrangement of the sort came from me. . 67. As far as you know up to the time Lambert was employed Cameron had never seen Lambert ? —Not to my knowledge. 68. To your knowledge Cameron never saw Lambert up to the time he commenced his duties as a private detective ?—No, nor for some time afterwards. 69. When Lambert started his duties he occupied the hut near Meikle's land ?—At first he was on Sunnyside. 70. But his first work in connection with the case was from the hut near Meikle's land ?—Yes. 71. When did you first hear anything from Lambert about his operations ?—After he had beerr in the hut for some time he told me of Mr. Meikle having visited the hut. He told me that there was some cocksfoot grass-seed at the hut, and that Meikle had suggested that he was short of grass-seed, and that he (Lambert) had told him that he could have a bag or more of the grass-seed at the hut as I (Troup) would never miss it, or notice it, or something to that effect. 72. Did Meikle get the grass-seed ? —Lambert told me that Meikle had got it. 73. Did Lambert come and tell you this ?—Yes. 74. When Lambert first told you about this grass-seed, were you and he alone or was any one else present ? —Mr. Cameron was present. 75. Where were you ?—At the Mataura Railway Hotel. 76. Was anything else said ?—Cameron said he thought it was good policy to give the grass-seed, and Lambert quite agreed it was good policy. 77. Lambert saw you and Cameron at Mataura and told you about the grass-seed incident, and you as manager of the station and Cameron as general manager of the company quite approved of it ?— Yes. 78. You did not leave Islay till the 15th ?—For the north, no.
H.-2L
133
E. TROUP.
79. You were there continuously ?—Yes. 80. As far as you know did Cameron ever see Lambert again ?—Not to my knowledge up to the time I left. If he ever came to Islay I would have seen him. 81. You ask their Honours to beheve that Mr. Cameron did not see Lambert save this once ?— That is so. 82. Were you present all the time Lambert was there ?—Yes, we were at the same table having tea. 83. Were you with Cameron all the time Lambert was with him ? —Yes, I was with him until he took the train next day. 84. Was there any other conversation between Cameron and Lambert save the one you refer to about this matter ? —No. 85. Did you ever hear Cameron saying to Lambert that he was to get any money for putting skins or sheep or anything else orr Meikle's lands ? —No. Cameron never mentioned about giving him anything, except what is stated in the letter. 86. On the 31st August, 1887, there is an entry here in the diary, " Put J. Cameron to Sunnyside in view of transfer of Lambert to hut on pre-emptive right." And on 2nd September, " Received full possession of Sunnyside ; Lambert left to go to pre-emptive right." We may take it that Lambert was at the hut near Meikle's land on the night of 2nd September ? —That is right. 87. How long was it after Lambert went to the hut that he told you about the grass-seed ?—I could not say. I get mixed up with the dates. 88. Did Lambert report to you again ? You left on the morning of the 19th, I suppose ?—He told me about Meikle going to have a cut at the Islay sheep. 89. Was that about the shearing ? —Yes. 90. Tell us what Lambert told you ? —Lambert said Meikle was going to have a cut at the Islay sheep when the shearing came on, and that he was to have a cut at Brown's sheep over the Mimehau, and some sheep also from Williamson's. There were two besides the Islay sheep that were to be taken. 91. That was reported to you by Lambert ?—Yes. 92. Who was to shear these stolen sheep ?—Lambert. 93. Were those all the reports you got from Lambert ? —Those were all I remember at present. 94. You left on the 19th ?—Yes. 95. You got no report from Lambert about this theft of sheep ?—No. 96. Who succeeded you as manager ?—William Stuart. 97. Was there a man named Trotter there ?• —Yes, he came a day or two after I left. 98. What was Trotter's position ? —Shepherd and general. A practical man, a good man with dogs and sheep. 99. So that Trotter and Stuart would continue on after you went away ? —Yes, they had sole charge just as I had. 100. Whose duty would it be to muster the sheep on the pre-emptive right ?—Stuart, of course, was the manager. 101. And Trotter was the shepherd ? —Yes. 102. Would it be any part of his duty, if instructed, to muster the sheep ?—They might both do it together. Mr. Atkinson : It is not for me, of course, to dictate the course in which my friend should call his witnesses. I only desire to say that Lambert has been present when other witnesses have been giving evidence with regard to conversations with them. In view of the fact that your Honours have said Lambert is also on his trial, I do not know that I can do much more than comment on his presence while these witnesses are giving evidence. I only wish to point out that after calling two almost formal witnesses I at once put Mr. Meikle in the box. Dr. Findlay : Mr. Meikle has been in Court all the time. I did not suggest that my friend was not entitled to call his witnesses in what order he pleased. I say that Lambert has just as much right to be present as Meikle. Mr. Justice Edwards : We have already said that Lambert is as much on his trial for perjury as Meikle is upon his trial. Of course, Lambert's presence may be subject to comment. Dr. Findlay : My friend has had the advantage of Mr. Meikle sitting beside him and prompting him during the examination of the witnesses. Mr. Justice Edwards : Mr. Atkinson may satisfy us that Lambert's presence will discount the value of his evidence, but we feel that Lambert has a right to be here, and we said so without being asked to do so. Examination of Robert Troup, continued. 103. Dr. Findlay.] Do you know where McGeorge's hut was ? —Yes, when he was living with Lambert. 104. Will you permit me to refer to the diary, your Honour ? (To witness) : I want to ascertain from you where McGeorge was on the 19th October, and I want to ascertain from you where he came from and where he went to. I want to show you an entry in your diary. On the I9th October there is this entry, " William McGeorge left Islay for Waicola. R. Troup wentjnorth " : Is that your writing ? —Yes, that is my writing. That is the last entry I made. That is the day I left. I took the books belonging to Islay Station to Dunedin by the company's order, as they were done periodically. They were taken for inspection, and they were passed back to Islay a day or two after. 105. You make this entry, " William McGeorge left Islay for "Waicola " ?—Yes. 106. Where did McGeorge come from ? Can you tell us from memory what the cicumstances were ?—He came from the hut on the 18th, and left the station on the 19th. He brought some things with him —such as skins and such like. We had no team at that station ; we took the team from place to place.
H.—2l.
134
[r. troup.
107. You are quite satisfied that he came from the hut on the 18th ?—Yes, he was just there one night. 108. And your diary says he left for Waioola on the 19th ?—Yes ; the same day as I went to Dunediii. 109. How would his road lie I—ln the same direction as I left by way of Mataura Township. 110. How 'ong would it take him to go from the lalay Station homestead to Waicola ?—Two days. 111. How long would it take you to go from the Islay homestead to Mataura ?—I think it is abf t ten miles. You could not do more than that in half a day. 112. The further entries in the diary are these —that is on that date i\ [Entries quoted.] That is your entry on the same day ? —Yes, it is with reference to a fence round a block of land known as Templeton's. 113. Do you come from your place to Dunedin in one day ? Could you get there in one day in .1887 ?— Yes. 114. Had you a daily mai' ? —I am not sure. I rather think it was twice or thrice a week. 115. You were station-manager for some time, and T suppose you had some experience in station work \ —Yes. 116. We are tod that there was a Monday, the day before the 18th. Meikle says it was one of the worst days he has ever known in New Zealand, and some other witnesses say it was a day of rain and storm. Can you say whether on such a day as that, McGeorge would begin a long journey with a team in the ordinary course ? —None of us went out in bad weathei. 117. Supposing McGeorge had instructions to go either to the homestead or to Waicola on a certain day, and it turned out to be such a day as I have described, what would his duty be ? —His duty would be to stop there, because there was nothing in connection with his work with a team so pressing as to take him away on such a day. 118. Are you perfectly clear about all this ?—Yes, I am perfectly clear that the entries in that diary were made from day to day, so far as I am concerned. 119. McGeorge came to the homestead on the 18th % —Yes, and stopped that night. 120. And this entry, " William McGeorge left Islay for Waicola," refers to that fact ?—Yes. 121. You told us that there was a muster of the sheep on the turnip land in August —about 646 sheep were put on the turnips in August ?—Yes. 122. You were not there when the muster was made in October ?—No, I was not. 123. Here is a plan [plan produced] of Meikle's paddock where the sheep were found. Your sheep were where the figure " 7 " appears on the map, and the, word " North " ? —Yes. 124. If sheep where " 7 " and " North " appears on the map, were to come down to here [indicating position on plan] what would they have to go through first ?—Through a fence alongside the figure 7. 125. What kind of country would they then get into % —They would then get into tussock land. 126. Would tussock land in Southland on the 17th October afford such feed as would attract sheep from turnips ? —Not unless the turnips were all worn out, and the tussock place was good. 127. What is the fact with regard to that tussock land ? —I think there might be an inducement for sheep to come out from the turnips to the tussock land if the feed was good on the tussock land. 128. After having got on to the tussock land, if they were to come down where they were found, what else would they have to go through ?—They would have to go through the fence at the figure " 7," and through another fence along the road, and then through another fence at the south end of the tussock. 129. That is two fences ? —Yes. 130. Do you know where Meikle's ploughed land was ? —Just south of the company's land. 131. They would have to get on to there ?—Yes. 132. That land you say had no crop that would provide any feed for stock —that is before the 17th October ? —There would be very good feed on the ploughed land. 133. You say they would have to get through another fence ?—Yes. 134. We will assume this : that the sheep on Meikle's land came from the company's turnip land. Do you say they could get there themselves, or must they have been driven ?—They would not have gone there on their own account. 135. That is as far as you know, from the nature of the fences and the feed 'I —Certainly, they would not. 136. Mr. Templeton has told us a story which I want to bring under your notice. He says that you came into a hotel where Mabin and Templeton were, and that you said you had documents in your possession which could get Meikle out of gaol, and that Templeton told you to hold your tongue ?— Such a statement is quite incorrect. 137. First of all, did you ever have a document in your possession that would get Meikle out of gaol ?—No. 138. Or any other evidence that would get Meikle out of gaol ?—No. 139. Did you ever say to Templeton or to any one else that you had a document that would get Meikle out of gaol ' -1 had no scrap of a document, nor of verbal evidence. 140. You sweai itiat you never said to Mabin or Templeton or to" anybody else that you could get Meikle out of gaol ?—No. I may say that I was twice engaged as an acting-bailiff, and had to put him out of the company's property" The public do not know that. He was capable of concocting anything against me. ~,,•,-« 141. You say you had to do the duty of a bailiff on two occasions, and that he had a feeling against y OU % Yes ; but I have none against him ; I forgive him for everything.
135
H.—2l.
B. TBOUP.]
M 2. Mr. Templeton does not remember the words, but he says the fact is this : that you had it in your power in some shape or form to help Meikle out of gaol ? —No such thing. I may state that when I was sitting in the waiting-room, Mabin came over and told me in the presence of two or three witnesses, " Well, Troup, don't you think you would be just as well now in the Waikawa Swamp." He, said it in an insinuating, stinging way. It was not so much the words as the way he spoke them. 143. Mr. Templeton does not remember the words, but Mr. Mabin says this, " I asked Troup to come into the hotel, and he came ; and a general conversation came up. Meikle's case came up. He said he had documents in his possession that would get Meikle out of gaol. I said he had better be careful, or he would get into the same place as Meikle " ? —Quite incorrect; it is no such thing. 144. Now, about this diary : What was this diary when you were on the. station ? —lt was just for the general use of the station. It was a book belonging to the company. It did not belong to me. 145. I see entries running right through it ?—Yes. 146. Then there is some writing of Mr. Stuart's which follows. Was he the manager who followed you ?—Yes. 147. And this was the station diary ?—Yes. 148. You make entries again when you return in December ? —Yes. 149. It was still at the station when you returned in December ? —Yes. 150. Now, we want you to tell the Court how that diary came to be given to Mr. McDonald. Just tell their Honours how this diary came on the scene at all ? —When I came in the first or second day of the Court here, I read the newspapers in which Mr. Atkinson named Mr. Cameron as having something bad to his character. I forget the words. 151. Mr. Meikle repeated what his counsel said with regard to putting the skins on the land ?— I went to where Mrs. Cameron was living, and said I had come to see her in consequence of the statements made in the Court; that f thought if it appeared in the newspapers .before she heard of it she might be vexed. 152. You went to Mrs. Cameron's —we do not want all the conversation—and told her of some references made to her husband's character. What did you ask her to do ? —I said if there was a possibility of getting the station books, which she could give, to refresh my memory. She said, " There is an old diary here ; the children have been having access to it; it is only partly together, scattered about." She did not know if she could collect it altogether. She sent one of the children for it. 153. You got the book —what did you do with it ?—I left it with her. 154. What did you do after that ? —I told Mr. McDonald that there were entires in it that might be of importance. 155. And what did he do ?—He told me to go back and ask Mrs. Cameron if she would give it. 156. Did you go back ?—I went back that night and got the diary, and gave it to Mr. McDonald. 157. Has it ever been in your possession since ? —No. 158. When you got it did you know anything about the entry of the 26th October, which Trotter has made in reference to the sheep ? —I did not know anything about it. 159. You handed it over to Mr. McDonald, and have not had it in your possession since ? —No. 160. When was the last occasion you had anything to do with that diary ?—There is a possibility of the diary being brought to the company's office at the end of the year, and a fresh one taken for 1888. 161. According to your view you probably never saw the diary after 1887 l . —No, I never saw it. 162. You say the diary would probably be taken down to Dunedin by you on the 19th, when you were leaving ?—Yes, it was, and the other books —day-book, ledger pass-book, and so forth. 163. When would they be sent back ? —A day or two afterwards. 164. Mr. Atkinson.] Are you quite certain of the date when you left for the Nelson direction ?— Yes, quite certain ; on the 19th October. 165. Can you give the exact date when you returned ?—I do not remember the exact date when I returned. 166. Have you any recollection or knowledge of the day of the week in either case—the» day on which you left, or the day on which you returned ?—I do not remember the date or the day of the week I returned, but the day I returned is entered in that diary. 167. Your knowledge is taken from the diary ?—No ; the 19th October I left for Nelson. 168. You remember that independently ?—Oh, perfectly. 169. Were you asked to swear to the correctness of this map, the same sort that Dr. Findlay has been showing to you, in the Court when Meikle was tried ? —I think I was; it strikes me I was; it is a long while back to remember. 170. Can you remember whether you swore that the representation of the turnips there was correct ? —I cannot remember whether I swore to the representation of the turnips being correct, it is so long back. 171. Would you have sworn that it covers from 300 to 400 acres ?—I cannot grasp the number of acres so far back. The pre-emptive right occupied about 1,200 acres. If you gave me that map I will approximate any out of the 1,200 by looking at the map. [The map was handed to the witness.] 172. Could you estimate it, Mr. Troup ? —lt is 1,200 acres up to the road-line. 173. How many acres would you say are covered there by the word "Turnips" ?—I should say there would be about 700 acres covered by the word " Turnips." 174. Mr. Justice Cooper: Is the area marked off by the plain, simple word " Turnips" written across ? 175. Mr. Atkinson.] Yes, your Honour; by the word "Turnips" written across. I think the witness is taking a bit too big an estimate. (To witness) :Itis a little over half what you reckon to
H.—2l.
136
[b. tboup.
be pre-emptive right. You say about 300 acres really represented the acres in turnips ? —I would say to about 30 acres, more or less. If you want me to figure out the map you must give me a little margin. 176. Are you quite sure there were more than 20 acres ?—Oh, certainly more than 20 ; they kept these sheep going. My naming 30 acres is just by a glance at this map. This land was ploughed by contract and measured and paid for by contract. To find this out I would know by the books. 177. How long had the sheep been on these turnips ?—They went on some time in August. 178. 646, you believe ?—Yes. 179. How much feed was left there by the middle of October ?—Oh well, the feed was getting down then because 180. There had been some six hundred sheep on it for about a couple of months ? —Yes. 181. Apart from the turnips being eaten off, was it not getting rather late in the season for turnips ? —Generally speaking turnips are all over by that time pretty well. 182. Were there any turnips to the north of that strip of land or were they further up ?—They might have been. 183. This 30 acres covered the whole of the turnip-area ?—I would not say it did take in the whole of the turnips on the pre-emptive right; I would not bind myself to that. There was a lot of feed there —stubble and oats. 184. I suppose there is a considerable proportion of rocks and gullies ?—Not bad gullies. It is pretty well level country. 185. What proportion is ploughed ?—I have never been on the land since I left. 186. You would rather not estimate perhaps ? —I would estimate that the pre-emptive right had not a great deal of gullies. As for rocks, there was not much ; you could plough up to the rock bottom. 187. Mr. Justice Cooper.] Do you put that plan in ? 188. Mr. Atkinson.] Yes, your Honour. I was going to ask him one or two points on it. (To witness): You represent " yellow" for stubble. Would that be correct ? For tussock and rock, " white " ? —lt needs a cast-iron memory to say where the rock and stubble was after nineteen years ; it was mixed, do you see. 189. You were saying that alongside the pre-emptive right there would not be much on Meikle's land to attract sheep ? —Not at the time I left—the 19th October. There is no growth much anywhere on 19th October. 190. You were saying that oats would not be springing much about that time ? —Not unless it was superior land to what is about on this part. 191. Was that not very good land ?—No ; you will not get good land for 10s. per acre. This block of land, if I remember rightly, they obtained for only 10s. an acre. 192. You would not get it for 10s. now, I expect ?—You might, and perhaps less. 193. What about the cultivation of the other parts of Meikle's property ? —What proportion do you mean. 194. Take the central portion. Can you give us a general description of the cultivation ? How many acres had he in English grasses ? —I could not tell. I had no privilege from Mr. Meikle to make up his acreages. 195. And you did not form any estimate ? —Meikle was as good a farmer as the people in the surrounding country ; he put his land to as good account as anybody else, as far as I can remember. 196. You were not familiar then with his paddocks ?—I used to be fairly familiar with them. 197. Dr. Findlay called your attention to the paddock where the sheep were found : what was the fence down that paddock ?—I noticed that Meikle's stock remained stationary in one paddock fairly well. 198. Do you know where his horse paddock was ?—Well, he might have his horses in one paddock one day and in another paddock another day. " 199. You cannot say whether the paddock marked " Horse paddock " there was his horse paddock ?—As I was saying he might have his horses in one paddock one day and in another paddock another day. Which paddock he named " horse paddock "I do not know. 200. What sort of a fence was there around the horse paddock ?—He kept his fence good. 201. How many wires did it have? —Generally speaking, a fence has six or seven plain wires and a barb. 202. Can you swear it was not a two-wire fence and no barb ?—I could not swear at all to the horse paddock you refer to. I was not dwelling close to his place. 203. What was the width of the gap you spoke of at Lambert's hut ?—The width of the roadline. 204. Where the southern boundary of the turnips stops you can see where the fence stops there ; it is the boundary between the turnips arrd the tussock so marked, before you came to the Mimihau ? —There was a dog-chain there. 205. Was there a dog-chain there always ?—Oh, yes. 206. What was the width of the gap ?—I think it was the road-line. 207. Was the road-line a chain wide ? —I think it was all a chain wide. 208. Do you not think the gap was \\ chains or 3 chains wide ? —No; the fence came down, and the hut was just at the corner. 209. Do you think it was only a chain gap ?—I think it would not be more than a chain. 210. There is no fence just there except on the one side. There is a fence on the north side of the road, and not on the south. I was trying to get the width of the gap on the western end ?—I think it would be a chain wide ; that is from memory. I have not seen the hut or the ground since I left. 211. That is why I put it to you that it w r as 3 chains wide ? —The fence ended at the road-line
E. TEOUP.]
137
H.—2l.
was erected exactly on the peg-fine and the same on the road facing the Mimihau. It was only a chain ; it could not be more. 212. It is not the Mimihau, it is the Wairikiki. Was the Wairikiki sheep-proof ?—Yes ; you could put sheep there all night and they would be there safe in the morning. 213. Was the Wairikiki sheep-proof ?—Oh, yes, as far as I can remember. 214. If you look at the map you will see that there is no gap marked at all ?—lf you consider nineteen years back it is very easy to say there is no fence. 215. Did you fix the date when you first spoke to Constable Leece with regard to getting protection for the company's sheep : about what date ?—You are asking an impossibility. If I was to ask the same thing of you you would be blocked the same as I am. If I were to mind a date nineteen years back that I met you or Constable Leece or any one I would be a very valuable man to anybody. 216. Did you say it was June or July that you traced these footprints in the snow ? —lt was in July. 217. How long after that was it you saw Constable Leece ?—Perhaps in July—it might have been in July or the beginning of August—from memory ;it was no time after. I had spoken to Leece previously that the sheep were disappearing. 218. Leece had an interesting conversation with you about grass-seeds : did he say anything about Davie having a conversation about grass-seed with him ?—I could not say about Davie's and Leece's conversations. 219. What time of day was it that you left Islay Station on the 19th October ? —I left to catch the express for Dunedin. 220. What time was it ?—I do not remember the time-table of the express at Mataura, but I usually left to catch the express there. 221. Dr. Findlay.] The Invercargill express ?—Yes, coming from Invercargill. The time-table is not the same as now. 222. Mr. Atkinson.] You cannot attempt to fix the hour ?—I could not attempt so far back. If I knew the time the express was to be at Mataura I could tell you. 223. So really you have no recollection of it ? —Perfectly well. My recollection is fresh. The part I remember is in connection with my dogs, when I went to put them in the railway it was a good, clear, sunshiny day. 224. About what time of the day ?—I do not remember the time of the day. 225. With regard to this diary, are you prepared to swear that every entry in the diary was made on the day it appears ?—I am prepared to wear that every entry made by me was made on the date it was entered. It was my duty to make these entries, and when lam employed I always serve my employers first. 226. Every entry ?—Yes ; it was my duty to make those entries. I was paid for it by my employers, and I kept it up. 227. Then was your practice to enter these things daily ?—Yes. 228. Have you any personal recollection of making that entry for the 19th ?—I remember the 19th. I have fixed it in my memory by the fact of my having landed in Nelson two or three days after. 229. How does that help you to fix the entry in the diary on the date under which it appears ?— I fixed the entry here when I arrived in Dunedin. 230. You could swear to making the entry when you got to Dunedin ?—Yes, it was the last thing I did. 231. What day did you take the steamer on from Dunedin ?—I went by train to Lyttelton and took the steamer there. 232. And you are prepared to swear that you enter up your diary regularly and that you were never a day behind during the whole time you were there ?—Oh, yes. 233. You are prepared to swear that even after a lapse of eighteen years ?—Yes. I could show you my own diary at any time, and you would see that it has always been kept up. 234. Where did McGeorge keep his team ?—Wherever he was himself his team would be. 235. When he was working at the hut where was the team kept ? —lt was supposed to be just at the hut or thereabout. 236. And things were always where they were supposed to be on that station in your time ?— Yes ; I never saw anything unusual about the place. Things were just as they ought to be. 237. Do you know where McGeorge went on the Monday before —on the 17th ?—When he was out at the hut he was not under my observation and in a case like that an entry would not be required. 238. What was the practice at Islay Station with regard to sheep-skins ? Was there a tally kept of them ? —They were kept in the usual way, preserved to the best advantage ; and when they had accumulated were packed up and sent away. 239. Was there a tally kept of them ?—Generally speaking, there was. 240. If one of the servants kill a sheep, is he supposed to use the skin as he pleases without accounting for it ?—Lambert had liberty to kill sheep at the back when mutton was required. 241. How was the tally kept if men were allowed to act in that way ? Who kept the tally ? Could he kill a sheep whenever he liked ?—lf he killed a sheep or more it would be with my knowledge. I knew the numbers killed. 242. How was the tally kept, and who kept it on the Islay Station ?—The tallies were kept by me chiefly. I got the particulars from those who killed the sheep. If there was a sheep killed there was one sheep less in the mob ; if two were killed there were two sheep less, and so on. 243. How often would that be reported to you ? —I could not say. There would be no long periods. 244. What would happen to the skins which would be kept and preserved ?—McGeorge brought in skins when he came in once in a while.
18— H. 21.
138
[it. TROL'P.
H.—2l
245. Where were they kept and preserved ?—Just convenient to the hut; wherever they would be killed. , . 246. Then you kept a tally at the homestead ? Did the skins go there ?—They came to the homestead usually. 247. You said just now they kept them at the hut ?—Just after killing it was best to leave them just where they were until they got seasoned a little bit. That is the usual way. 248. And then they would be passed into the station ?—Yes ; they would be counted up, packed, and sent away. 249. Did all the skins pass through your hands, or were they all sent along to the homestead ?— They all passed under mv knowledge. 250. Do you remember whether McGeorge was carting any skins on Saturday the 15th ?—I do not remember. 251. You referred to Mr. McGeorge, I think, as going to Islay on the 18th ?—Yes, that is right. 252. How are you able to fix that ?—He would require to come to the station with things—sundry skins and what not. 253. How do you fix it for the 18th and the 16th or the 17th ?—Because if he. came to Islay and went away on the 19th there was no work for him at the homestead. He would therefore come on the 18th, and would start away from the station for Waihola on the 19th. 254. But you have no recollection yourself of it ?—I am certain of it. 255. You "are certain that he would be at Islay the day before he started on his journey ?—He would come in the night before. . 256. You are simply fixing that by what happened on the 19th according to your entry ?—I am fixing it by the fact that he would not come in before he was required. We would not keep him doing nothing. 257. If Mr. McGeorge says he went to Mataura on the morning of Monday which we have fixed for the 17th ?—That is wrong. 258. How do you know ?—I know that he left on the day I left because' I passed him on the way down to Mataura. 259. You know that he left on the 19th ? How do you know that he did not go away on the 17th ?—I know he went away the day I went away because he was on the station the night before I left. 260. Do you know he did not go on the 17th-?—I know he could not go away on the 17th and 19th both. 261. But you cannot profess to remember what did happen on the Nth : it is a long time back ? —No ; but if you can name any particular thing to lead my memory back I am willing to tell you anything you wish. ; 262. I was asking you about the cultivation of Meikle's property. You say you do not know much about his paddocks ?—lt is so many years back that I cannot recollect what grass and so on was in any of the paddocks. ' 263. Do you decline to give even a rougirestimate"of how many acres was in English grass at the time in question ? —No. 264. Were there 200 or 300 acres ?—I do not know. It never occurred to my mind. 265. How much of the pre-emptive right was in English grass ?—I could not give you the acreages. 266. Was there any ?—I do not remember if there was any. 267. Where did you leave the horse on which you rode from Islay to Mataura ?—I think there was a man who left Islay with me who took the horse back home again. In fact, lam certain of it. 268. Was it not left with Constable Leece ?—I do not remember whether there was a horse left with Constable Leece that day or not. We have several horses. 269. You said, I understood, to Dr. Findlay that the sheep could not get through on to Meikle's land except through the tussock and then on to the ploughed land of Meikle ?—They would have to cross the tussock first, 270. Assuming they got on to the tussock ?—Well, if you drove them on to the tussock they would be there certainly. 271. You admitted the tussock was not bad at that time of year, and that the turnips were working out ?—I did not admit that they would get on to the tussock. 272. They would never wander ?—They might. 273. Supposing they got as far as that, might they not wander a little farther down the river-bank and on to the school reserve ? —Of course, it is only natural any animal will wander, more especially sheep. 274. Do you remember what was the state of Meikle's country at the southern corner of the school reserve and his land at the Mimihau ? Evidence was given us that there was a panel there which in times of flood might get shifted : do you remember any panel ?—No. ' > 275. You are quite clear that to neither Mr. Templeton nor Mr. Mabin did you make any such statement as Dr. Findlay put to you ?—Yes. 276. I will remind you it was just about the time you were leaving the company ?—What time was that ? 277. You could bettor tell us that. What time did you leave Islay ? —lt was some time towards the latter end of 1889. 278. I understood that you were leaving, that you had given notice, but had not actually left ?— There was no notice in it. 279. You do not know anything about it ? —I do not know how you figure it out. 280. Dr. Findlay.] You gave evidence, I think, in all the previous trials of Meikle ?—I gave evidence only in the Supreme Court trial, not in the Magistrate's Court,
H.—2l.
R. TROUP.]
139
281. That, of course, was immediately after the sheep were stolen, and in December of the same year you said, " There was nothing to take sheep from turnips to tussock, which last was poor feed." Atkinson : I submit you cannot take the witness through his evidence in that way. i ;282. Dr. Findlay.] The evidence you gave before the Supreme Couit was correct, I understand ?— It"yvas just as the thing was then. You can understand that nineteen years afterwards I cannot remember every word I said. 283. You told Mr. Atkinson that sheep will wander, but that if sheep did wander off good feed they would soon go back to it again ?—Yes ; they will gather back and camp in their old ground. 284. There is one thing I have not asked, it is about the skins which were in the Court and which were found in Meikle's smithy ?—I saw the two skins at the Supreme Court trial. 285. How many years have you been dealing with sheep-skins ?—Since I was a boy. 286. What age are you now ?—Nearly sixty-one. 287. You saw these skins at the Supreme Court : did you look at them carefully ? —I did. 288. Can you tell us from your knowledge and experience that those skins came from sheep which had died from inflammation or exposure, or whether they came from sheep which had been killed with a knife ?—They came from sheep which had been killed in the usual way by the butcher. They were well preserved and were of a good yellow colour on the inside, and the wool upon them was tight and strong. You could not pull the wool from the skin. If they hf.d come from a sheep which had died, the wool would have come flopping off. It would have come off quite easily, because if a skin is taken off a dead sheep, the rotting process having begun on the carcase, it is well known the skin is damaged to such an extent that the wool will not adhere to it as it will should a skin from a sheep fresh killed by the butcher. 289. Were there any other signs on those skins you saw in the Court which showed that they were not taken from a dead sheep ? —They were of a good healthy yellow colour on the inside with none of the marks which appear on the skin of a sheep which has died. The skin of a sheep which has died is streaky on the surface with red blood-marks and fat perhaps adhering to it. 290. lam appealing to you as an expert. Do you tell their Honours as an expert that the skins you saw came from butcher-killed sheep ? —Yes, most decidedly. 291. Did you notice whether there were any wire-marks on those skins ?—There were no wiremarks whate\ 7 er. 292. Mr. Atkinson.] Are you absolutely clear about that, or is it because you are assuming that they were skins from the hut ?—I assume that they were hanging on the fence at the hut. 293. Ido not want you to assume that at all. I want to know whether, apart from any ques+ion of where the skins came from, you examined the skins and found that there were no wire-marks ?— Yes ; I inspected them thoroughly and saw that they were good sound skins from sheep which had been killed in the usual way, and that there were no wire-marks. 294. You refer to the fact, I understand, that if a sheep was allowed to remain long dead the skin becomes discoloured, and so on. Supposing the sheep is skinn< d directly after the animal has dl d. Supposing it has died a natural death and is skinned pretty promptly, would any of these symptoms be found on the skin ?—Well, the skin of a sheep which has died is not of the same value as that of a sheep which has been killed, because it is not a sound skin. 295. But where the skin is taken off immediately after death ?—Well, immediately after death, of course. 296. Do not these symptoms that you mention depend upon the length of time that the body is allowed to lie ? —lf the blood stays in the body before the animal is skinned, the skin is discoloured. Mr. Justice Edwards : I should not think for a moment that it could be the same because before a butcher skins a sheep he has drained off the blood, whereas in regard to the sheep you mention, it is not drained. In the case of a sheep dying, the blood is through the whole of the body. 297. Mr. Atkinson.] There is this difference you speak of whether there is an interval of time or not ?—The skin is discoloured, but to what extent all depends on how long it is between the time of death and the time it is skinned. James Danvers Leece sworn and examined. 298. Dr. Findlay.] What are you ? —I am a police constable, stationed at Roxburgh. 299. Where were you stationed in the year 1887 ? —At Mataura. 300. How many miles by road was your police-station from Meikle's farm ?—lt would be about fourteen miles. 301. Were any complaints made to you about sheep-stealing in the year 1887 ? —Yes. 302. By whom ?—By Mr. Troup. 303. Can you recollect about what time the first complaints were made to you by Troup ? —It would be about the middle of the year ; I cannot say what month. 304. Were complaints made subsequent to that date by Troup ? —Yes. 305. How long after ? —I cannot remember. It would not be very long after. 306. Ido not expect you at this distance of time to be able to give exact dates. At any rate not long after you were seen by Troup again, who complained about sheep-stealing ? —Yes. 307. Do you recollect what took place between Troup and yourself ?—Troup and myself and Cameron ? 308. Do you remember whether Troup saw you before you saw Cameron with Troup ? What was the first time you saw Troup, and what did he say ?—Troup spoke to me about the middle of the year, and he complained about sheep-stealing. I cannot exactly say what the conversation was, but he led me to believe that a number of sheep were missing on Islay Station.
H.—2l.
140
[j. D. LEKCE
309. Do you remember what you said ?—I cannot remember. 310. Did he see you again alone ? —Yes ; he spoke to me again about it shortly afterwards. 311. Do you remember what happened when he spoke to you again ?—No ; but he made a further complaint about sheep-stealing. 312. Now, I come to the time when Lambert was appointed. Can you tell the Court how Lambert came to be appointed as a private detective on Islay Station ? —Troup came to my station and told me that Mr. Cameron, who was outside, wanted to see me. I went out and saw Mr. Cameron, and he spoke to me about the sheep-stealing that was going on, and said it had not been coped with or dealt with. I said I was unable to cope with it, and it would be better to put on a man to see who was taking the sheep. They said they had not a man to put on, and asked me if I could suggest some one. I suggested a man named William Lambert. 313. Had you known Lambert before ?—Yes. He was about Mataura for a while. 314. Had he been associated with you in any work % —Yes ; he used to do bailiff's work forme. 315. How did you find him in the work he did for you ? —I found him correct. 316. And honest ?—Yes. 317. You recommended Lambert. Now, was anything said to you about Lambert's pay ? —I think he was to get £1 a week from the manager. 318. Was anything said about giving him something in addition to the salary ?—No. 319. Do you remember any subsequent discussion about a premium ? —Yes ; Troup showed me a letter in which a sum of £50 was offered if a conviction was secured. 320. You have been a great many years in the Police Force. May I ask you whether from your own knowledge there is anything unusual in giving a sum in addition to salary to a detective if he discovers a culprit ?—No. 321. Do you know that that kind of arrangement is made ? —Yes, to detect crime. 322. Troup came and showed you the letter which Cameron had written under which this man was to be paid a sum of £50 if he secured the thief ?—Yes. 323. I believe it was you who executed the search warrant at Meikle's place in November, 1887 ?— Yes ; with the assistance of others. 324. Who were present ? —Detective Ede and Constable Fouhy, Mr. Stuart and Trotter. 325. You went to the hut below the prisoner's house, and searched, and found nothing ? —That is so. 326. So the first place you went to was not the barn or smithy ? —Yes. 327. After that you went to the barn ?—Yes. 328. The door at the back was open ? —The door was open, but I cannot tell whether it was at the back or not. 329. You and Fouhy went in ?—Yes. 330. You found sheep-skins hanging from a beam in the barn ? —Yes. 331. You pulled them down and examined them, and found the two skins which were produced in the Court at the trial of Meikle ?—Yes. 332. You went to the stable after that and searched there, and found nothing ?—Yes. 333. Detective Ede asked Meikle something —what was it ?—He asked Meikle if the sheep were there. 334. What sheep ?—The sheep named in the warrant; and Meikle said, " Yes, they are down below here." 335. Was that in a fenced paddock ? —Yes. 336. Did you go down ? —Yes. 337. What did you do ?—We brought up the whole of the sheep we found in the paddock, and drafted them. We drafted out a number of sheep belonging to the station. We found twenty-five belonging to the station. 338. These twenty-five were identified by Stuart and Trotter ?—Yes. 339. Do you recollect if any question was put to Arthur Meikle beyond the one you have mentioned ? Was any question put to Arthur Meikle about the skins ?—I think Detective Ede asked him how the skins got there, and he replied that he got them off the fence. 340. Was Harvey present ? —Yes. 341. Did he hear Ede's question addressed to young Meikle —" Where did these skins come from " —and did he hear Meikle's answer ?—I cannot say whether he did or not. 342. Did you hear any statement made by either Harvey or Meikle as to where the sheep got in by ?—Yes ; I believe it was said by one of them that the sheep had got in at the top of the fence. 343. I call your attention to the piece of land coloured pink on the plan.. There is the leasehold of the company, coloured drab, and the pre-emptive right, coloured green. Where did Harvey or Arthur Meikle indicate that the sheep had got in ?—At the top end of Meikle's land adjoining the company's leasehold (coloured drab) —the top north-east corner of Meikle's land. 344. Did you examine any part of the fence ?—I examined the fence between the blue and the pink right down towards the river, but not quite to the river. 345. What condition was the fence in ?—lt seemed in good order. 346. Was it, in your opinion, sheep-proof at that time ?—Yes. 347. Can you recollect when Stuart informed you that sheep had been stolen from the Islay Station? —It was the 29th October. I think. 348. Now I pass from that to another matter. Lambert gave evidence in the lower Court in Meikle's trial, at Wyndham. Do you remember that ? —No ; I think we were all ordered out of Court, and I did not hear what was said.
J. D. LEECE.]
141
H.—2l.
349. Did you have any conversation with Lambert, either be'ore or outsi n e the Court as to what the elder Meikle had done with the brand on the sh sep he had killjd ?—Ye", he told me before tie Court that Meikle had pulled the brand out of the skin with a knife. 350. Was it the paint brand on the wool that had been pulled out with a knife ? —Yes. 351. Did he tell you how it had been done ?—Yes. 352. Did you know anything about the process of obliterating a paint brand ?—No. 353. In telling you about what Meikle had done, you are quite sure he told you he had taken out the paint brand with a knife ?—Yes. 354. And that was before the first trial of Meikle ?—Yes. 355. How many years had you been in the police-station at Mataura before these complaints were made to you about Meikle ?—I cannot say. It must have been a few months previous to the search or the employment of Lambert. 356. When did you go to Mataura ?—ln 1882. 357. You were there from 1882 to 1887 then ?—Till 1890. 358. Were you the nearest constable to Meikle's farm ?—Yes. 359. Any complaints about Mr. Meikle would be naturally made to you as the nearest constable ? —I do not know. My station was the nearest, but in direction Wyndham was almost as near. 360. You were the nearest resident constable, and, in a sense, the land where Meikle was, would be in your district. 361. I want to know from you what was the general character of Meikle before the complaint was made to you in 1887 ? Mr. Atkinson : I object to that question. Dr. Findlay : The question, I submit, your Honours, is perfectly permissible. My learned friend asks the Court to assess a sum for damages to his client's character in addition to wrongful imprisonment. If this were an action for libel or defamation of character, such evidence would be admissible in mitigation of damages, and, if admissible in such an action, surely the same should apply here. Mr. Justice Cooper : But you are asking it for a different purpose —that is, to show whether or not he may have been guilty of offences of this description. Dr. Findlay : Would that be an objection ? Mr. Justice Cooper : It certainly would be an objection on a trial on indictment. Mr. Atkinson : I submit, your Honours —I had not an opportunity of saying so before —that my learned friend's line of attack is entirely misconceived. He is treating this matter very much as a private litigation, as if it were an ordinary civil case for defamation in which it was his duty to blacken plaintiff's character and scatter all the mud he could. I freely concede that he is perfectly entitled to pursue the most rigid cross-examination with a view to attacking Mr. Meikle's credit, but I submit that evidence of the sort he now proposes to lead is quite out of the question. Assuming that anybody had got a sentence of seven years unjustly for sheep-stealing, and that, after having served his term the wrong is allowed to remain unredressed for thirteen years and a half —he may be an entirely notorious individual, but nevertheless the wrong has been done. " Innocent" does not mean a plaster saint. " Innocent " means in the law a person who is not guilty of the crime with which he has been charged. Mr. Justice Edwards : You told us all about injury to reputation, and that he was to clear himself in the eyes of the world. If the constable is prepared to say that there was no reputation, and that he was believed, rightly or wrongly, to be an habitual sheep-stealer, you could not say that much had been lost in that case. Mr. Atkinson : A man who has been convicted of sheep-stealing, and has borne the reputation of a convicted sheep-stealer down to this moment Mr. Justice Edwards : Supposing he had borne that reputation, it is only a difference between one he had and one he had not. As far as I understand the position, that surely must reduce your damage. Mr. Atkinson : Reputation is a vague term. But I put it that loss of property, loss of liberty during a term of imprisonment, then a further loss of property and stress of mind during a long period during which he endeavoured to obtain some redress —I submit that those constituted a substantial basis of claim. Mr. Justice Edwards : I thought you told us about "He who steals my purse steals trash," and so on. You told us that your client had suffered from loss of reputation, but if that reputation had gone from the district while the constable was there and before the conviction, surely that must affect your claim for damages. Mr. Atkinson : I submit in a matter of this sort the kind of reputation of which my learned friend is endeavouring to give evidence must be only a local reputation, and the injury my client has suffered is an injury at least as wide as the colony. Mr. Justice Edwards : Ido not think so. It is just as wide as Mr. Meikle has chosen to make it. Mr. Atkinson : Leaving the question of character outside altogether, and simply taking the case of a man who, if you like, has no character to lose : assuming that such was deprived of his liberty for so many years, whatever his reputation was, it has been aggravated by the criminal stigma from an unjust sentence. I submit that taking these items alone there seems enough to establish a claim. Mr. Justic Edwards : But you' want something for relatives in addition. I think we had bettertake the evidence. 362. Dr. Findlay (to witness).] You were in Mataura from 1882 till 1890. Now, I ask you what was the general reputation for honesty borne by Mr. J. J. Meikle during the years you knew him ?—I heard he was suspected of sheep-stealing.
142
[j. D. LEECE.
H.—2l.
363. Was or was not Mr. Meikle a reputed sheep-stealer before his arrest ? —I could not say that. I could say he was suspected. 364. He was suspected of being a sheep-stealer, independent of this case altogether ?—I would not say that. 365. Will you tell us what you do propose to say ?—He was suspected of taking those sheep from the Islay Station. 366. Is that the only suspicion that attached to him ?—That is all I know of. 367. That is all the general reputation he bore that you can speak of ? —That is so. 368. Mr. Atkinson.] How were these skins placed ?—They were placed on a beam in the smithy —along the beam. 369. Were these two skins with others ?—Yes. 370. About how many ?—About fifteen or sixteen. 371. Were they in any way concealed ?—They were amongst the others. 372. The door was open ? —Yes. 373. Were the other doors open ?—The door at prisoner's house was open. 374. Did you search the barn ?—I thought that was the barn I referred to. 375. One part was the barn and the other the smithy ; they were under one roof ?—There was only one door open that I saw. 376. Do you not remember that there was another door on the other side of the building ?—There might have been. I cannot remember. 377. Was Mr. Harvey there ?—Yes. 378. Mr. Harvey in his evidence in 1895 said he called the attention of the police to the fact that the outbuildings were locked, except the smithy. You are not prepared to dispute that ?—The door was open at the hut below prisoner's house. 379. That was the man's dwelling-house ?—Yes. 380. Did you give instructons to Duncan and Telfer to examine the fences in 1887 ?—Yes; I believe those were their names. 381. In whose employ were they ?—ln the employ of the Islay Company. 382. As to the paddock in which the sheep were found, what sort of pasture was there ?—There was a kind of lea land where the sheep were. 383. Was there any English grass ?—lt was very short stuff; it might have been English grass. There was a green patch. 384. What was the size of the paddock ?—lt would not be very large where the sheep were found. 385. About how many acres ?—The portion that was green I should say would not be more than 10 acres. 386. What was about the total area of the paddock ?—About 200 acres, I think. 387. Are you prepared to swear that the whole of that was not in English grass ?—Yes. It was very rough feed. 388. How much English grass would you say there was in the whole property ?—I do not think there was more than 10 acres there. There might have been a little more but not much more—that is, where these sheep were. 389. As to the rest of the property, did you form an estimate as to how much English grass there was ?—I cannot say. It was very rough feed. There might have been some English grass amongst it. 390. Are you prepared to swear that there was no English grass on the other portions of the land ? —There may have been some amongst the native grass, but I never saw any. 391. Is your memory quite clear as to the whole business ?—lt is fairly clear on a considerable number of circumstances. 392. Are you quite certain Harvey was there ?—Yes. 393. You gave evidence in 1895 at Lambert's trial ?—Yes. - 394. Were you certain then that Harvey was there in 1887 ?—lf I said so in 1895, I suppose that would be correct. 395. According to the Judge's notes, page 43, you said, " I think Harvey was present. lam not quite sure." You have refreshed your memory since, perhaps ?—Yes, I have refreshed my memory. 396. Detective Ede is dead, is he not ?—I believe so. 397. Was he senior officer on that occasion ? —Yes. • 398. He says at page 22, " Search-warrant read to Arthur Meikle. I asked if there were any sheep of Islay Station on their land. He said, ' Yes, several' " Are you prepared to say that that was the way he put the question ?—I think he said, " Are those the sheep here ? " when I read the warrant. 399. How many sheep were you searching for ?—The number named in the warrant; I think it was fifty-four. 400. There were not fifty-four there, were there ? —No. 401. Did it not strike you as more probable that Detective Ede would put his question in this way :" I asked if there were any sheep of Islay Station on their land. He said, ' Yes, several.' " If he said that in his evidence, it is probable he put the question in that way ?—lt is quite probable. 402. In his evidence he said, " I asked how they got there. He replied, ' They must have come through the fence.' Believe he meant the fence on east side." You would not dispute that either ?— No. 403. Had the sheep brought in'; twenty-five were obtained the first visit ?—Yes. 404. You did not get the whole twenty-seven at first ?—No. 405. You went back next day and further search was made ?—Yes. 406. You then got two more, making twenty-seven in all ?—Yes. 407. Do you know where the other two were found ?—No ; they were on the land.
J. D. LEECE.]
143
H.—2l.
408. But not on the same land as you got the twenty-five ? —They must have been further towards the bush ; I believe they were over towards the bush. 409.t So that in the two visits you found twenty-seven ? —That is so. 410. Amongst the twenty-seven was a ram ?—Yes. 411. So there were twenty-six sheep and one ram obtained in the way you suggest ?—Yes. 412. You were asked about the grass ; you made two visits to thia place ; you went up to the corner of the field, and examined the fence along the road-line, I understand ; you had a fair chance of seeing what kind of pasture there was on Meikle's land ? —Yes, I walked over it. 413. Did you see any crop of ploughed land 9 in. h'gh at that time ? —I never noticed it. 414. You would have seen it ?—I think I would have a fair recollection of it. 415. You were not asked by Meikle's lawyer when you gave evidence first how you would describe Meikle's pastures. Were they poor or good ?—They were poor except these few acres of grass and that was short. 416. Was it land or pasture on which sheep could be fattened ?—I do not know. I have no idea about sheep.
Dunedin, Thursday, 10th May, 1906. Constable Leece recalled : 1. Dr. Findlay.] Do you recollect Mr. Stuart, the manager of the company, coming to you before the information was laid against"Meikle ? —Yes. 2. The warrant contains fifty-four sheep, we find ? —Yes. 3. Will you tell their Honours whether or not Mr. Stuart told you how these numbers had been arrived at ?—Yes ; Stuart informed me that Lambert informed him that twenty-eight sheep were on Meikle's ground, that one was killed, and that there were still twenty-six rams missing. 4. Mr. Justice Edwards .] Twenty-six rams ?—Yes, making fifty-four in all. 5. Twenty-six rams beside the twenty-eight ? —Yes, your Honour. 6. Dr. Findlay.] He told you that Lambert had reported that twenty-eight sheep were on Meikle's land, and Stuart told you that there were twenty-six rams still missing ? —Yes, making fifty-four in all. James Fleming examined 7. Dr. Findlay.] Your full name, Mr. Fleming ? —James Fleming. 8. What are you ?—A farmer. 9. Residing at where ? —Rakahouka. 10. You gave evidence, it seems, on the trial of Meikle for sheep-stealing in the year 1887 ?— Yes. 11. You were asked to examine the fences between the company and Meikle ?—Yes. 12. Do you remember on what date you made the examination ?—On the 12th November. 13. What was the condition of the fences when you examined them on 12th November ?—They were all good, as far as I remember ; I have not a very clear recollection. 14. You had a clear recollection ? —At the time. 15. I will put the question to you that Mr. Atkinson put to Gregg—the evidence you gave at the trial was true ?—That is so. 16. Mr. Justice Edwards.] The evidence at the Supreme Court trial of Meikle ? —Yes. 17. That was shortly after you examined the fences ? —Shortly after. I think the police inquiry was on the 19th, and I examined the fences on the 12th. 18. Dr. Findlay.] Can you remember whether in addition to your examination you saw any marks of sheep passing through ? —I think the whole thing is included in the evidence I gave. 19. I will leave it at that. The whole thing is included there ?—I think so. 20. You had no interest in the case ?—None whatever ; I had rrevcr been in the district. 21. What experience had you in regard to sheep-proof fences ? —I had a life-long experience in it:—amongst them all my life. 22. You saw the company's land, I suppose ?—Adjacent to Meikle's. I did not go over the company's land at all. 23. Are you in a position to say from what you saw of the fences and the pasture on the company's and Meikle's whether or not sheep would stray from the company's land to Meikle's ?—From my recollection of it there was nothing to tempt sheep either way very much ; there was really nothing tempting. 24. Assuming that there were sheep on the company's land —there were turnips there we are told —was there anything there to tempt them on to Meikle's ?—Not that I saw. 25. Can you recollect whether the fences were such as would check sheep coming from the company's land to Meikle's ? —I think so, I said so at the time. 26. You have had some experience of sheep-skins, of course, as a farmer ? Had you the advantage of seeing the sheep-skins ? —No, I never saw the skins. 27. I want to ask you as an expert farmer, is there any difficulty in telling whether a skin produced to you has come from a butcher killing sheep or from a sheep that has died from inflammation ? —None whatever. 28. What is the difference ?—The skin of the sheep killed by the butcher is smooth and even ; the one off the sheep that died from inflammation is all red and bloody. 29. Have you anything to say as to the fixity of the wool in the skin ?—That depends upon how soon it is skinned after being killed, If it lies any time the wool peels off it: if skinned immediately it does not.
H.—2l.
144
[j. FLEMING.
30. I put it to you as an experienced man, if, as an honest man, you could make any mistake as to whether a skin came from a killed sheep or a sheep that had died ? —None whatever. 31. There would be none of the smoothness of the skins inside ?—And the bloody appearance. Any novice would know that, provided that the skins were not smeared with mud and blood. 32. I take it from your experience as a farmer that you know something of driving sheep ?—I have seen a good deal of it, and ctene a good deal of it. 33. It would be idle to suppose you did not know what is suggested in this case about the driving of the sheep by night by Arthur Meikle. Can you tell me whether there would be any difficulty in driving twenty-seven sheep with a dog and a boy, and the assistance of a man ? —Of course you understand I was only sent up in connection with the fences 34. Here is a photograph of the place [handing witness photo in Meikle's pamphlet at top of page 32]. You will assume that there is a yard here, and that twenty-eight sheep are driven into the yard alongside the building by a boy, dog, and man with a lantern. Would there be any difficulty in getting the sheep through there ?—At night ? 35. Yes ?—lt depends upon how you do it. 36. How would you do it ? —You are assuming it to take place in the dark ? 37. Yes ?—lf the lantern is outside and you were trying to put them into that shed you would have very great difficulty in getting them in ; you would have to drag them in ; we do it frequently at night. If you put the lantern inside, in the far-away side of the shed, the sheep will go towards the light, 38. Assuming that the lantern was put inside, there was no difficulty in putting sheep through that door ? —None whatever ; I could give you a practical demonstration in four-and-twenty hours, if you like. 39. You have had practical demonstrations of it yourself ? —We have it every year at shearingtime. We leave the sheep out as long as possible. 40. Mr. Atkinson.] Would it be easier to put them in at an 18 in. door than at a 4 ft, door ? —lf both doors were equally convenient I should prefer a 4 ft. door, certainly. 41. Is not the 4 ft. door in this case admirably convenient, as the doorway makes an angle with the fence ? —I should say that would depend upon the position of the yard a good deal. If you are going to put sheep broadside on to the building, if you could get them into a corner, and the door is in the corner, it would be very simple to put them in. 42. Mr. Justice Edwards.] That door is in the corner ?—But is the yard in the corner ? 43. They go into that yard like into a race, but that other door [referring to the map] is into a paddock ? —Under the circumstances, if the small door leads out of a small yard, and is in a corner of the yard, I should prefer to put them in the small door. 44. Mr. Atkinson.] Supposing it is not in the corner ?—Or adjacent to it? 45. Nor adjacent to it ? —lf it is a question of putting them in broadside into both doors, and that there is no convenience in regard to either, then I should prefer the large door. 46. Mr. Justice Edwards.] There is a corner there. You can get them up to the door in a corner ? —If you can, then there is no difficulty. 47. Mr. Atkinson.] I suppose you could not give us an authoritative opinion unless you saw the p[ ace ?—lf these sheep were in the yard there, adjacent to either of the doors, there would be no difficulty in putting them into the shed. 48. You are assuming that there is a corner ? —Yes ; a yard. Mr. Justice Edwards : Ido not know if we have got it proved what is the size of that yard. It is only a small yard. Dr. Findlay : It holds two hundred sheep. 49. Mr. Atkinson (to witness).] About a chain by three-quarters of a chain ?—Even without a yard sheep in the dark will not scatter on you as they will in daylight. She jp are very timid animals. Even driving them on a road in the dark they will not scatter. ' 50. Do you know Mr. James Walker, of Wyndham, farmer and cattle-dealer ?—Yes. 51. Does he know anything about sheep ?—He ought to. 52. If he saw the place and said that any one using the narrow door when there was a broad door would be mad, what would you say ? —I hope you do not want me to certify to all the evidence. 53. Mr. justice Edwards.] You can understand exactly what it is without seeing it ?—I understand perfectly well, your Honour, from this picture. 54. Mr. Atkinson.] I put it, if he says that, and he had seen the building ? —Will you read his opinions again ? 55. " Any one that put them in at the narrow door when the wide door was open would be pretty nearly mad " ?—Well, I do not know. Dr. Findlay : That was in cross-examination. 56. Mr. Atkinson.] It was Lambert's witness ; that is the importance of it. He stated in his eximination-in-chief that it could be done ?—My opinion is that it could be done in any case. 57. Mr. Justice Edwards.] You appear to be reasonably sane yourself, Mr. Fleming, and you would not have any hesitation in putting them in by either door ?—Not by either door. 58. Mr. Atkinson.] How long do you reckon you could get it done in ?—Oh, a few minutes. It just means this, Mr. Atkinson : if once you get them started, if your yard is big enough, you can put them in by the thousand in a short time. 59. Can you not do it easier with a large crowd than a small one ?—Not if you have too large a crowd —over a bridge, or anything of that sort, they are not so easily managed. 60. Is not a small crowd more difficult ?—Three or four would be more difficult. 61. Do you know Mr. Thomas Gold ?—I have seen the man. 62. Has he some experience of stock ? —He ought to.
J. FLEMING.]
145
H.— 2l.
63. He says, " There would be a slight difficulty in putting them through a narrow opening— with a fairly good dog I think it could be done." And further on in cross-examination he says, "To get them into the narrow gate would require a good pressing dog. It might be done in an hour." That is nearly an hour too long ? —As a matter of fact, I will tell you this : if you put sheep into a small yard adjacent to either of these doors, I will put them in without a dog at all in a few minutes. 64. What do you call a small yard —a chain by three-quarters of a chain ?—That is a large yard. I would not undertake to do it without a dog. 65. Assuming that to be the size, you would not do it without a dog ? —No, I would notMr. Justice Edwards : The yard does not look as big as that in your picture. Mr. Atkinson : It looks a considerable size, if you look at the door picture. Dr. Findlay : Of course I do not admit the size. Mr. Atkinson : Your Honour will sec that. At one door it does not seem to me that there is a yard at all. The fence simply runs up to the corner of the shed. 66. Mr. Atkinson (to witness).] You realise that the narrow door is but 18 in. wide ? —lt says about 18 in. 67. Have you ever worked sheep through an 18 in. door ? —I have never worked them through it, but I am perfectly satisfied if sheep can get through it there will be no difficulty—the same as through a race —-that is, the ordinary width of a race. 68. Do you know Robert Urquhart ?—Not by name. 69. He is the only witness who tried it ?—lf you give me four-and-twenty hours I will give a practical demonstration of it. 70. Where is it to be ?—I have no hesitation in saying that, any way. 71. This is Urquhart's evidence in the 1894 depositions : " I know the opening through which the sheep are alleged to have been driven —about 18 in. wide, and immediately adjoining the blacksmith's shop. Ido not think it is possible for sheep to be driven through there on a dark night. I attempted with two men and two dogs to do this about a month ago. We had twenty-nine sheep. We attempted in the day-time to drive them through this opening into the yard. We got some in by catching them and throwing them in. We had pretty fair dogs, but could not do it otherwise." ? —Clearly understand that the whole thing rests on the placing of a light on the far side of the building, because then the sheep will go to it. It is almost impossible to put the sheep into a dark building. I should say- it would be impossible to attract them in without a light. Of course lam not responsible for what other people may have attempted to do. I did not know that I was to be asked about this, but if I can assist the Court I am willing to do so. Mr. Justice Edwards : There may be a difference of opinion about these things, I suppose, as about many others. Some men go about it one way, and some another. 72. Mr. Atkinson.] Your opinion is contingent upon the yard being smaller than what I named to you ? —Not at all. If there was a convenient corner to work from I could do without a dog at all. If it was not convenient I should probably require a dog. 73. Does Mr. Alexander Cameron know anything about sheep ? —I have no personal experience of the man at all. 74. He says he has not tried it, but in his opinion it is impossible to do it ? —I may tell you'that we do it every year with a candlelight at shearing-time. 75. But not at this yard ?—No. 76. How much time did you spend in the examination of these fences ? —I really could not tell you. I simply went right round the boundary-fence. 77. Did you ride round ?—I had to walk through the the bush part of the way. 78. You found no traces of wool anywhere ?—I do not think so, but it is impossible to recollect all these things nearly twenty years afterwards. What I said in my previous evidence would be correct. . 79. You said there was a place where Meikle's fence ran into the river, " No marks of sheep having got through." In your experience is it ever possible for a sheep to get through a sheep-proof fence ? — If you are dogging sheep and a sheep makes a bound it might get through a fairly good wire fence. 80. Supposing one expert: —an honest expert —examined a fence, and reported it to be sheep-proof, and an honest witness reported on the following day that he saw sheep get through, would you believe the honest witness was right, or the expert was right ?—I should say that would be like a difficult law point for the legal profession. 81. You did not test all the wires, I presume ? —Not every wire, certainly not. 82. Well, would you say the expert or the honest witness was right ?—I should say it would just depend upon circumstances. If the witness said that the sheep went through on its own account quietly and deliberately, I should say he was wrong, but if the sheep were being dogged, for instance, and a sheep made a dash away at the fence, that would be different. 83. But if there were more than one witness to certify that the sheep got through ? —To tell you the truth, I begin to have my doubts about witnesses. 84. In your previous evidence you spoke of there being two wires and old rails at a place where there was a patched-up gateway ?—Yes. 85. Well, that does not seem to offer very great security —two wires and old rails at this point ? —That is so. It was sheep-proof when I was there, but of course if anything had knocked it down there would have been an opening. ■ 86. Do you say that no sheep could have got through there, or along the whole boundary, except by breaking down that part ?—That was my opinion. 87. You do not believe these other people ?—I have nothing to do with other people. 88. Mr. Baynes, for instance, on page 27, says Dr. Findlay : I do not think my friend is entitled to confront the witness with what has been said by somebody who has not been called.
19— H. 21,
[j. FLEMING.
146
H.—2l.
89. Mr. Atkinson.] Mr. Baynes is dead. Mr. Baynes on 6th November examined that fence, and saw two sheep go through—adjoining the pre-emptive right. You saw no traces of those sheep having gone through ?—What portion of the fence was that ? 90. The portion running through the bush to the Mimihau. Are you prepared to swear that because you saw no traces, and because you tested the wires in several places and pronounced the fence to be good, are you prepared to swear that Mr. Baynes could not have seen those sheep go through ?— I say that if that man says he saw two sheep go quietly and deliberately through that fence I do not believe a word of it. , 91. And you only tested the fence in several places ?—I tested the tightness of the wrres with my hand. 92. And you are prepared to swear that Mr. Baynes could not have seen sheep go through on tirerr own account ? —That is my own opinion. 93. Did you examine the whole of the leasehold boundary ?—I went round the whole lot, except a part through the bush. 94. Was there no gap in the fence on that side ?—None. 95. This is a question of fact ?—I got two hours of this before, and that has impressed it upon my memory. 96. Were there any burnt posts along the fence ?—No, not when I exammed it. 97. Can you say whether or not the fence was continuous along that boundary right through the bush ?—No, I was told there was a part in the centre of the bush which was not fenced, but as I have said there was a part of the bush through which I did not go, because it was just about impossible to travel through the centre, which was dense, and tangled with lawyers, and so on. 98. In your evidence in the Supreme Court you say : " Was asked to examine fences between company and Meikle. Did so on 12th November. Fences all in thoroughly good order, except at one point where sheep might possibly have got through ?"—There was something more than that. 99. That is your own evidence given before the Supreme Court in 1887 ?— I am satrsfied the whole of my evidence is not there, because I know I went into the matter very fully at the police court inqurry. 100. Who asked you to examine the fences ?—I could not say positively. I understood it was the Crown, but Mr. McDonald tells me it was the police, and of course I believe Mr. McDonald. 101. Is October a good season of the year for turnips for sheep ? —We have turnips right into October every year practically. 102. Up to what time of the year does the turnip crop extend ?—That depends upon circumstances. For instance, we often begin in May sowing turnips, and sometimes go into November with them. The farmers of Southland as a rule arrange to have turnips into October every year. 103. How far into October ?—Sometimes it extends into November. We would not intend to have them in November, but sometimes we have more than we require. ' Any good farmer would arrange to have turnips all September. 104. Is that when they are broadcast ?—That would not make any great difference. 105. Is it not the rule for turnips to run to seed in October ?—lt is a man's own carelessness if they run to seed. When it gets late in the year we put sheep over the turnips to eat off the tops in order to prevent them from growing. . . 106. I suppose you did not pay any attention to the fences around the pre-emptive right ?—No, I had no instructions. 107. Did you form any opinion as to cultivations ?—I formed the opinion that rt was poor country altogether. 108. The whole country ?—Yes, the district. 109. Dr. Findlay .] You went round the whole of the fence inside the part we have described on the map, and you went into the bush ?—I went a good distance into the bush, but it was so dense that I could not go very far. " 110. There was some ploughed land upon Meikle's part: did you see any crop there of oats 9 in. high ?— No. 111. Did you see any crop of oats there which would serve as feed for sheep ?—No. 112. Mr. Atkinson.] Did you go near the house ?—No, I did not. 113. Dr. Findlay.] You were asked by my friend whether you would contradict Walker, Urquhart, and another witness with regard to the time it would take to drive sheep through an 18 in. door. It is due to them and to you to say that none of those witnesses when they made that statement were asked to assume that there was a light inside ?—I did not know what they were assuming at all. 114. Who went round the fences with you ?—Mr. Stuart. 115. You knew when you made the examination that it was for the purpose of deciding whether sheep might stray through those fences on to Meikle's land ?—Yes, I understood it was to come before the Court, and I was particularly careful about it. 116. And you were examined by Meikle himself for two hours about the matter shortly after you made the examination ?—Yes, four days afterwards. 117. And at that time, with the matter fresh in your mind, you were able to say that sheep could not stray through as suggested ?—Yes, and lam of the opinion that my evidence at the other Court is perfectly correct. 118. I will leave it at this one general test. Assuming you had eight hundred sheep on one side of a fence, on Mr. Meikle's farm, and you had six hundred sheep on the other side of the fence, on my farm, and a muster is made of the sheep on each side of the fence, and you find that there are none of Meikle's sheep on my farm, what would you assume the fences were ? —I would assume the fences would be good, or else there would be a mixture both ways.
147
H.—2l.
W. STUART
William Stuart examined. 119. Dr. Findlay.] You are a farmer ?—Yes, at Otapiri Gorge. 120. How long have you been farming ?—About twenty years. 121. Now, going back to the year 1887, you were for a short time manager of the Islay Station ?— Yes. 122. What were you doing immediately preceding your appointment as manager ?—I was at home on my own farm, looking after my own farm. 123. What area of land had you ?—2ll acres. 124. You succeeded Mr. Troup as manager of the station ? —Yes. 125. Do you remember when you took charge ?—I went there, I think, on the 6th*,Octobei. 126. We find that Troup left on the 19th October, as shown by his diary : did you take charge immediately after that ? —Yes. 127. Were you there from the 6th October until you took charge ?—Yes. 128. Staying at the Islay Station ?—Yes, as far as I can remember. 129. We have been told—and it is common ground —that the company had a number of sheep on turnips on the pre-emptive right ?—That is so. 130. Can you tell us whether, when you were there on the 18th October, there was good feed for the sheep on the pre-emptive right ? —lt was fairly good. The turnips were getting a bit down, but there was quite sufficient feed there still. If there had not been the sheep would have been taken off before. It is not customary to keep sheep on ground on which there is not sufficient feed. 131. You were there then, from the 6th October, and some time afterwards. Taking the condition of Meikle's farm as far as you know it, what area of turnips was there, do you think, on the pre-emptive right belonging to the company ? —I could not exactly say as to the acreage. There seemed to be a fair piece. 132. You cannot give any approximation at all about it ? —No, I think not. 133. Do you remember the dividing-fences between the two farms ?—Fairly well. 134. Can you remember if sheep were to stray from the pre-emptive right what fences they would have to go through to get to Meikle's land ?—They would have to go through his boundary-fence. 135. Do you know whether or where some of the sheep were found on Meikle's land ?—I remember about the place. 136. You examined the fences with Mr. Fleming ? —Yes, along the boundary. 137. For the purposes of learrring whether they were sheep-proof or not ?—Yes. 138. And you were on Meikle's land and saw some of his pastures there ? —Yes, but we only went round the boundary-fence. 139. From the examination you made, and from your knowledge of the fences, and the different pastures, did you think the sheep would stray from the company's land to Meikle's ?—I did not think there was anything to attract them. 140. What do you say about the fences preventing them ?—The fences were very good for a farmer to have. 141. Do you think then it was at all probable or possible that the sheep would stray from the company's land to Meikle's ? —I do not see what was to take them. 142. You knew Mr. Lambert ? —Yes. 143. When you went to the station on the 6th October, where was Lambert living ? —At the hut near Meikle's land 144. Do you know the purpose for which the company engaged him ?—I learnt that when I arrived at the station. 145. Who told you ? —Troup. 146. That he was to find out who was stealing the company's sheep ?—Yes. 147. Did you see Lambert after you took charge ?—Yes. 148. Did you see him before you took charge ? —Yes ; I saw him in company with Troup one day. 149. After you took charge you would see him from time to time, I suppose ?—Yes, almost every day. 150. Assuming that you took charge on 20th October, would you see Lambert after you took charge frequently ?—Yes. 151. Where ?—Generally at the hut. 152. At his own hut ?—Yes. 153. Did Lambert report about a theft by young Meikle of certain sheep ? —Yes. 154. As far as you can charge your memory, about what date would that be ?—lt would be some days after I went there —it would be a day or so at any rate after I went there. 155. You went there on the 6th October, and took charge on the 19th ? —lt would be a day or so before we mustered the sheep. 156. How long after you took charge on the 19th would Lambert tell you this story ?—lt would possibly be the first time I went over. 157. When would you go over ? —Possibly on the 19th or 20th. 158. Can you charge your memory as to whether he told you at the hut or at the homestead ?— At the hut. 159. Give us as much as you remember of the story he then told you ? —He told me that he had been at Gregg's hut, and when he was going home he heard a noise. Gregg was with him, or went so far on the road with him. Lambert wanted to see what the noise was, and found that it was young Meikle driving some sheep. He told me he drove them in at the gate and took them home, or something to that effect. He took them home and put them into a yard and then into a building, and that the old man had a lantern in his hand alight; that they looked for a fat one and, I think, killed that
H.—2l.
148
[W. STUART
one and skinned it and combed out the paint brand from the wool and cut off the ears and threw the pieces away. 160. Did Lambert tell you what number of sheep had been driven in this way to Meikle's land ? —Yes ;he said that they counted some twenty-eight of one kind and another, and killed one. 161. Did he mention anything about a ram ? —Yes ; I think there was a ram too. 162. You are quite certain that you are not inventing all this ?—That is Lambert's story so far as I can remember. 163. And that was told you you think a day or two after the 19th October ?—Yes ; as far as 1 can remember that would be the time. He told me at the hut. 164. I want to get rid of the suggestion made throughout the case that it was part of Lambert's duty to your knowledge to put skins on the land to get this man Meikle convicted. Was there any such arrangement ever made or discussed ?—No, never —the other way. 165. Did you go off to the police at once and tell them about this ? —No. 166. Was this night's work of young Meikle in taking the sheep discussed by you and Lambert after he first told you ? —Yes; we possibly discussed it half a dozen times. 167. The story shortly was this : that young Meikle had taken away twenty-eight sheep including a ram, and that one had been killed as you describe ? —Yes. 168. Did you tell the police when you went to them ultimately that twenty-eight sheep had been stolen including a ram ? —Yes. 169. How does it come that whereas Lambert told you that only twenty-eight were stolen you swore an information to fifty-four sheep ?—When we mustered the sheep we took out the rams and put them into a smill paddock, and in the morning they were gone. 170. Was that, as far as you can recollect, before or after Lambert reported to you this theft ?— After. 171. The twenty-six rams disappeared during the night ? —Yes. 172. Who did you assume had stolen them ? —Well, I thought it was possible that they were where the rest where. 173. You thought that Meikle had taken them ?—Yes ; I did not know where they had gone to. 174. When you reported that fifty-four were stolen you added those twenty-six rams to the twentyeight that Lambert had reported to you about ? —Yes. 175. You accompanied the police when Ede, Fouhy, and Constable Leece went there on 2nd November ? —Yes. 176. Do you remember on that occasion going to the men's hut below Meikle's house ? —I do not know what took place. I stood in the open holding my horse. The police made the search. 177. The sheep in a paddock on Meikle's land were mustered, and a number of sheep were taken out which belonged to the company ?—Yes, they were drafted out. 178. How many sheep were these twenty-five taken out from amongst ?—lt is very hard for me to say, because we did not count them. 179. May I take it that the twenty-five sheep drafted out were from amongst a larger number of Meikle's sheep ? —That is so. 180. Any way you picked out twenty-five of the company's sheep. That was all you could find there ? —Yes. 181. Did you return next day with the police ? —Yes. 182. Was a further search then made for more sheep ?—Yes. 183. What was discovered ? —Two more in a rough paddock. 184. Was that in the same place as you found the twenty-five ? —No, I do not think so. 185. Where do you think it was ? —Further back towards the leasehold. 186. Were there other sheep there ?—Yes, I think so. 187. So you got by searching and drafting on the two occasions twenty-seven sheep ?—Yes. 188. Was one of them a ram ? —Yes. ' 189. -So that by the result of your search you got precisely the number that Lambert said had been stolen save the one that was killed ? —Yes. 190. A muster was made of the company's sheep on the 26th October, we are told ? —Yes. 191. Do you remember who made that muster ? —As far as I can remember it was Mr. Trotter. 192. Who was Trotter ?—A shepherd. 193. Where was this muster made ? —Off the pre-emptive right—off the turnips. 194. You knew by that time from Lambert how many of the company's sheep were on Meikle's land ?—Yes. One of the reasons of the muster was to ascertain that Lambert's figures were correct. 195. Can you tell whether or not you told Trotter of the numbers Lambert gave you ?—I must have. We were generally talking over the taking of the sheep amongst us. The three of us knew of it, at any rate. I was with Trotter at the muster, and Lambert was there, on the first day anyway, putting up the hurdles for drafting. 196. What were the hurdles for ?—For making a yard, or extending the yard. 197. You know that a station diary was kept ?—-Yes. 198. You yourself made entries in it for some time after your employ ? —Yes. 199. Could you say whether these sheep you found on Meikle's land were turnip-fed sheep ?—I think they were. 200. Why ? —By the condition of them. If they had not been turnip-fed at that time of the year they would not have been so fat. 201. Was there any turnip land that you ever saw up to the hearing of this case on Meikle's ? — There was none when I went there. It was mostly black ground. It might have been sown with oats, but I certainly did not see any turnips.
W. STUABT.]
149
H.—2l.
202. Are you able to say definitely whether there was any crop there standing 9 in. high ? Is that true or not ? —I should certainly say it is not true. I did not see it anyway. You know where the ploughed ground was ?—Yes. 204. Did you ever see any crop above the groundat that time ? —One piece, I think, was getting green. 205. Was it fit for sheep food ? —I do not think they would get much from it. 206. What size was it ?—lt was not far up when we mustered the sheep, and at the time the sheep were said to be stolen I scarcely think it was through at all. 207. You mustered the sheep on the 2nd and 3rd November ?—Yes. 208. If the sheep were stolen on the 18th, a fortnight earlier, can you say from your knowledge of Southland seasons, and so on, whether that crop would have been through a fortnight before ? —lf it was peeping through it would be no more. 209. What do you say about the statement of Meikle, that the crop was 9 in. above the ground ? — I denied it at Wyndham, and I deny it now. 210. What day was the work being done with the hurdles at the yards which you spoke of ?—lt would be done the day before the muster. They would be preparing for the muster. 211. I want you to look at this entry of the 26th in the diary. Whose handwriting is that, so far as you know ?—I think it is Trotter's. 212. " Went over to pre-emptive right; put upJiurdles " ? —Yes. 213. Were those the yards you refer to ?—Yes. 214. There is an entry about drafting sheep to go to Sunnyside. Where is Sunnysrde ?—Between the pre-emptive right and Wyndham. 215. You drafted 302 fat sheep to go to Sunnyside ?—Yes. 216. In the entry regarding the muster you mention 222 to go to Belmont, twenty killing-sheep to be brought to the station, twenty-six on Meikle's; fifteen rams, one on Meikle's. What does that mean ? —lt means the sheep we had been talking about as being on Meikle's. 217. Well, now, you got this information from Lambert on the 19th or 20th, or about that time. When did you go to the police ? —I understand it was on the 29th October. 218. It would be a week or a little more after you got the information ?—Yes. 219. Where did you go to the police ?—At Mataura. 220. Had you made the muster of the sheep on the pre-emptive right before you went to the police ? —Yes. 221. Have you got the figures showing what the total muster was ? —No, I do not remember. 222. At any rate there were more short than the fifty-four you mentioned in the information ?—I suppose there would be. 223. The information was laid on the number that Lambert told you and the rams that disappeared ? —Yes. 224. Lambert told you about this after you took charge, and before the muster on the 26th ?— Yes. 225. Lambert gave this information as a private detective to you as manager of the station ?—Yes. 226. Had you chosen you could have gone to the police at once ? —Yes. 227. Why did you not go to the police at once ?—There was a report of a horse having been stolen, and I had a feeling that I would give Meikle a chance. If he would send word that the sheep were in his paddock, or would turn them out, or say something about them, I would not have laid the information. I did not want to take the man short, because I was pretty certain he would say I had got some one to put in the sheep. 228. Meikle never gave you that notice ? —No. If he had, that would have ended the matter. 229. You saw the two sheep-skins that were found ?—Yes. 230. Did you examine them carefully ? —Yes; and more carefully still, after the Court at Wyndham. 231. You have been a farmer all your life ? —A good bit of it. 232. You know a good deal about sheep-skins ?—I should. 233. Were the skins found on Meikle's land that you saw skins taken off a butcher-killed sheep or a dead sheep ? —Butcher-killed. 234. Why ? —Because of the appearance. You can easily ted the difference between the skin of a butcher-killed sheep and one that has died. 235. What is the difference ? —One is generally all blood and badly skinned, and the other one is smooth and done in a proper way, generally without any knife-marks. 236. Were there any marks of blood upon the two skins ? —No. They had the appearance of being the skins of sheep which had been killed and bled. 237. You say they were certainly not taken off dead sheep ? —Certainly. 237 a. What about the wool on a skin taken off a dead sheep ?—lt depends on the weather a bit, but if the sheep has been dead for a few days you can generally pluck the wool off, and sometimes that is done instead of skinning. 238. Did you test these skins as to the firmness of the wool ?—I quite satisfied myself that the skins were not from dead sheep. 239. Can you tell us whether, in your opinion, these skins had been dried in the open or under a roo f 2—A skin dried in the open, if it gets weather, can be distinguished from a skin dried inside. 240. This date was the Ist November ? —Yes. 241. If the two skins you saw had been dried in the open over a fence or anything of that sort, would the skins so dried have marks to show the process of drying ?—lt is very piobable they would. If a skin gets wet, and the rain on top of that, it is sort of shrivelled-up, and the glossy appearance goes
H.—2l.
150
[W. STUART.
off it. I think all the fellmongers would bear me out there. We always take skins inside as soon as we can if the sheep is killed in the open. 242. It is suggested in this case that Lambert got two skins, probably from the hut, and put them into Meikle's smithy. I want to know whether the two skins saw had, in your opinion, been dried in the open at the hut ? —They had been dried under a roof. 243. If Meikle had brought the skins from the hut they would have borne the appearance of skins dried in the open ?—Yes. 244. Was the inside glossy, as you suggested ? —Yes. They had never seen weather, or been exposed to any extent of weather. That is my opinion. 245. And your best judgment is the one you have given vs —that they were drred under a roof ? —Yes. 246. How long did you examine these skins ?—I had a good look at them when he was taken, to identify them, because it was a serious business, and a man wanted to be careful. That is, after he seemed to say that Lambert put them there, I went and had another good look at them. 247. Did you discover any wire-marks on them ?—No, there was a bend only. When a skin is wet and is thrown over something it has a bend in it. There was no rusty mark running down it. The skin had a bend, as if it had been hung over something. 248. How long did you continue in the company's employ after that ? —I cannot remember. I had to go away home to my own farm and put in turnips. 249. I want finally to give you an opportunity of meeting a charge made against you as well as others. Did you and Cameron ever have any conversation about putting these skins on Meikle's land ? —No ; Cameron was not a man of that sort. He would not employ any one to do such a thing. 250. In point of fact, the story about any arrangement between Cameron, Lambert, and Troup, that somebody was to put skins on Meikle's land to get him convicted, is entirely false ?—Yes, as far as I know. 251. Mr. Atkinson.] In your evidence in 1887 you spoke of one place in the boundary-fences that was not very sheep-proof ?—Yes ; it was at the end of the boundary next to Mimihau. 251 a. Was that on the boundary ?—Yes, at the termination of the boundary-fence. 252. What was the nature of the division between the tussock and the turnips ? There is a road shown [indicating on plan] across the pre-emptive right, near the bottom. Do you remember how that road was fenced ?—-I do not remember very clearly. 253. You do not remember what sort of opening there was in it between the end of the fence and the hut ? —There was something there, but I have a very dim recollection of it. 254. If there was an opening there, would it not be an easy matter for a horseman riding down a few sheep—for them to get in front of him down towards the river ?—Yes ; that would be possible. 255. If you look at the map, would not they be intercepted by the two rivers on the Agricultural School Reserve ? —lt might be so. 256. You have referred to the ploughed land at the boundary of the pre-emptive right ?—Yes ; there were several pieces of ploughed ground. 257. Was there not a crop further advanced near the house ? —Not to the extent of 9 in. If it was green —it was no more than green —it would not have been any good for sheep. 258. You said in your evidence in 1887, " Don't think there were green oats on Meikle's in October. There were some in front of house, but others were just through ground " ? —Yes. 259. Then as to English grass ?—That was a time of the year when there was not much grass. It was just between turnips and grass. 260. How much of his land was in grass ? —I could not say. 261. You could not say the size of the paddock ?—No, I cannot remember. 262. What were Lambert's duties ? Had he any other duty beside detective-work ? —No ; just to look after the sheep. He was acting as a sort of shepherd. - 263. He actually had work as a shepherd in addition to detective-work ? —Yes. 264. Do you remember what the original number of sheep was ?•—Fifty-four. 265. Was it not fifty-nine ?—I do not think so. 266. How old did the skins seem ?—lf a skin were thoroughly dry, it would be very hard for a man to say. 267. How soon do they dry ? —lt deperrds on the weather, and the draught to which they are. exposed. In a shed with a good draught they dry very quickly. 268. Can you tell us roughly ?—I never studied how long they take to dry. 269. I want to call your attention to the following statement made by Stuart at Lambert's trial (page 42) :" I did not think the skins were newly taken off. If they were taken off a week or two before, they would be fresh skins. These skins did not look like skins that had been taken from sheep on the 17th October. They might." Can you remember now ?—lt is hard to say when once a skin is dry; it is very hard to tell how long. 270. That was the opinion you formed at the time according to your previous evidence ?—Yes. 271. Do you remember giving that evidence at Lambert's trial ?—lf it is in my evidence, that was right to the best of my opinion. 272. Mr. Justice Edwards.] That is, as far as you remembered then ?—Yes ; it is hard to tell nineteen years after. 273. Mr. Atkinson.] What were McGeorge's duties with regard to skins ? —He had nothing to do with these skins. He was simply ploughman about the place. 274. Was he not a driver ? —He was working a team of horses. 275. Did he not have any skins to bring in with the horses ?—lt is probable he would, because everybody brings in skins as soon as he can for exposure.
151
H.—2l.
W. STUART.]
276. It is no use asking you whether you remember McGeorge bringing in a load of skins a week after you left ? —He might. 277. There would be nothing to fix that in your mind ?—No. 278. Do you remember his riding into Islay a draught horse shortly before he left ?—No. 279. You do not remember the date of the muster of your own knowledge ?—I am giving the records. 280. You have fixed your conversation with Lambert with reference to that ?—Yes. 281. The sheep found on Meikle's land had all the company's brand ?—Yes ; we took none but those we were sure belonged to the company. 282. What was the company's brand ?—A under a bar, I think. 283. What colour ? —Haematite and oil. 284. What was the colour of Meikle's brand ? —I think it was black or blue. 285. What kind of tally was kept of skins at Islay Station ?—I do not know about the tally. Mr. Troup knows about that. 286. Dr. Findlay.] If you had some areas of ploughed land on which oats were just coming up, I suppose you would not put sheep on them ?—No. 287. You would keep the sheep off them ?—Most certainly. 288. You told Mr. Atkinson that the grass on Meikle's land was at the barest time of the year — between the turnips and the grass ?—Yes. 289. Was there any pasture on Meikle's land on which you could fatten sheep ?—No. 290. You were asked whether you could fix the date of the muster, and you said the date was on the record. Can you independently of any record swear that the muster was before you gave information to the police ? —I can. 291. Then you do swear it was before you gave information to the police ?—Yes. Sinclair William Trotter examined. 292. Dr. Findlay.] Your full name ?—Sinclair William Trotter. 293. What are you ?—A drover. 294. You gave evidence on the trial of Meikle for sheep-stealing in 1887 ?—Yes. 295. And I may take it that the evidence you gave then was true ?—Yes. 296. It seems you joined the employment of the New Zealand Investment Company on the 22nd October, 1887 ?—Yes. 297. What were you engaged as ?—Shepherd. 298. You remember the turnips on the pre-emptive right ? —I do not very well remember them. 299. Well, that is not a matter of dispute, anyhow. We will take it that you knew the turnips. You remember that there were sheep there ?—Yes. 300. Do you recollect shortly after you were there the sheep were mustered ?—Yes. 301. Do you remember Stuart, who tells us he was manager of the station at the time — William Stuart ?—Yes. 302. Was he manager at that time ? —Yes, 303. Do you remember a man named William Lambert ?—Yes. 304. Do you remember what Lambert was there for ?—I did not know anything about that. 305. You remember seeing Lambert about shortly after you began work for the company ?— Yes. 306. You remember seeing Lambert about at the time you made the muster ? —Yes. 307. You were a shepherd you say ? I suppose you have really forgotten all about this ?—I have. 308. You see that entry [referring witness to diary]. You saw it in my room the other night. Put on your glasses and see it again. That entry made on the 26th October. That is your handwriting ?—Yes, sir. 309. I ask you what is meant by " Went over to pre-emptive right; put up yards and drafted fat sheep to go to Sunnyside ; 302 started to go over ; 15 rams ; 222 sheep to go on to Belmount; 20 killing-sheep to be brought to station." Then you set out the total taken on the pre-emptive right. 302, 220, 20, 26 (Meikle's), rams 15, 1 ram (Meikle) : total, 586." What does that mean to your mind, "26 Meikle " ? —I must have got that 26 from Stuart or Lambert. 310. And what does it mean ? —lt means that the sheep were on Meikle's property. 311. Whose sheep ?—The company's sheep. 312. That is on the 26th October ?—Yes. 313. It seems you went over to the pre-emptive right, put up yard, and were drafting the fat sheep ? These are the numbers of your muster ?—Yes. 314. You got these " 26 (Meikle's) " either from Lambert or Stuart ?—Yes. 315. You could have got them from no other source ?—No. 316. Mr. Justice Edwards.] That is the station book ? That would go before Stuart at once ?— It was kept at the station. 317. Stuart would see that at once ?—Yes, your Honour. 318. Dr. Findlay.] These entries follow these. Ido not suppose you remember the number taken off at this time of day ? You simply rely on the evidence you gave before ?—Yes. 319. Do you know this evidence you gave before, " In employment of company since 22nd October. I had charge of sheep when I went there. I know turnips. Found sheep on them when I went there. Taken off 22nd October. Sheep were counted when taken off —559. Don't think sheep would leave turnips for anything else. Wairiki is not sheep-proof. I know that. There is gateway. No gate near hut. I know ground marked as tussock. Sheep would not go on it from turnips. I remember search on 2nd November. Sheep were found on Meikle's —twenty-four wethers, one ram —on that day ;
H.— 21.
152
[S. W. TROTTEE.
on next day two, branded bar over Aon rump. Also fire brand 7on off cheek, and two bits out of off ear. Sheep outside same brand and class —same as on turnips. I recognise one of the skins produced : positive of one, not of other. Cross examined : Part sheep taken from turnips to Sunnyside ; not at Cross River." You were there when the search was made by the police ? —Yes. 320. Here you say " 559 sheep were taken off " ? —Yes. 321. Deduct twenty-seven from 586 mentioned in the diary and that gives you the number you actually got off ?—Yes. 322. He swore, your Honours, in 1887 that 559 were taken off, so that the two amounts are exactly square. (To witness) : You saw the skins that were found in Meikle's barn ? —Yes. 323. You have been a drover of sheep for how many years ? —Over twenty years, I think. 324. What were you doing before that ? —Shepherding before that. 325. You have been mixed up with sheep how many years ? —Since I came to the country —about thirty years. 326. Would you have any difficulty in telling whether a skin had come off a butcher-killed sheep or a sheep that died of disease ?—Not much difficulty ; no difficulty. 327. If a skin comes off a dead sheep, what are the marks ? —Blood is all through the skin if the sheep has died of disease ; it is discoloured. 328. What were the two skins you saw ? Were they discoloured ?—No. 329. Then would you say they were off butcher-killed sheep ? —Yes. 330. Do you remember any marks of wire on the two skins you saw ? —No. 331. Tell me this if you can : Supposing a skin is dried in the month preceding October in Southland —that is, the winter months—and that it is dried in the open, and supposing another skin is dried under a roof : if I presented these two skins to you could you tell any difference ?—Yes, I could tell the difference ; one would be properly dried and cleaned, and the other would be discoloured by exposure to the weather. 332. You know the hut where Lambert was ?—I do not remember that. 333. You remember the two skins you saw at the Court ? —Yes. 334. In your opinion were these skins dried under a roof, or, in winter months, in the open ?— I do not think they were dried in the open. 335. You remember the ploughed land on Meikle's farm ?—No, I cannot remember it. 336. You cannot remember the fences ? —No. 337. You cannot remember these things ?—No, sir. 338. And you rely only on the evidence you gave in the Court in 1887 ?—Yes. 339. Mr. Atkinson.] Was your attention drawn particularly to the points you were speaking of — about the skins —in 1887 ?—About the colour of the skins. 340. Yes ?—No, I do not think it was as far as I remember. 341. Do you remember that Stuart referred to the skins as having a dark, sooty appearance ? — No, I do not. 342. Would that correspond, if it is correct, with the description that you were saying just now ? Dr. Findlay : That was to show that they were dried inside. Witness : If they were dried inside and were clean, so that there was no chance of shrinking. 343. Mr. Atkinson.] I want to know whether that dark and sooty appearance would alter your opinion on this point ? —I cannot catch your meaning. 344. Assuming that the correct description of the skins was that they had a dark and sooty appearance, would not that alter the opinion you have just expressed as to where they were dried ?— No that would not alter the opinion I have expressed as to the way the skins were, as well as I can remember. 345. Did you say to Dr. Findlay that you did not remember the state of the fence near Lambert's hut ?—Yes, I have forgotten it. 346. You have forgotten that ?—I have forgotten that. 347. With regard to this diary : of course you stated very frankly that your memory is defective, except that is your handwriting ?—That is so. 348. What I want to put to you is whether on looking at it again you do not incline to the opinion that these figures were written in subsequently to the body of the memorandum [handing witness the di ar y] ? —They were written at the same time, I think. 349. Of course your memory is a blank ? Does it not occur to you that these figures in the margin have a different appearance to the rest of the writing, and that even the figures in the text have been written over twice ? —That might be. The figures in the margin correspond to the figures in the body of the page. 350. What I am suggesting to you is really that this complete tally you put in the margin was the result of subsequent information —that you had not completed the return on the 26th October, and did complete it with information you got afterwards ? —I might. 351. Because you can see that the first " 302, 222, 20," in the margin have all been subject to some corrections, and the same figures, oddly enough, occur in the text, and the same with reference to Meikle's occurs in the margin, only all the figures I have named have been written over. It is easy to see that the " 222 " has been corrected. At any rate it might be so ? You say you do not remember ? —I do not remember. 352. You do not remember about the general state of the feed on the pre-emptive right, apart from the turnips ?—No, sir. 353. You do not remember anything about Lambert's hut ?—No. 354. You do not remember anything about the interval at the end of the fence ?—No, I have not been there for years,
S. W. TROTTER.]
153
H.—2l.
355. Dr. Findlay.] I see there are a number of entries in this diary in your handwriting. " October 26th, Wednesday " : that is your handwriting ?—Yes. 356. Mr. Atkinson suggests that these figures may have been altered, but if you look at the next entry on the following day you will see " went to Sunnyside with fat sheep, 302 fat wethers, 15 rams. Paid Is. for lunch. Joe Burgess gave hand along bad road." There is no alteration there ?—No. 357. So that on 27th October the exact number, whatever it was, was known, and if any alteration was made it must have been made on 26th, or before sheep were taken away on 27th ? —Yes. 358. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Can you say that you made these entries at the time ?—Yes, your Honour. 359. Dr. Findlay.] What was your usual practice ?—Generally when I got home at night or next morning I entered. 360. Mr. Justice Edwards.] You say here, " Went to Sunnyside with fat sheep, 302 fat wethers and 15 rams ; paid Is. for lunch. Joe Burgess gave hand along bad road." That is obviously made at the time. You would not wait until after Meikle was arrested to record that you had paid Is. for lunch or that Joe Burgess had given a hand along a bad road ? 361. Dr. Findlay.] At any rate your habit was to enter at the time ?—Yes. 362. And as far as you can remember your practice all the entries as to the muster were made that day ?—Yes, sir. 363. Have you ever seen this diary since 1887 ? —Never since I left the station. 364. From the evidence you gave in 1887 you give the exact number of sheep as 559, which were taken off on 26th day of October ? —Yes. 365. So that the number of sheep on the pre-emptive right on 26th October was 559 ?—Yes. 366. Mr. Atkinson has called your attention to something in Stuart's evidence, and I am glad he has done so. Mr. Atkinson says that giving evidence in 1887 Stuart said, " The skins had a dark sooty appearance." Now, the skins in question were found in the smithy, were they not ? —I could not say ; it was a long time ago. 367. At any rate, it is admitted. What is usual generally : what kind of fire in an ordinary farmer's smithy ?—lt is commonly full of smoke. 368. If skins had been for some time in the smithy would you expect, although they were dry on the inside, would you expect them to have a dark smoky appearance ?—Oh, yes. 369. Mr. Atkinson.] You have said already that your recollection was that they were clean ? — Yes. William Fouhy examined. 370. Dr. Findlay.] What are you ?—A sergeant of police at Ashburton. 371. In 1887 you were a constable stationed at Wyndham ?—Yes. 372. Do you remember that on the 2nd November, 1887, you went to Meikle's place with Stuart, Trotter, and Detective Ede ? —Yes, and Leece. 373. You joined them at a hut about a mile from Meikle's, and you went to the prisoner's house ? —Yes. 374. You made a search ; you saw Harvey and Arthur Meikle, and a warrant was read out ? —Yes, by Constable Leece. 375. You went to some man's hut first, then you went to the barn and blacksmith's shop ? —Yes. 376. Well, you found a number of skins there on a cross-beam ?—Yes. 377. Was that beam up above in the smithy ?—Yes. 378. The skins were pulled down ? —Yes. 379. And among them you found two skins branded with a bar over A ?—Yes. 380. Those skins were identified as belonging to the company ? —Yes. 381. Do you remember Arthur Meikle being asked anything ?—Yes. Detective Ede asked if the sheep named in the warrant were there, and he said they were down at the paddock. ■ 382. Was anything said about the skins, or was any explanation made about the skins ?—There were some remarks made about the skins being there, and he said they might have been brought in from the fences. 383. Did Harvey hear this ? —I think he must have, but lam not very certain. 384. Harvey made no explanation ? —I heard no explanation. 385. There were twenty-five sheep, we have been told, of the company's found, and on the next day ?—I was not with them the next day. 386. Can you speak with any distinctness as to the appearance of the skins ? —They were two good skins. 387. Can you remember anything about the pastures upon Meikle's land ?—I have no very clear recollection. My recollection is that the pasture was light. 388. Can you say from your knowledge of farming whether it was such land as would fatten sheep ? —I could not answer that question. 389. Do you remember any indication being made by any one as to where the sheep had come from ? —Yes ; Arthur Meikle said they must have come from the company's land—from the top fence, I think. It is my impression that that is what he said. 390. That would be at the north-east corner of Meikle's land ?—Yes. 391. Did you go and make any examination of that fence ?—I did not examine it. I saw some of it before. Part of what I saw was 'good fencing. 392. Mr. Atkinson] Was the door of the building in which you found the skins locked ?—No : the door was open, so far as I can remember. 393. Do you remember whether the doors of any of the other outbuildings were locked ?—No, I cannot recollect that.
20— H. 21,
154
W.FOUHY.
H.—2l.
394. The witness Harvey stated that he called the attention of the police to the fact that some of the other doors were locked : you cannot remember one way or the other ?—No. 395. You did not see Mr. J. J. Meikle that day ?—No, they told me he was not at home. 396. Did you have any conversation with him previous to this search being executed ?—I had a good many conversations with him relating to what he thought the company was doing in the matter of watching' him. He told me on one occasion that the company were putting a man on to watch him. f think those were the words he used, and I think he said they were paying a man £50 for it. 397. How long before this did he tell you that ?—I could not say. but I should think within a month. 398. Do you remember whether Meikle made any further request to you then ?—He made no request to me of any sort. He merely told me this. Jane Meikle examined. 399. Mr. Atkinson.] You are the wife of Mr. John James Meikle ?—Yes. 400. Residing at Mataura ?—Yes. 401. Do you remember the time in 1887 when Mr. Meikle was tried ?—I do. 402. Have you anything by which you can recall the 17th October of that year ?—Yes; my son was thought to be dying that day. 403. Which son ?—My son Arthur. 404. What other things can you remember ?— It was the day of Waters's sale. My husband was going to buy a cow for us at the sale, but he could not go because my son was so ilk 405. What was the weather like that day ?—lt was a terrible day, with rain and wind. 406. With regard to your boy Arthur, what state of health was he generally in ?—He never was very strong since he was eight years of age. ' 407. What ailments had he ?—He had rheumatic fever three times. 408. What was his ailment on the day you speak of ?— Pleurisy of the lungs. 409. Could he get about that day ?—No, he was in bed all day. 410. What were the symptoms ?—Gasping for breath, choking, and suffocation. 411. Did he take any'meals ?—Nothing but a little scalded milk, and a little brandy and; water which we used to give him. 412. Where did he take that ? —ln bed, with a teaspoon. 413. Had you any other child in the house which required nursing ?—Yes; a baby four weeks old, and another not walking. 414. What was the birthday of the baby ?—2Bth September. 415. You had a nurse for the baby ?— Yes ; a Mrs. Howe, from Gore. 416. For how long ?—Not quite fourteen days, I think. 417. What part of the evening had you personal charge of your boy ?—Until about half past 12 —at any rate, between 12 and 1. After that I had to go to the baby, and my husband then took ray place. 418. What condition was your boy in on the followrng day ?—Much the same. 419. How much did he get about that day ? —He never was out to my knowledge. 420. He did not get outside ?—No ; he was never out of the bedroom, to my knowledge. 42L Who was looking after him in the evening ?—After I was finished my husband used to help me, and then there was a boy, James, about twelve years of age. ' 422. I am referring to the 18th now : do you remember who was looking after him on the evening of the 18th ? —James and his father used to assist. 423. Do you remember what the shifts were —what hours you looked after him on the 18th ?— I looked after him between 8 and 9, and then his father took my place. 424. And when you left him, where was he ?—He was in bed. 425. Was he accustomed to be out late ? —No. 426. What do you call late ? —About 9 o'clock I would call late 427. During the month of October specially, how often would he be out to your knowledge late at night ?—Never, to my knowledge. 428. Then, of course, as you say, you had the baby to mmd part of the trme '—Yes 429. Of course you know William Lambert ?—I have seen him. 430. Do you remember the occasion first called at your house ?—I did not see him the first time he called, but I knew he had called. 431. You met him subsequently at the house ?—Yes. 432. Did you ever speak to him anywhere else but the house ?—No. 433. Tell us anything that you heard Lambert say in reference to your husband ?—I heard him say he was going to get £50 to place sheep-skins in our buildings or on the property to get my husband arrested. I heard him say that on several occasions. 434. Did you hear him say it to anybody besides yourself ?—Yes. My children were in the kitchen at the time. William Harvey also, who used to work for us. 435. Any one else ?—Mrs. Shiels, also, I think, was there. He did not keep it a secret. 436. Do you know whether any precautions were taken in consequence of what Lambert said ? — Yes. My husband made Harvey lock the doors at night. 437.' Did you hear the instructions given ?—Yes. I used to hear my husband say, " Now, Harvey, be sure you lock the doors." 438. Of course you remember the day the police came ?—Yes. 439. What was the last time you saw Mr. Lambert before that ?—I did not see him, but I heard him outside the night before the arrest, between 8 and 9 o'clock. 440. Did you hear any of the conversation ?—I heard him ask to get his knife sharpened, as he was going to skin a sheep at the Islay Station.
155
H.— 2l.
J. MEIKLE.
441. Do you know whether he got his knife sharpened ?—Yes. I heard the grindstone going when I went into the scullery for water. 442. Where was the grindstone kept ?—ln the smithy. 443. When Lambert came back did you hear any conversation ? —Yes, I heard him saying, " Goodnight old man; it won't be to-night, I will let you know the night it is to be done." 444. You did not see him again until the Court case ?—No. 445. As far as you know, were the buildings kept locked ?—Yes. 446. Was there a man named Scott ever about your house ?—Yes. 447. Did you see him in the year 1887 ? —I think I did. 448. When did you see him ?—I heard him one morning. He came knocking at our bedroom window. That was before my baby was born. My husband got up and went out. I did not see him at all on that occasion. 449. When did you see him next \ —When he came out of prison. 450. Would you have seen him had you been about the house ?—I could not have helped seeing him. I was doing all the work about the place myself. 451. Had you any servant then ?—No. 452. Did Scott stay in the men's hut ?—When he came round with the horse the year before he stopped there. 453. Did you wish to have him again ? —No. 454. Why ? —My children used to have a breed of lice from him every time he came. They used to run about with him. 455. When did you lose your servant ?—-Eight days after my baby was born ; she left to get married, 456. That is Mrs. Shiels ?—Yes. 457. Who managed the place after Mr. Meikle went to prison ?—Mr. Harvey used to assist. 458. Did you ever see any of the company's sheep orr the property after that ?—Several times. 459. On what parts of the property were they ? —I used to see them through from the pre-emptive right right past the stable-door and the barn. I have seen them repeatedly. 460. Harvey was not the manager of the property ?—No, he was looking after the cattle. Ward sent some one subsequently. 461. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Troup after Mr. Meikle went to prison ?—-Yes. 462. About how long after ? —Two or three months or so ; not long after, anyway. 463. Where did you meet him ? —He came to the back door, and wanted to get some one to run a line with him between the fence and the boundary. When I went to the back door he held out his hand to shake hands with me. and I said, " I don't want to shake hands with you." 464. Did you make any question as to whether he had any letters ? —Not at that time. 465. Were any of the company's sheep taken off the property at that time ? —Yes. I directed Troup's atterrtion to the sheep. I said, " You can do the same to me as you have done to my husband : go and take your sheep away." 466. Was there anything else said relating to the sheep at that time ? —No. 467. You had some subsequent conversation with Troup ? —Yes, in Wyndham, opposite the ohl post-office. 468. Was anybody else present ? —My son Arthur. 469. Was there any occasion that fixes the time of that conversation in your memory ?—-It was sale-day. I heard that Meikle was to be there, and I went to see him. 470. About how long was that after Mr. Meikle went to prison ?—lt was after Troup left the station. I told him I had heard he could take my husband out of gaol; that he had letters in his possession which would clear him, and I asked him if that were so. He said, " Yes, your husband has no right to be there, and I have letters in my possession." I said, " Why don't you turn round and clear my husband, when you see my starving children with no one to look after them." He said, " I would do it, but it would put others in." I said, "If you give me those letters I will give you £100. " 471. Had you got £100 ? —No, but Mr. Stout, the lawyer, would advance it for me if I could get the letters. 472. Did you say anything else to him ? —He said he did not know how to go about it; and I said, " You write to Sir Robert Stout and he will advise you, or give me instructions and I will write." 473. Did you mention that to anybody ?—I mentioned it to several people. I told it to Mr. Finn, a lawyer in Invercargill. 474. Did you write to any one about it ? —I wrote to my husband in prison, and told him what Troup had said. 475. Dr. Findlay.] Your son Arthur was in bett all day on 17th October, 1887 ?— Yes. 476. He was not up at all that day ? —Not to my knowledge 477. You told Mr. Atkinson you were certain he was not out of bed ?—Yes, I am certain. 478. You had a young man named Harvey with you ? —Yes. 479. He was with you after your husband was convicted, and for some time before ?—Yes 480. Did he live in the house ? —No, in the cottage close by. 481. Where did he have his meals ? —ln the house. 482. Was Harvey a truthful man ?—I never found him anything else. 483. Then you would believe this statement made by Harvey, "I saw Arthur Meikle on the 17th at dinner and at tea about 5 " ? —Yes, he 484. Pardon me, Harvey pledged his oath before the Supreme Court not long after the offence that he had dinner and tea with your son on the 17th October ? —That is not true. 485. He either made a mistake or told ahe ? —He made a mistake. He admitted it afterwards.
156
[j. MEIKLE.
H.—2l.
486. Did you hear his correction ? —ln the Court ? No. 487. Do you know that if it was the night of the 18th it was the next day ?—No. 488. Would that be true ?—No. 489. That would be a lie too ?—I know positively that my son was not up. j 490 Now you first spoke to the facts of this case when you gave evidence in Lambert s case. You could not be called in any earlier proceedings, so that the first record of your evrdence rs some eight years after the offence. Your husband secured the conviction of Lambert in 1895 ?—That rs so. 491. You told Mr. Atkinson that your son was never very strong, and had had rheumatrc fever two or three times, and had to be kept in at night ?—Yes. 492. He went to bed usually at about what hour ?—Eight. 493. And I suppose neither you nor your husband cared about his being outside after that hour . —We never allowed him out. , , 494. So that if any one came and asked you to allow your son to go out in the cold alter 8 o crock you would not have allowed him ?—No. 495. Nor your husband ? —No. 496 Are you surprised that your husband has sworn that he knew that your son Arthur was asked to go out after 9.30, and was out till nearly 10 turning a grindstone for Lambert in the smithy ?—I found that out afterwards ~ 497. Would you have allowed Arthur, only a fortnight after he was so ill, to go into the cold at nearly 10 o'clock to uselessly turn a grindstone in the smithy ?—No. 498. Are you surprised at your husband allowing it ?—I did not know that he had. 499. Did you not read the evrdence at the trial ? Were you in the Court ?—Yes. 500. You must have heard your husband tell the story. You say this is the first trme you heard of it. Your husband told us emphatically that the clock struck 10 when you returned to the house ?— I did not know it was that time. , 501. You tell us that your son was altogether too delicate to go to turn a grindstone at 10 o clock at night ?—I would not have allowed it, and when I knew he was out that night I gave him a good scolding. 502. When ? —When he came in. 503. What time was that ?—I do not know. 504. Did you hear the clock strike ? —No. 505. What time did you think he came in—B o'clock ?—lt must have been after 9. 506 It was not referred to by one witness only. Harvey gave evidence regarding the hour, supposing it to be between 9.30 and 10 o'clock. Turning a grindstone for a man who merely wanted a knife sharpened. You say your husband had no right to allow him to go out ?—No, he had not. 507. What doctor attended Arthur ?—Dr. McCaffer, Dr. Morris, Dr. Stockwall, and Dr. Cox. 508. When would the doctor first see your son after the 17th ?—About a fortnight after that. 509. That would be about the time the police came ? Did he see the doctor when he came in from turning the grindstone ?—No. 510. Was it the day after that the doctor had to be sent for at the end of October. What doctor was sent for at that time ?—Dr. Stockwall. 511. Where is Dr. Stockwall now ?—I do not know ; I think in the Home-country. 512. Clearly it was not a fortnight, because he was out at night turning the grindstone. You do not know, I suppose, how long it was ?—No. 513. You say that Lambert told you he was to get £50 for puttrng sheepskins on the land or building ? —Yes. -ii- .i -it. 514. Did you ever hear him say he was to get that sum for putting the skins in the smithy or barn ?—ln the smithy or in the building. 515. You are sure the term " smithy " was used ?—Yes. ' 516. Tell us what Lambert said ?—" In the buildings.' 517. What about the barn ?—He said the skins were to be put in the barn or the smithy. 518. I ask you to listen to the evidence given by you before the Magistrate in 1895. You said that you heard Lambert tell your husband that Cameron and Troup were to give him £50, and he was to put skins in your husband's buildings and get him arrested. Is that true ? —Yes. 519. How often did you hear him say that ?—Several times. 520. On several different occasions ?—Yes ; and another time I heard him say that he was too slow on the job, and they were going to put another joker on. 521. Who was the other joker ? —I suppose it was Stuart. 522. That was the smart joker who was going to take Lambert's place ?—Yes. 523. " Lambert said he would not do it, but would let my husband know the night it was to be done " ?—Yes. . 524. "My husband said he would fire on them if he knew the night ?—Yes. 525. " Lambert said, 'Do not fire at me' " ?—Yes. 526. Who was your husband to fire at ?—The man who put the skins in the smithy. 527. Lambert was not to be fired at ?—No ;he was to be dressed in different clothes. 528. He was afraid your husband might hurt him ?—I do not know. 529. At any rate he asked your husband not to fire at him. He said, "Do not fire at me. The joker will be dressed in light clothes " ?—He was to be dressed differently to Lambert. 530. Lambert was to be dressed in dark ?—Yes. 531. Did you hear the story about the joker in light clothes and the joker in dark clothes more than once ? —Yes. 532. Your husband was to fire at the man who was advancing to put the skrns in the barn or smithy ? —Yes.
H.—2l,
157
J. MEIKLE. ]
533. And then your husband was to rush out and bind the man and hand him over to the police ? Yes. 534. Are you sure whether it was Lambert or the man in light clothes who was to put the skins in the barn or smithy ?—lt was supposed to be Stuart who was to do it. 535. Your husband says it was not settled ?—I do not know whether he said it or not. 536. lam not wishing to press you. Your husband told us on oath that it was not settled which of the two, Lambert or Stuart, was to put the skins in the barn ?—I understand it was Stuart who was to put them in. , i T i i v. t j-i. 537. Will you contradict your husband, who says it was not settled ?—1 do not know about that. 538. The arrangement made was that Lambert was to come with the joker, and your husband was to fire, and bind one of these men, and hand him over to the police. Now, I ask you whether rt was definitely settled that the man who was to put the skins in the barn was Lambert or Stuart ?— Lambert said Stuart was going to do it; he would not do it. 539. It was definitely settled, then, and your husband must be wrong ?—I understand Stuart would do it, and Lambert would not. 540. Lambert was to be there along with Stuart to see that he put the skins m the barn ?—Yes. 541. You have heard this story told a great many times ?—About the £50 ? yes, several times. 542. It was common talk ? —Yes. 543. Not only when Lambert was there, but at other times ?—Lambert talked about it every time he came. 544. When Lambert went away did you and your husband talk about rt ?—Yes. 545. So that there was a good deal of talk about the joker in blue and the joker in white and the £50 ?—Yes, 546. When was the grindstone incident ?—The night before the arrest. 547. You are quite sure of that ?—Yes, I can never forget it. 548. You are quite as sure of that as you are that Arthur Meikle was ill on the rught of the 17th ? -Yes. 549. Mr. Atkinson.] The night before the police came '—The night before the police came. 551. Dr. Findlay.] I submit that my learned friend should not have interrupted at that critical moment. The witness had sworn positively that it was the night before the arrest. (To witness) : You now say it was the day before the police came ? —That was the day. 552. This is what Arthur Meikle says :" I was arrested on the 4th November." That was Arthur Meikle's statement on oath in the Supreme Court. Was it the night before they took away your son that Lambert was there at the grindstone ?—To the best of my knowledge it was. 553. And that was the night you heard Lambert say, " Not to-night, old man; I wrll let you know the night it is to be done " ?—Yes ; the night he got his knife sharpened. 554. You say you spoke to Troup at Wyndham some time after your husband was convicted ? Yes. 555. Can you give me anything like the date or year ?—I could not say. It was after Troup left the station. 556. Would it be a year after your husband was convicted ?—I could not say. 557. Was it before or after your son's death ?—Before my son's death. 558. When did he die ?—I could not tell you. 559. It was some time in 1890. You say you spoke to Mr. Troup, and you said that you believed he had letters in his possession which would take your husband out of gaol ?—Yes. 560. You had heard these statements that Troup, Stuart, and Cameron were all in a conspiracy with Lambert to have your husband convicted ?—Yes. 561. You believed that Troup was in a conspiracy to have your husband put in gaol ?—Yes. 562. And you believe that now ?—Yes ;it must have been a conspiracy. . 563. Then you do believe that Troup was in this conspiracy ?— He was a servant of the company, and he had to do as he was told. 564. And you believe that he was in this conspiracy to have your husband put in gaol, and you believed that when you went to Troup some time before your son died—when you went to speak to him about the letters ?—They were all mixed in it together. 565. In that frame of mind you go to Troup. What did you say to him ?—I told him that I had heard he had letters in his possession which would take my husband out of gaol. 566. Where were the letters from ?—Letters, I suppose, written by Cameron to Troup. 567. Letters which would take your husband out of gaol ?—Yes. 568. What was in the letters ?—I could not say. 569. What were you led to believe they contained—directions by Cameron to Troup as to gettmg your husband into gaol ?—Yes. 570. You say that Troup said, " Yes, I have these letters " ?—Yes. 571. And he put his hand in his breast pocket and said, " I have the letters here " ?—I remember that quite well. ■• 572. I suppose you took him by surprise in speaking to him ?—No ; he was going along the road. .' . 573. But he did not know that you were going to speak to him about this matter '— No. 574. And he said, " I know your husband has no right to be in gaol" ? —Yes. 575. I suppose he had been carrying these letters about with him for a long time—for two or three years ?—I know he said, " I have got them here." He put his hand in his breast pocket and said, " I have got them here." 576. You offered to give him £100 ?—Yes.
H.—2l.
158
[.I. MEIKLE.
577. He had documents, he said, in his possession ; and when you said that he could get your husband out of gaol he said, " Yes " ?—Yes. 578. What else did he say ?—I do not know how he was to get my husband out, but he said he knew that my husband had no right to be there ; but if he got him out he would have to get others in. 579. Did that include himself ?—No. 580. Did he not tell you that he could not give you the letter because if he got your husband out of gaol others would have to be put in ? —No. 581. He admitted to you that he had letters in his breast pocket—that your husband had no right to be in gaol, but that if he got him out he would have to put others in, which would include himself ? —He told me he had letters in his possession which would take my husband out. 582. It is quite true that you did speak to Troup ? —Yes ; I went specially to see him. 583. And you increased the sum from £100 to £400 ?—I offered him £100. 584. Did not you increase the offer ? —No. 585. You remember it was an auction-sale day, the day you spoke to Troup. Do you remember speaking to Troup at the monthly sale at Wyndham ?—Yes; it was the monthly sale. 586. Mr. Troup will give his version of the story. Do you know Templeton ?—-Yes. 587. Troup says, " Mrs. Meikle told me that Templeton was wanting a security." Oo you remember that ?—No. 588. Do you remember that he said Templeton was wanting a security over the boy's land ?— That was for supplying food, I suppose, to us. 589. You told him about your being in difficulties —you spoke about starving children and the rest of it, and the hardship of your position, and you wanted Troup to try and help you to get Meikle out of gaol ?—Yes ; to produce the letters. 590. You went to Troup and asked him if he could help you to get your husband out of gaol >.— Yes. 591. Did he tell you that he could not help you to get your husband out of gaol, and that anything more he could say or do would be still more against him ?—No. 592. Did you not offer him £400 ?—No ; £100. 593. Do you remember that he told you that you had better keep your land intact and not give it as security to any one ?—I do not remember him saying anything about security. 594. Will you swear that Troup did not advise you not to give security over the boy's land ? — Not to my recollection. 595. If he solemnly pledges his oath that that was mentioned to you would you contradict him ? —I would not take his word with respect to that. 596. You would not believe him on oath ? —No, I would not. 597. You swear now that the question of security over the boy's land was not mentioned ?—Not to my knowledge. 598. If he swears it was mentioned, you are still absolutely certain rt was not mentioned ?—I would not believe him if he told me. 599. Do you not remember that when you pressed him to help you to get your husband out of gaol that he said that anything that you could do would not be to his advantage, but would do him more harm than good ?—No, he never said that. 600. You had a good adviser, apparently, in Sir Robert Stout. Was it him or his brother. Mr. Stout 2—l used to see Mr. Stout sometimes. 601. And you say that Mr. Stout was to find the money ?—He said he would get the money for me if I could get the letters. 602. You swear that you told Mr. Stout that this man Troup admitted that he had letters in his possession which would get your husband out of gaol —letters signed by Cameron ?—No : I did not tell Mr. Stout that. I said I was going to see Troup—that he had letters in his possession. 603. You said you were going to see him ?—Yes. 604. But you admit you did not tell him what Troup told you after you saw Troup ?—No. 605. Did it not occur to you that you had got an admission from Troup that he had letters in his possession which would take your husband out of gaol, but that he had not produced them, and that those letters would put others in gaol, including Troup ; and that you might have had Troup arrested and have got your husband out of gaol ?—No. 606. You saw Mr. Stout, and told him what you were going to do, but you did not afterwards tell him that Troup had the letters in his pocket ?— No, I did not go back. 607. You told Mr. Atkinson that after your husband was in prison you have seen the sheep running back and forwards repeatedly through the fence ? —Yes. 608. Was the fence, when you saw the sheep running back and forwards through it, the same as when your husband was convicted ? —Just the same. I have seen the company's horses on our place a year afterwards. 609. But you told us that the fences between your land and the company s land on the 18th Octoberwere so bad that the sheep could run back and forwards at their own sweet will between the two properties ?—Yes, I have often seen them running to and fro. 610. That would be true of the condition of the fence on the 18th October ?—I did not notice them on that particular day. 611. Were the fences any better or worse, then, on the night your boy was so ill i—l do not say that there was nruch difference. Sheep will go through almost any fence. 612. You said that Harvey was told to lock the doors ?—Yes, the doors of the barn and smithy. 613. And you say that you have heard your husband say, " Be sure and lock the doors" ?—Yes, I have seen him pass the keys to him.
159
H.— 2l.
J. MfiIKIiB.I
614. Harvey says that he got these instructions after having first heard from Lambert about putting a plant on your land—that would be about the middle of September. Have you any reason to doubt that it was the middle of September that your husband gave instructions to have the place locked ?—lt was after Lambert came. 615. The doors were locked carefully, and the keys were taken to the house ? —Yes, Harvey used to come in the morning and get them. 616. And he used to come in between 7 and 8 and count the skins ?—I knew he counted the skins and locked the door, and he brought the keys back. 617. There were twelve or thirteen skins altogether ?—I could not tell you. 618. All this locking and searching and counting was done about these skins ? —Yes. 619. Mr. Atkinson.] I just want you to fix the occasion of the grindstone incident. You remember the day the police came in with some of the company's men ?—Yes. 620. How long before that was Lambert there sharpening his knife ? —The night before. 621. You think your boy was arrested on the same day the police came ? —My boy was taken away on that day. 622. You fix the grindstone incident by the first arrival of the police ? —Yes. 623. What ailment was it that Arthur died from ? —Quinsy. 624. Of course, the fences were no concern of yours while Mr. Meikle was there ?—No, I nevertroubled with anything about the place. 625. Did you mention the conversation with Mr. Troup ? Did you put it in writing ?—I told several people, and I wrote to my husband about it. Robert Troup recalled. 626. Dr. Findlay.] You heard Mrs. Meikle's story just now. She says that at a monthly auction sale at Wyndham, or on that day, she saw you at Wyndham ? —Yes. 627. Will you tell their Honours what was said on that occasion ? —She called my name. I was going along the pavement. She called my name. I was walking on the pavement, and she was in the middle of the street. I went over to her. There was no one near us. She said she was particularly anxious to see me. I asked her what she wanted to see me about. She said she was in great trouble, that she had a big family, and that her husband was in gaol, and that some people had told her that I had papers or documents that would get her husband out of gaol. I told her that any one who told her that was misunderstanding the whole position ; that I had no such documents or papers whatever. That there was nothing I could do for her so far as the matter of her husband being taken out of gaol was concerned. I said it would be a terrible position to be in if I had documents which would take her husband out of gaol and be silent, and allow an innocent man to be in gaol. And she said, "If I could only help," and I said, " Help in what way ? " I said, " You must show me in what way." I told her that the former evidence in the Supreme Court would still remain intact, that I had found out nothing further to make me alter the position I took up there. She then said she had friends who would find the money —£400—to give me if I would come along with these documents and help her. 628. The lady has said that you said this: " I told him that I had heard he had documents that would take my husband out of gaol," and she also said that you replied, " Yes, your husband has no right to be there " ? —Quite untrue. 629. And she said that you said, " Yes, I have letters " ? —That is untrue. 630. She swears that you put your hand in your breast pocket and said, " Yes, I have them here " ? —I did not do that. 631. That is untrue, I suppose ?—Yes. 632. What date was this —before or after young Meikle's death ?—After his death. 633. That was in 1890. That was three years after his conviction ?—lt was somewhere about that time. I had been some years settled in the district in which lam now settled. 634. At any rate all these statements that her husband had no right to be put in gaol, that you had letters, and that you put your hand in your breast pocket, are quite untrue ?—lt is untrue. I am very sorry to hear her speak in that manner. 635. Did you tell her that if you got her husband out it would put others in ?—No, it was impossible for me to make any such statement. 636. This lady says that you, Stuart, Cameron, and Lambert were all in a plot to put her husband in gaol ?—I speak for myself, and as far as I know of the others, that is without foundation. It is a lie throughout. 637. You have never had any documents of the kind she mentions ?—No, I have never read or seen or had any kind of documents of that description. 638. At this conversation was any reference made to security of Templeton ?—Yes, she told me that her husband owed Templeton £90-odd at the Supreme Court, and he was anxious to have some security for it; that J. G. Ward had securities otherwise in the place, and that Templeton had little or no security, and that she was in great trouble to get stores, &c, at Wyndham; and she said that if she could get over her troubles by giving security, she would get it. I told her she was to get food for her children and herself, and I advised her in regard to giving security to leave everything to Meikle when he came back. 639. Not to disturb the security of the property at all ? —Yes. 640. That was at the Wyndham interview ?—Yes, at the same time. 641. After Meikle came out of gaol did he speak to you about this very question ?—Yes, he met me at Wyndham, took both my hands in his, and said he was glad to get this information from his wife, that it had comforted him greatly to leave the place without any mortgage on it.
[c. teoup.
H.—2l.
160
642. Very well, there is the whole story. You say that all the statements this woman has made about documents getting her husband out of gaol being in your possession, is untrue ?—Untrue ? No such documents ever existed. 643. In connection with the same matter, you will remember a Mr. Neave, who practised at Gore '. Yes. 644. Do you remember this gentleman, Meikle, and James Mabin, coming to you on two occasions, and asking for assistance while you were on a visit to Wyndham ?—Yes. 645. Do you remember them coming to your bedroom in the Railway Hotel ? —Yes. 646. What time would that be ?—Midnight. 647. How long after he got out of gaol ?—I could not renrember—it was some time—he had been round the country lecturing on the subject of his innocence. 648. And he came to you ? Tell us very shortly what on that occasion he did ?—He came rapping at the door. Mabin was the chief spokesman. I got out of bed and allowed him to come in. Meikle did not come in, he stayed in the doorway. The others came in and mentioned about the possession of these documents—that I had these documents, and that they would not go away without some information ; that I was the man who was next to Cameron in the company's employ, and that they were determined, and decided that I should give some information to get Lambert convicted. 649. You told them you had not any documents ?—I told them I had no information to give. 650. You asked them to go away ?—Yes, and they refused, particularly Mabin, who was full of whisky. I could not say that Mr. Meikle had any whisky. At last, when they would not go, I put on my clothes and left the room. When I went out Mr. Meikle said he was very sorry; that he did not want them to come up at that hour of the night, but that Mabin was so persistent. 651. How long afterwards was the interview with Meikle ?—After Meikle came out of gaol. 651 a. Then you went downstairs ?—I went downstairs. 652. And told the hotelkeeper's wife what was happening ?—She was listening, because whenvl passed Meikle in the passage he said he was very sorry it happened. 653. You asked them to leave the room, and you had to get up and go downstarrs ?—I stayed a considerable time ; it was a cold night. I put on my clothes, and did go away for a little bit. I said rather than a row I would get up and go away quietly. 654. And they would not go ? —They would not go. 655. That was some time after Meikle was out of gaol ?—After Meikle was out of gaol. 656. This was the last demand made on you for some evidence you never had ?—There was another after that. Mr. Neave's was the next. It was at a monthly sale. 657. At any rate, that is how you were met by Neave and the others one night in the Rarlway Hotel ? —Yes. 658. Mr. Atkinson.] This conversation, of course, was after the conversation with Templeton and Mabin in the hotel that was spoken about yesterday ?—I do not remember any conversation in the hotel with Mabin and Tjmpleton together. 659. You deny having any conversation at all with these two gentlemen in wnrch you referred to some letters ?—I never referred" to some letters to Mabin and Templeton, but they referred to some letters. It was from their side that the reference to letters came up. 660. The subject was not introduced by you then ?—Nothing of the sort. 661. We have some difficulty in hearing you here : I do not know whether people outside are apt to understand you ?—I do not know. I claim to be quite an intelligent man, to have all the sense of any man, with as good common-sense as you. 662. The only thing is, really, were you misunderstood ?—No, I never said anythrng about letters or documents. I claim to be as intelligent as you, and I can do the three R's any day, and speak the English language as I was taught it. . . j . m Mr. Justice Cooper : We had Templeton and Mabin, who spoke to admrssions made by Iroup. They did not say the conversation took place in Neave's presence. I thought you said Neave knew ? 663. Mr. Atkinson.] It was entirely my fault, your Honour. It was the interview with Mabrn and Templeton—l should have referred to Templeton ?—I do not remember any interview with Mabin and Templeton in which there was reference to documents. I know Mabin had approached me singly and with other people—it was quite a common thing on sale-day to come up to me in a sneering and provoking way. I suffered him all along to go along in his own sweet way, but when thrs thmg rs over I hope it will be exposed. All that I have stood. 664. Then you never dropped any hint at all that there was something else you knew:?—No, I I could not drop hints ; there was nothing else I knew. 665. There was nothing to your knowledge barring the letter you put in yesterday ?—Nothing else. 666. That was generally a letter from the general manager authorising the appointment of somebody ? —There was no other document, no writing, no document whatever. ' 667. How do you account for so many people thinking that there was ?—You must remember that Mr. Meikle keeps them thinking. Mr. Atkinson : He certainly does. You know he was imprisoned. He cannot have been putting it into other people's minds while he was in prison. Dr. Findlay : This was after he came out. 668. Mr. Atkinson.] The conversations with Mrs. Meikle and with Templeton and Mabin were both before Meikle carrre out of prison. -(To witness) : You were saying that the conversations that have been sworn to occurred while he was still in prison ?—Well, the conversation with Mrs. Meikle with regard to his imprisonment and with Mabin is, any day. 669. And the conversation with Mabin and Templeton ?—I do not remember a conversation wrth Mabin and Templeton : Templeton may have been with him, but I do not remember Mabin and Templeton together.
E. TEOUP.]
161
H.—2l.
670. Did you have more than one conversation with Mrs. Meikle on the subject ?—No, that is the only interview. 671. How long after you left the station ?—After her son died. 672. She says her son had driven her in ? —She complained about the loss of her son's death. 673. You are satisfied that there was only the one interview, and that he was not there ?—Thoroughly satisfied —only the interview in which these money-matters cropped up. She knew that she need not come back to interview me again, because from what I told her she knew I could not give her anything fresh. 674. You say you have no memorandum on the subject—that you have never seen one, and have never said there was such a one ?—What memorandum ? 675. Memorandum of the kind referred to ? —There is no memorandum. 676. And you are not aware of anything else ? —No ; if I was you would get it straight, Dr. Findlay : I desire to say, your Honours, that Judge Ward is in Dunedin. At lunch-time I told Mr. Atkinson that I was prepared to ask him to attend, if necessary, for the purpose of crossexamination, and Mr. Atkinson said he had no hesitation in cross-examining him, but that he did not desire that he should be brought here for that purpose. Mr. Justice Cooper : I do not see how Judge Ward's evidence will assist us one way or the other. Dr. Findlay : Both of us feel that, your Honour. Mr. Justice Edwards : I suppose all he would tell us is that he was quite convinced Meikle is guilty, which we know pretty well from hisjeports. Besides, that would only be a matter of opinion.
Dunedin, Friday, 11th May, 1906. William Lambert examined. 1. Dr. Findlay.] In the year 1887, prior to the month of September, what were you doing ?—I was working for the New Zealand Mortgage and Investment Company 2. That was in the month of September ?—I think so. 3. lam coming shortly to the circumstances which brought you into that employ. Do you know Constable Leece ?—Yes. 4. Did you know him then ? —Yes. 5. Had you been working with him or for him ? —Yes, I had been doing some work for him. 6. What work ?—Serving summonses, and so on. 7. I understand that to mean that you had been practically acting as bailiff for him. How long had you been doing that ?—I suppose it extended over a year. 8. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Just occasional work, I suppose ? —Yes. 9. Dr. Findlay.] You had been doing some private-detective work before that ? —Yes. 10. Who first spoke to you about entering the service of the company ?—I forget whether it was Constable Leece or Mr. Troup. 11. Who engaged you ?—Mr. Troup. 12. What were the terms of your engagement ?—I was to get £1 a week and £50 if I got a conviction against the person who was taking the sheep from the Islay Estate. 13. Was there ever at any time any arrangement between you, Troup, Stuart, or Cameron that you were to put skins upon Meikle's land ? —No, sir, never a word about it. 14. Had you known Meikle before your engagement ? —Yes, I had seen him a few times before. 15. Did you know him by reputation ?—Yes. 16. Before you entered the employ of the company had you any suspicion that Meikle was the thief ?—No, I cannot say I had. 17. Now, after you entered the company's employ you knew what kind of man Meikle was ? —Yes. 18. How would you describe him ? —ln what way ? 19. Was he a simple man, or the reverse ?—I should think he was a very cunning man. 20. After you joined the service of the company for the purpose you mention, you lived in a hut near Meikle's land ?—That is so. 21. Do you recollect about the date 3'ou started to live there ? —No, I do not. 22. Well, suppose we have it in the diary which has been produced, that it was the 2nd September, 1887 ?—That would be about it. 23. Did you think out at that time the means by which you were going to see if Mr. Meikle was the thief ?—Yes. N| N 24. And what was'the'method you"proposed to adopt ? —I intended to try and get into his confidence. 25. After you went to live in the hut, can you recollect where and when you first saw Meikle ?— He was picking up stones on the ploughed paddock on his own land. 26. Did he come and speak to you, or you to him ? —I think I went to him. 27. As nearly as you can recollect, what took place ?—I went over to him, and we had a few words —we had a conversation about something, but I cannot remember exactly what it was. He asked me what I was doing there for the company, and I told him exactly what I was there for. 28. What did you tell him ? —I told him I was there to see who was taking sheep from the company's land. 29. You were quite outspoken about it ?—Yes. 30. Did you tell him anything else ? —I said that if I got a conviction against the person who was taking the sheep I was to get £50.
21— H. 21.
H.—2l.
162
[W. LAMBEBT.
31. Did you then start any means of impressing Meikle with your friendliness ? —Meikle with his team was sowing grass-seed that day. I had some grass-seed at the hut, and I told him if he wanted a bag or two he could have it. 32. Yor hid no powor or right to give away the company's grass-seed ? —Yes, I had. 33. But so far as Meikle knew you had no power to give away the company's grass-seed ?—That is so. 34. "Whit did he say in reply to your offer ?—Hejsaid, " All right," and that Arthur would go down for it that night. 35. Was there any further conversation ? —Not that I can remember. I think I went away then. 36. What is the next thing you can remember ?—I do not think Arthur Meikle came to the hut for the grass-seed that night. 37. When did Arthur Meikle goto your hut ? —I think it was the second night after that. 38. Did he come inside ?—Yes. 39. Who was in the hut with you at the time ?—No one. 40. Did he wait ? —Yes, he stayed there a good while. 41. How long did he wait there ?—He was in my hut for two hours. 42. And I suppose you were talking during that time ? —Yes. 43. What was done, and what happened afterwards ?—When he was going away he took some of the grass-seed. He could not carry the whole bag full, and he took away about half a bag at that time. 44. Why ? Was a whole bag too heavy ? —Yes, it was a good weight. 45. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Would it be a 2 cwt. sack ?—lt would weigh from 160 lb. to 180 lb. 46. It would be what is caller! a 2 cwt. sack ? —Yes. 47. Dr. Findlay.] At what hour of the night did Arthur Meikle leave your hut ?—Between 9 and 10, I should think. 48. You went to live at the hut on 2nd September. How long would what you have described be after that ?—About a fortnight or three weeks, I fancy. 49. Did you tell Arthur that night about the company's employing you ? —No. 50. Did he know ? —He did not mention it to me if he did. 51. At any rate, you say he took away the grass-seed. Did you go to Meikle's after that ? —Yes. 52. Why did you go ? —lt was an invitation, sir. 53. Who asked you ?—Mr. Meikle. 54. When did he ask you ?—I think the next time I saw him. 55. For what purpose do you think he asked you ? —Just to be sociable, I suppose. 56. Did you go to the house ?—Yes. 57. Did Arthur Meikle get the rest of the grass-seed before you went ? —Yes. 58. Did he come back another night ? —Yes. 59. How many nights after the first instalment was taken ? —I think the night after. 60. Did he have a chat with you that night, also ? —Yes. 61. You do not remember, I suppose, the conversation, or any of it ?—No. 62. After the second instalment of the grass-seed was taken away by the boy you visited the father's place at his invitation. How long would that be after the second instalment of grass-seed was taken away ? —I could not exactly say, but it was not very long. 63. When did you go ?—ln the evening, after tea. 64. Your tea-hour was about ? —Six o'clock. 65. Who did you see first when you went over ?—I could not say. I knocked at the door, and went into the house. 66. You saw Meikle inside, also Mrs. Meikle and some others who were there ?—That is correct. 67. Did you wait some time ?—Yes, I spent the evening there. 68. While you were in Meikle's house did you say anything about the reason you were there before his wife and the other people who were there ? —Not a word. 69. What was the conversation ?—Just general conversation. 70. You had originally told Meikle, you say, that you were to get this £50 ?—Yes, sir. 71. Was there anything of importance that night ? —No. 72. After spending the evening you left to go back to your hut ?—Yes. 73. That was the first visit ? —Yes. 74. Did you make visits after that ? —I do not remember whether I went to the house after that, but I saw both the Meikles after that. 75. Did you discuss again the purpose of your being there ?—I do not think so, but I could not say. 76. They say you frequently discussed the purpose for which you were there. Did they get any more grass-seed from you ? —No. 78. Is there any other visit that you can call to mind ? —On one occasion I went to Meikle's, and went to the stable. I found him there trying to heal up the brand of a horse. The brand had been altered, and they were trying to heal it. 79. What were they using ?—lt was some kind of lotion; Ido not know what. 80. It is suggested that you stated they put a fire-brand upon the horse in the stable ? —No, I did not see the brand altered at all. 81. Who was trying to heal up the brand ?—Arthur Meikle. 82. Was there any one else there ? —The elder Meikle was there, too. 83. Did you know from anything which was said what they were going to do with the horse ?— After the elder Meikle went away Arthur told me they were taking it to Dunedin to sell it, 84. Did they tell you anything else ?—No, that was all,
W. LAMBEET.
163
St.—2l.
85. When was it they were to take it to Dunedin to sell it ?—So soon as the brand was healed sufficiently for it to go. 86. Did you see the brand they were treating ?—Yes. 87. Do you know what was done for the brand ? —I cannot remember now. 88. Do you remember when it was taken to Dunedin ?—No. 89. You say the brand had been altered. How did you know that ?—I think Arthur told me it had. 90. Was his father there when he told you that ?—No. 91. What did he tell you about the alteration of this brand ? —He just told me the brand had been altered, and that they were taking the horse to Dunedin to sell it. He told me whose horse it was. He said it was one of Carswell White's horses which had been lost. 92. After you were told that by Arthur Meikle had you any conversation with him about his having said that to you ? Did Arthur Meikle again refer to the matter, do you remember ?—No, Ido not. I told him it was nothing to do with me. I was not there to look after horses. 93. Did you know at that time the horse had been stolen ? —I do not know whether I knew then, but I knew shortly afterwards. I gave information about the horse shortly after that. 94. In point of fact you gave information to the police that the horse had been stolen ? —That is so. 95. Where did you get the information that the horse had been stolen ? —I think I was mentioning it to Constable Leece, and he said it must be one of Carswell White's horses. 96. Did you see the father and son after that ? Did you pay subsequent visits to their house after the day you were at the stable ? —Yes. 97. You had been visiting the house and had apparently been in conversation with father and son for some time before the 18th October, and I am coming now to the important incidents of the 17th or 18th October, which would be some six weeks later. You told their Honours that your purpose was to get into the confidence of the Meikles ?—Yes. 98. Had you done that before the 17th October ?—Yes. 99. In what way ?—By giving them the grass-seed, and by seeing them working with the horse, and saying nothing about it. 100. I want you to tell their Honours why you concluded you were in the confidence of the Meikles so fully by the 17th October ?—After I saw them with the horse the elder Meikle asked me if I would shear his sheep, and I told him I would. 101. Yes ?—And he said to me that if I went to shear for him I would have to keep my mouth shut, and not say anything about what I saw. 102. What did you say ?—I said, " All right." 103. What were you to get for this work ?—I was to get a share of the proceeds of the wool. 104. Were any sheep mentioned that you would probably have to shear ? —Some of the company's, some of Mr. Brown's, and, I think, some of Waddell's. 105. Do you recollect the night upon which you called at Gregg's hut ?—Yes. 106. What did you do ?—I went to get a few matches from him, as I had run out of them. 107. He was in ?—Yes. 108. After you got the matches, what happened ? —We had a short conversation. 109. Did he do anything ?—He came down the road with me. 110. What sort of a night was it ? —A fair night. 111. Raining?— No. 112. Which way did he come with you ?—Down towards my hut. 112 a. [Plan handed to witness]. This patch of red on the plan is Meikle's land, that part marked blue is Gregg's house, near the part marked green to the left, and the part green is your hut. A roadline goes through the green between the blue and the red. Now, will you indicate where you and Gregg went ?—I got over the fence between the blue and green, at the nearest point to the fence. I continued on a beaten track through the green towards my house. I crossed over the fence on to the road-line about half way through the green. 113. How far did Gregg come with you ?—He came perhaps half way to my house. 114. On crossing the fence, what did you see or hear ?—I met Arthur Meikle. 115. That is half way along the road where it goes through the green ?—Yes. 116. What was Arthur Meikle doing ? —Driving sheep. 117. Did you speak to him ? —Yes. I asked him where he was going with the sheep. 118. What did he say ? —He told me he was taking them home to get a fat one. 119. Where were the sheep ?—They were alongside the fence. 120. Mr. Justice Edwards.] What fence ? —-The fence is on one side of the road only. 121. Mr. Justice Cooper.] Is the fence on Meikle's side of the road, or on the company's side ?—lt is all company's land. 122. Dr. Findlay.] Had he a dog ?—Yes. 123. After your conversation with him, what did you do ? —I let him go on. 124. How far ? —I let him get 30 or 40 yards in front of me. 125. What did you do then ? —I followed him. 126. Did he know you were following him ?—I think so. 127. Why did you not walk alongside of him ? —I thought it better to keep away from him, in case anybody came along. He might think somebody else was watching him in addition to me. He drove the sheep along the road until we came to a place where the road is fenced on both sides. 128. That is where it runs between the blue and the red ? —Yes. He put the sheep in a white gate there.
H.—2l.
164
[W. LAMBEET.
129 ; What did you do ?—I crossed over the road, and got through the fence below the gate. 130. Did you join Meikle then, or did you keep away from him ?—I was quite close to him. 131. And walked along with him ? —Yes. 132. Which way were the sheep driven ?—Towards the sheep-yards. 133. After they had been driven to the yards, did anything else happen ?—They were put into the yards. 134. Did you see the elder Meikle ? —I forget whether it was then that he came, or after they were in the yards. But he came over with a lantern. 135. After they were in the yards what did Meikle do with the lantern ?—He put it in the smithy. 136. On what ?—On a bag of something —either lime or coal. [W T itnesses's attention was directed to a view of the smithy door in Meikle's book.] 137. Is the yard a large one ?—Oh, no, just a farmer's yard. 138. It would hold how many sheep ? —Perhaps two hundred. It is not all one yard—there is a dividing fence. 139. What did they do after putting the lantern in the smithy ?—Two or three sheep were shoved through the door, and the others followed in. 140. How long did the whole business take ? —I should say not more than twenty minutes. 141. Did you go into the smithy with them ? —Yes. 142. The whole of you got out of sight in the smithy ?—Yes. 143. What was done after you got in ?—Arthur Meikle counted the sheep, and saw how many fat ones there were. 144. You gave evidence on Meikle's trial, and you gave a number. Do you recollect how manysheep were driven into the smithy ?—Twenty-eight, I think. 145. After counting them, what took place next ?—One sheep was kept back, and the others were let out into the yard. The one that was kept back was killed. 146. Who killed it ?—Arthur Meikle. 147. After it was killed, did you hear any instructions given ?—The elder Meikle had gone over to the house before the sheep was dressed. 148. Did he go before the sheep was killed ? —No ; I think he was there when the sheep was killed, but after it was killed he went over to the house. 149. He came back again ?—Yes. The sheep was dressed then. 150. What do you mean by being " dressed " ?—Skinned, and generally made ready for use. The skin was laid over some bags, and the carcase was hung up. 151. When the elder Meikle came back, what did he do or say ?—He told Arthur Meikle to cut the ears and fire brand off the skin. 152. Was that done ? —Yes. 153. Was anything else done by Arthur Meikle ? —The skm was turned over on the bales, and, with a knife, he ran through the brand to take the paint off. 154. After the ears had been disposed of, and the fire brand and the paint brand removed, was anything said by the elder Meikle ?—He said he could defy the company or anybody else now. 155. Where were you standing while the operation was on ? —ln the smithy. 156. What was the size of the smithy ?—With the twenty-eight sheep and ourselves in it, it was pretty full. 157. How far were you standing away from Arthur Meikle ?—I might have been 2 or 3 yards away. 158. Did you know they were sheep taken from the company's land ?—I knew they were sheep which he had driven that night. 159. Did you notice at all what brand was on the sheep ? —I noticed a red brand on most of them. 160. Did you notice the brand on the skin that Arthur Meikle was working at ? —lt was red, I know that. - 161. You could not swear it was the company's brand ?—No. 162. After this was done, what was the next step ? —I think I went down to the hut for a stick one of the men had given me. 163. Who was that ?—I think it was Harvey. 164. Did you see anything else that evening ?—I do not recollect, now. 165. After you went down to the hut, where did you go ?—Down to my own hut. 166. Did you see the carcase of the sheep again ? —No. 167. How many miles is your hut from the Islay Homestead ?—By bridle-track, four or five miles ; but by dray-road, ten or eleven. 168. Do you say there were twenty-eight sheep taken ? —-Yes. 169. Were you able to notice that night whether there were any rams among the sheep ? —I heard them say, when they were counting, that there was one ram. 170. So that of the twenty-eight sheep that were taken that night, from what you heard, one was a ram, and, one having been killed, that would leave twenty-six sheep and one ram ? —Yes. There were so-many fat and so-many poor, but I know the total was twenty-eight. 171. Did you report this to the manager ?—Yes. 172. How long after ? —Next day. 173. What did you tell him ?—I told him what had happened. 174. You told him what you have told us now ?—Yes. 175. Did you give the total number with the ram ?—Yes. 176. Now I come to the question of date, which has played an important part. You have been in Court, and heard the evidence about the 17th of October. Do you remember what date you swore to in examination-in-chief before Mr. Justice Ward on Meikle's trial ?—The 17th.
W. LAMBERT.]
165
H.—2l.
177. You were cross-examined by Mr. MacGregor on that trial. Do you remember whether you qualified your definite oath that it was the 17th ? —Yes, I did. 178. It does not appear in Judge Ward's notes that you did ?—I did qualify it. 179. I want to know how you came to definitely fix the 17th of October ? —By the night I was at Gregg's, and the night McGeorge left the hut. 180. I see that on page 20 of your cross-examination Mr. MacGregor asked the question, and you say that you remembered it by the night that McGeorge went away ? —Yes. 181. So that on evidence in the trial against Meikle you did fix it by the night McGeorge went away, and the night you went to see Gregg ?—Yes. 182. Why did you fix the 17th in the Supreme Court ? —I did not have the date down. I remembered it by going to Gregg's and McGeorge going away. In Invercargill I asked Gregg if he could tell me the date of that night, and he said it was the 17th. 183. And you swore it was the 17th ?—Yes. 184. You swear it was the night that McGeorge went away, and the night of your visit to Gregg that you saw the sheep stolen ?—I am positive of it. 185. You have heard the evidence of Troup, that he fixed it by the diary definitely as the 18th ? —Yes. 186. Was the night on which the sheep were stolen a very wild or wet night ?—No. 187. Do you remember what McGeorge took away with his team when he left the hut ?—He took some skins, some wire, and, I think, the remainder of the grass-seed which I had. 188. Was it a big load ?—No. 189. How many horses had he ?—Three horses. 190. You know that the 17th has been described by many witnesses as being a very bad day. Mr. Meikle describes it as being one of the worst he has experienced in New Zealand. Can you say from your knowledge and practice whether McGeorge would start out on a day of that kind ? —No, he would not. 191. If McGeorge left the hut about 8 o'clock to go to Mataura with a team on a bad day, at what hour would he be likely to arrive at Mataura ?—lt would take him all day to get there. 192. Could he be there by midday, with his team in the stable, and himself having dinner ? —No. It is twenty-five miles from the hut to Mataura. 193. It would be impossible for him to be with Mr. Fraser at dinner at midday if he had gone with his team on that day ? —Yes. 194. If he were at Mataura that day, can you explain how he must have got there ?—-The only one way would be by taking one of his draught horses and riding over. 195. So you say if he left that morning, and was in Mataura at dinner-time, he must have gone without his tea ?—That is so. 196. Mr. Fraser says he saw you at Mataura on the 17th. Do you remember that ? —No. 197. Are you prepared to contradict him ? —I am not prepared to contradict him, but Ido not remember seeing him. 198. In your cross-examination in the Court below you were pressed, and you said the sheep killed might have been one of Meikle's. What have you to say about that ? —lt might have been. I only saw the ear-mark that was cut off was very like the company's ear-mark. 199. At any rate you were not able to pledge your oath at your trial as to whether it was the company's sheep or not that was killed ?—No. 200. Did you see the ear-mark on any sheep of those driven ? —Not while he was driving them. 201. When did you see the ear-mark ?—When the ear-mark was cut off the sheep. 202. Did you ever tell Meikle that you were to get £50 to put sheep-skins in the smithy for the purpose of getting him convicted ?—No, sir, I did not. 203. Did you ever tell him that two men were to go —one in white clothes and you in dark clothes —that you had an arrangement that you were to go with this man in light clothes, and that Meikle was to come forward and tie one of you up and hand you over to the police ?—No. 204. You have not written any novels in your day ? —No. 205. That is all new to you ? —Yes. 206. Did you ever tell Mrs. Meikle the story that you were to get £50 for putting skins on Meikle's land, and the rest of it ?—I never mentioned anything of that to anybody. 207. The boy who was twelve years of age at the time —you did not confide the same story to him ? —No, sir. 208. You say that the whole of that story —whoever speaks to it —is wrong ?—Yes. 209. There were two skins. You were not present when they were found —but two skins Dearing the company's brand were found in the smithy ?—Yes. 210. Did you see those skins afterwards ?—I saw them at the Court. 211. It is suggested that you put the skins there. What have you to say to that ?—I did not. 212. Did you put that or any other skin in the barn ?—No. 213. Now, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Meikle's friend, says that you met hrm in the street the day after Meikle's arrest, and that you told Mac Donald that there was nothing in this trial against Meikle, and that you could clear him if you liked. Did you do anything of the kind ?—No, I never mentioned it. 214. Did Meikle, the next day, or two or three days afterwards, at a hotel tell you to give your evidence truthfully on both sides, or anything of that sort ?—No. 215. Did you ever say that you were waiting for £10 of blood-money from Mr. Stuart ? —No, I never mentioned Mr. Stuart. 216. That is all new to you ? —Yes. 217. You have had some experience in the work of detecting crime before ?—Yes.
166
[W. LAMBEBT.
H.—2l.
218. Were you ever at Morton Mains Station ?—Yes. 219. You have had experience there, and you have never been in a lunatic asylum, I suppose '?— No. 220. At any rate, all this story about telling them where the skins would be put—is that untrue ? —Yes. 221. You mentioned a letter dated 14th November, from Merkle ?—Did you get one before that from him. You remember getting a letter dated 14th November, in which he asked you to shear sheep for him, &c, You got -that letter ?—Yes. 222. Was there an earlier letter from Meikle ? —Yes. 223. You have not got that ?—No. 224. Do you know whether that letter was first read by your wife ? —I think it was. 225. Can you remember any of the terms of the earlier letter ? —lt was to the effect that if I did not say what I had seen about his taking the sheep, he was to get another £5,000 and he was to give me £1,000 of it. 226. Was that letter seen both by your son and your wife ?—Yes. 227. Was that earlier letter written before or after Meikle's arrest ?—After. 228. We have had evidence as to an alleged conversation at the North Star Hotel. Did Meikle speak to you, as a matter of fact, at the North Star Hotel shortly after his arrest ?—Yes. 229. What did he say to you then ?—I cannot recall it. 230. You gave evidence about it before, but you cannot recall what was said now ?—That is so. I was stopping them. 231. You iemember a conversation ? —Yes. 232. You remember that the statements he made about the blood-money and the rest of it are not true ?—I never mentioned anything like that, 233. We have had from Mr. Meikle an interpretation of this letter : " I want my sheep shorn. Can you shear them as you promised ?" What promise was that ?—That is the only promise I made to him about shearing. 234. Before the night of the 18th October ?—Yes. 235. Does it refer only to that promise ?—That is so. 236. He knew you were in the employ of the company, because you told him % —Ye? 237. And yet he wanted you to come and shear his sheep for him ? —Yes. 238. This letter is dated November ? —Yes. 239. And you were at this time, as he knew, in the employ of the company ?—I do not think I was just then. 240. When had you left the employ of the company ?—After Meikle was arrested. _ 241. You say the only promise you made was to shear these stolen sheep ? —That is so. 242. You are told that you have nothing to fear, and to listen to no reports. Do you know what that refers to ? —No, I do not. 243. You were a great deal on Meikle's property ?—No, only about the house. I was never over his ground. 244. You are not in a position to speak definitely about the pastures on his land ?—No; it could not have been good feed at that time of the year. 245. Can you say whether the fences were such as to prevent sheep coming through ? —Only along the road. 246. You cannot speak definitely as to the fences ? —No. 247. Templeton tells us a story that the company wanted you to go for old Meikle, but you said you would stick to old Meikle. Do you remember that conversation ?—No. 248. Do you remember such a conversation ? —No. 249. It is suggested that you and Troup and Cameron were in a conspiracy to put these skins on the land ? How often did you see Cameron altogether ?—Once. 250. Who was present ?—Mr. Troup. 251. Was that after you were engaged ?—Yes. 252. What did you tell them then ? —I cannot remember distinctly what actually was said. 253. Did you tell Cameron and Troup of any incident that had happened ?—No, I cannot remember. 254. You gave some grass-seed away ?—Yes. 255. Did you tell Cameron about it ? —I told Troup about it. I cannot remember whether I told Cameron. 256. You cannot say whether Cameron was present ?—I belreve he was present. 257. It is suggested by Mr. Atkinson that while you told the Courts that you saw the ear-marks cut off and you saw the fire brand cut out, you never told any one that the paint brand was combed out ? —Yes, I did. 258. Who did you tell first ?—Stuart. 259. Do you remember Constable Leece ?—Yes, I told him, too 260. Mr. Atkinson points out that you said in one place that you did not receive the £50. £50 was promised to you ?—Yes. 261. Do you know, as a matter of fact, that that was paid by instalments to your wrfe ?—Yes. 262. So that the £50 has been paid to Mrs. Lambert ? —Yes. 263. Now we have had Mr. Meikle protesting that you were the cause of his being imprisoned wrongfully ? Have you ever at any time or to anybody admitted that you were rightfully convicted ? —No. 264. You are on your oath. You have heard Meikle's statement that you have since your conviction declared that you were wrongfully convicted ? —Yes.
167
H.—2l.
W. LAMBEET.]
265. Do you say so to-day ? —I do. 266. Do you declare to their Honours that what you said you saw happened on the 18th October is true ? —I do. 267. How old are you ?—Forty-six. 268. For how many years past have you given up taking drink ?—Eleven years. 269. You came out of gaol —when ? —I had a remission of one year and eleven months. 270. You were two years and eight months in prison, and you had a remission for helping to rescue some people at the Heads ?—Yes. 271. That is, for over eight years you have been a voluntary abstainer ?—Yes. 272. Before that time, it is true, that you occasionally took too much drink ?—Yes. 273. I understand that you admit that there were two minor assaults committed by you when you were under the influence of drink ? —Yes. 274. How long ago was the first one ?—Fifteen or "sixteen years ago. 275. Do you remember what you were fined ? —lt was a very small fine. 276. A few shillings ?—Yes. 277. And there was another small assault for which the fine and expenses came to £1 10s ? —Yes. 278. Twenty-three years ago next month, you were then twenty-three years of age; do you remember getting in the company of some men in Ashburton ?—Yes. 279. Do you remember getting drunk ?—Yes. 280. Do you remember that the outcome of that was that a bottle of whisky was stolen by you ana your drunken comrades ?—Yes. 281. And you and another "bran had to put in seven days for that ? —That is correct. Mr. Atkinson : That is not very fair examination. You are putting statements into the witness's mouth. 282. Dr. Findlay.] Besides the three instances I have mentioned, is there anything else in your career against your character ?—No. 283. Nothing ?—No. 284. You have, I think, a family ? —Yes. 285. When you were sent to gaol, how many children had you ? —Six. 286. So that you, like Meikle, had to leave behind you a wife and six children unsupported ?— That is so. 287. Your wife is now lying ill in Invercargill ? —Yes. 288. Mr. Atkinson.] This is the fifth time, is it not, that you have given evidence as to the sheepstealing business —twice in 1887, once in 1894 before Mr. Rawson, and once in 1895; also your own trial ? Is not that so ?—ls it the Supreme Court or all the Courts you mean ? 289. Before the Magistrates in 1887, the Supreme Court in 1887, the Magistrate in 1894, the Supreme Court in 1895, that is four times, and this is the fifth ? —Twice before Mr. Rawson, and once before Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Atkinson : It was twice before Mr. Hawkins and once before Mr. Rawson; in fact, lam instructed that Lambert did not give evidence in the missing depositions. Dr. Findlay : I cannot say ; we made every search for them. 291. Mr. Atkinson.] At any rate this is five or six times that you have given evidence, and you swear that you told the truth on every occasion ? —That is so. 292. When you speak of making a note, it appeared you made a note of the date on which the sheep were stolen : can you explain what was in the note ? —I did not say I made a note of the date ; I said note of the day. 293. Tall us what was in it ?—The day McGeorge left the hut and the night I was at Meikle's, that was the day Arthur Meikle took the sheep. 294. I ask what the note was ?—That is how I fixed this day. 295. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Do you mean you wrote down the day ? —I wrote it down in a little book I had. 296. Mr. Atkinson.] Was it a diary ?—No, it was not. 297. Tell us as near as you can the exact form of the entry. Dr. Findlay : It was in his hands when he first gave evidence. 298. Mr. Atkinson.] I want to know what was in it ?—I can write it in the same form if you give me a piece of paper. [Witness was handed a piece of paper for the purpose.] Mr. Justice Edwards : Where does that appear ? Mr. Atkinson : He says, in his evidence, "It was the 17th, I made a note of it." The reference is in the 1887 depositions, page 2, cross-examination :" I remember the 17th October; I was at Gregg's; I took a note of it." This is in the depositions in 1895 (page 46): " I produced the note in the Supreme Court, and referred to it—the day, and not the date." His Honour : It is not disputed that he produced the note ? Mr. Atkinson : No, your Honour, it is not disputed. [At this stage the witness handed to the Bench a copy of the note to which he had referred at the previous trial. At Mr. Atkinson's request he signed it.] 299. Mr. Atkinson.] " Arthur Meikle took sheep the day McGeorge left the hut and the night I was at Gregg's." About when was the note made ?—The day after. 300. And there was no reference to the calendar in it at all ?—No. 301. Just to interrupt that line of cross-examination for one moment, you answered Dr. Findlay that the offences to which he referred were the only ones besides perjury for which you have been convicted ?—Yes. 302. You have been arrested on other occasions—for the theft of a gold watch and chain ?—No, who says so ?
H.—2l.
168
[W. LAMBERT.
303. Were you ever in Waikaia ?—Yes. 304. Were you convicted there ? —No, this is the only time I told you about—the bottle of whisky. 305. Who defended you in 1895 at Meikle's prosecution ?—Mr. McAllister. 306. Did you pay his costs ? —Yes. 307. When ?—After I was liberated. 308. Had you made any arrangement for payment before ? Was he waiting till you came out in hope or had you given him any security before ? —He had a promissory note. 309. Whose promissory note was it ?—Cameron and McDonald's. 310. What McDonald ? —A nran who used to be about Edendale. 311. Were Cameron and McDonald a firm ? —No, they were no firm. 312. Do you remember whose name was on it ?—John McDonald and Angus Cameron. 313. Dr. Findlay.] Not W. R. Cameron ?—No. 314. Mr. Atkinson.] Is that the McDonald of Edendale ?—A fellow who used to knock about with the rest of us. 315. What was the amount of this promissory note ?—£2o. 316. Was that a genuine promissory note ?—Yes, no doubt about it. 317. Does that represent the whole of Mr. McAllister's costs ?—No, certainly not. 318. You say it was not a forged promissory note ? —I am positive it was not. 319. You have got plenty of time to think about it ?—I know what lam talking about. Dr. Findlay: My learned friend will not ask these questions wholly because they will get into the newspapers. Mr. Atkinson : I am not prepared to imitate tactics of which we have had quite enough. Dr. Findlay : I am quite prepared to prove mine. 320. Mr. Atkinson.] My friend knows very well he cannot prove a large number of them. (To witness): We cannot take that further now. Where had you been working prior to Islay Station ? —I was working at Sunnyside for a while. 321. How long had you been there ? —I could not say how long I was there. 322. A few weeks or a few months ? —I was not there a few months, I do not think. 323. A few weeks ?—Perhaps so. 324. Was that in the employment of the same company ?—I was assisting the bailiff ; Mr. Mabin was there. 325. Was not that for the company ? —I was doing some work for the company ; Major Brown was there for the company. 326. You were under Constable Leece's directions ?—I was under Mr. Brown's directions. 327. Your employment was under Constable Leece ? —He had nothing to do with me on that occasion. 328. From there you went to Islay ?—I do not know whether it was or not. 329. I think that appeared in the evidence yesterday. Did you say that Leece first mentioned the matter to you of helping the matter at Islay Station ?—I think it was him, I would not be quite sure. 330. Who did you see afterwards ? —Troup and Leece. 331. Did you see both together ?—I think I did, I could not be sure ; Leece introduced me to Troup. 332. Had you discussed the matter with Leece before you saw Troup ?—Oh, yes. 333. Where was that —in Leece's place ?—Standing out on the road opposite the police-station. 334. In Mataura ? —ln Mataura. 335. That was why your work was still on at Sunnyside ?—No, I had left Sunnyside then. I think I had left Sunnyside then. 336. Have you not stated that you were working at Sunnyside just before you came to Islay ?— I may have been just before I came, but I had left Sunnyside like then when I got this other engagement. 337. Then, what interval of time was there between your leaving Sunnyside and going to Islay ? ■ —There was not very long. 338. How long—a week ? —lt may have been about that. 339. It might have been a fortnight —you cannot say precisely ? —I could not say how long it was. 340. When you discussed the question with Constable Leece and Troup, was nothing said then as to whom the company suspected ?—Well, they suspected two or three about there at one time. 341. Never mind at one time, was nothing said at this conversation about who was suspected ? —I could not say whether there was or not at that time. 342. Yet you have sworn that you had no suspicion that Meikle was the thief when you went to Islay. Dr. Findlay : When did he swear that ? Mr. Atkinson : To you this morning and at the previous proceedings —1895 I think it was. Dr. Findlay : Just so, eight years afterwards. Mr. Atkinson : That was eight years and this is nineteen years. Mr. Justice Edwards : He is still vague :he does not say whether it was or was not; Ido not see how he could tell you. Mr. Atkinson : He swore this morning that he had no suspicion. His Honour : I do not think there was anything definite or positive conveyed to my mind this morning. Mr. Atkinson : We will get it from the reporters. He said he had no suspicion. Mr. Justice Cooper :We have got the exact statement down, of course. He said something about that he had no suspicion,
W. LAMBERT.!
169
H.—2l.
343. Mr. Atkinson (to witness).] With regard to the grass-seed incident, you gave very full particulars of that conversation. Do you remember some questions being put about grass-seed to you at the trial of Meikle ? —No, I do not remember. 344. It is in the evidence (page 26). Do you remember uhat Davis gave evidence ? —Yes, he gave eviderrce. 345. He says that you said in your conversation with him, " I have 100 lb. srrass-seed in hut. You might do something with it." Can you recollect that evidence now ? Dr. Findlay : That is not his evidence. 346. Mr. Atkinson.] It is Davis's evidence that this witness said so. (To witness) : Do you remember that being given ?—I cannot say that I remember it. 347. What I am putting to you is that you have been confusing what took place between you and Davis, and which you have forgotten, and what you think took place between you and Meikle ?—No, Arthur Meikle got some grass-seed. Mr. Justice Edwards : Of course, that could not be so, Mr. Atkinson, unless Troup is wilfully perjuring himself. Mr. Atkinson : Is it to be presumed, your Honour, that everything anybody says out of Court is true ? His Honour : He could not be confusing. According to Troup, if he is telling the truth, Lambert reported this to him at the time, and got his sanction to it. Lambert, of course, may be perjuring himself, you are going to suggest; but he cannot be confusing these two things, because he reported it to Troup at the time —except Troup is also perjuring himself. Mr. Atkinson : I ought not to have used so polite a phrase, perhaps, your Honour. His Honour : Better call a spade a spade. 348. Mr. Atkinson (to witness).] You gave us particulars of the conversation with regard to that incident ? —As near as I can remember that is how it was. 349. Do you remember that you were questioned on the point in 1895 ?—No, I cannot remember. 350. You cannot remember what you answered in 1895 ? —No. 351. At page 44, about one-third of the way down, you say, " It was not at his house the first time I saw him. He was picking stones off where he was sowing grass-seed. I forget now what he did say." This has been brought back to your mind since ?—I do not know whether it was or not. I think I remember that. 352. Do you remember saying in 1895 that you had forgotten ? —Forgotten what ? 353. Forgotten what took place in regard to the conversation with Meikle regarding the grassseed ? —No, I do not remember. 354. But if you said it in 1895 would it be the truth ? Mr. Justice Edwards : Does that appear in the evidence ? Dr. Findlay : No, sir. He said, " I told Meikle what I was there for." Mr. Justice Cooper: He did not say anything in 1895 about giving Meikle half a bag of grassseed. 355. Mr. Atkinson.] He says he did not remember what he had said. " I forget, now, what he did say." That clearly being the introductory conversation is the first conversation. There can have been no conversation about it. (To witness) : You cannot explain that, Lambert, except that you had forgotten, and somehow remember now ? —[No answer.] 356. You say you subsequently went to Meikle's house on his invitation and spent the evening ? You had already told Meikle what you were there for, but you are quite sure you never mentioned it that evening at the house ?—Yes ;I do not think I ever mentioned it at the house. 357. First of all, how often would you be at Meikle's during these few months ?—A good few times. - 358. Two or three times a week after ? —After I had been there a while ; I was there that, anyhow —two or three times a week. 359. You say in 1894 you were there mostly every evening ?—Yes, I was. 360. That would be from that latter part of September to the end of October ?—Somewhere about that. 361. There was an interval —after the night you alleged you saw the sheep stolen your visits were not so frequent ? —I forget whether they were or not —whether I went so often or not. 362. At any rate you were there very often, taking all the week together ?—Yes. 363. Your point was to get the confidence of Meikle ; and you also wanted the confidence of his son, and you secured it. Was that so ? —That is so. 364. Was it not a part also of your scheme to get the confidence of the whole family—the household and servants ? —I do not think so ;it never was spoken about, as a rule, in conversations in the house ; the conversation was about something else. I never heard sheep spoken about in the house at all. 365. Did you never discuss the matter with Meikle in his house ?—I do not remember that I did. 366. And you mean to say you were setting about to get his confidence, and talked freely to them outside and not inside ?—I do not remember that ever it was spoken of inside. 367. Will you swear it never was ?—I would not swear it never was, but Ido not think it was. 368. My friend has taken you pretty well through the list of names —Mrs. Shiels, Mrs. Howe, Harvey, and all the Meikle family —you deny all their statements with regard to the £50 and the skins ?—All their statements about what ? 369. About the £50 you were to get. Did you never mention the subject of this £50 that was standing out for a conviction inside Meikle's house ?—I would not swear that I did not do that; I may
22— H. 21.
|W. LAMBEBT.
170
H.—2l.
have mentioned about £50 for a conviction against any person who was taking sheep from the station. I may have done that. . . . . ... , , , 370. Have you never sworn before that you never mentioned the subject inside Meikle s house t —I do not remember whether I did or not. 371. If you did, both statements cannot be correct ?—I may have ; I would not swear that 1 did or that I did not. 372. What ?—Mention in the house about the £50. 373. You will not swear now, at any rate, that you did not, or you will not admit that you did < —I do not believe that I did. 374 I just direct your attention to your evidence in 1894 before Mr. Rawson (page 31) : 1 often had a conversation with Meikle in his house. Nothing was ever said about putting sheep or skins on his place, or about £50 " ?—I would not swear to that. I know there was nothrng said about putting skins on his place. 375. Well, you would not repeat that statement about the £o0 <—No, 1 would not. 376 Then who do you suppose you might have mentioned it to before—tins question of the £50 2—All that was asked me was what I was there for. I did not keep it a secret from any one. 377 Then how is it that you were so positive in 1894 that you had never mentioned the subject ? —Mrs. Meikle had not asked me, the servants had not asked me, and I was not going to run about telling 378 Things come up in conversation sometimes ?—There was no conversation of that kind. Is not this the first admission you have made that the subject of the £50 was ever mentioned in Meikle's house ? Mr. Justice Edwards : He does not admit it now; he does not think rt was. 380 Mr. Atkinson.] I will put it the other way round, to be precise. This is the first time he has not denied positively that the £50 was ever mentioned inside Meikle's house. I will remind you of your statement when the thing was nearer still (page 20, Supreme Court, Meikle's trial) : " Was often at Meikle's—not very often. Never said there I was to get £50 from company." That was m 1887. You are not prepared, at any rate, to repeat that denial now ?—No, I would not repeat rt now, because I do not remember it. 381. Mrs. Meikle stated in the evidence, I think on your trral, that you gammoned to be her husband's friend " ?—Yes, that is so. . 382. That was practically your scheme, and you explained in answer to Dr. hmdlay. Would it not have worked in with that scheme very well to have a talk about the matter in her presence in a light and friendly way ?—lt might have been right enough, but it was not the way I worked. 383. It is not the way you did work ?—I never told Mrs. Meikle ; I never went about tellrng her mv business. . . 384. You are quite certain you did not-tell Mrs. Meikle ?—I am positive I did not tell her. 385. And you never mentioned it in her presence ?—I do not think I did. 386. Or in the presence of her servants or sons ?—No. 387. Did you ever tell Perkins what you were there for ? —I did not. 388. Now, I call your attention to one point in the depositions of 1887 (page 11), at the cross-exami-nation of Ede, when Meikle was before the Magistrates. Ede said, " I saw you at Invercargill on the 3rd or 4th of last month, and had a conversation. You told me you expected there would be a spree, and that you thought I would have a job. You said you had been informed that sheep andsheepskins were to be put on your land by the company. You told me that two men were to get £50 each as soon as you were arrested." Meikle had got this information which he and his witnesses had been talking about a fortnight before the crime was supposed to have been committed. You accept Detective Ede's statement, would you not ?—I do not quite understand you. ■389. If Detective Ede swears that on the 3rd October Meikle makes the statement he made about sheep-skins, would you believe him ?—I suppose his word would be beyond question. 390. Mr. Atkinson.] Then Meikle had got this information all the while your visits were going on, but you still swear he did not get it from you ?—No, he did not get it from me. 391. Now, about this incident of the horse in the stable ; can you fix the date at all, or nearly ? —Not within a week ; but it was some time before they were taking the horse to Dunedin. 392. As a private detective, have you not found the importance of dates before now ? —I never was very much at dates. Did you take Meikle and his son by surprise when they were doing this ?—I believe I did, when I first went into the stable. 394. And they did not turn you out ?—The elder Meikle went out, and the young fellow told me what happened. 395. You say, in consequence of what you saw there, they had great confidence in you ?—That is when I fancy I was admitted into their confidence properly, when I did not say anything about the horse. 396. That looks as if they did not take you into their confidence before ?—I think they took me in more fully when I saw what they were doing to the horse. 397. What you say is, that the horse was not being branded, but the brand was being doctored ? -Yes. 398. Did you not say at your trial in 1894, that they were putting the brand on it in the stable ? —No. 399. The statement is on page 44 : " The brand had been altered, and they were getting the scab on it owing to the change in the plough having rubbed it off. The son told me that what they were doing to this horse—the brand getting altered. I said it did not matter to me about the horse. I was
H.—2l.
171
W. LAMBERT.]
there when the horse went to Dunedin. Scott was waiting at Meikle's till Meikle came back. Scott got into trouble about the horse. The young fellow told me they had altered the brand. They were, I think, putting brand on it in the stable " ?—I do not say that that is not correct. 400. What you really do say is, that the brand had been altered, and they were putting the scab on ?—- --401. You say Scott was waiting at Meikle's house, or whare, until Meikle returned from Dunedin ? —In Meikle's hut. 402. Do you know how long Meikle was away ?—I do not. 403. Did you see him shortly before he went, and shortly after he returned ?—lt may have been a week before, but it is such a long time ago now that I cannot remember. 404. How often were you at Meikle's house while he was in Dunedin ?—I could not say. 405. Were you there several times ?—I may have been, but I may not have been there at all. 406. How did you know, then, that Scott was there ?—I know that Scott was warting until Meikle came back again. 407. How do you know ?—I saw Scott myself, and Arthur Merkle told me he was waiting. Ihe night the sheep was killed I went in for a stick Harvey had given me, and I saw Scott. 408. Then you cannot say how long Scott remained there ?—No. 409. And you do not remember whether you were at Meikle's house during his absence ?—I could not say that. 410. Rabbiting was part of your employment ?—Yes. 411. Did you not sometimes go rabbiting on the company's leasehold ?—Yes. 412. Did you not find it best fo go across Meikle's property, or did you not occasionally go through there ?—I think not. I have been on his land on the side nearest to where I live, but I was never up at the top of the place. 413. You said to Dr. Findlay that you had not paid much heed to the nature of Merkle s crops ? —No. 414. Do you know anything about his sheep ?—No. 415. Do you know his brand ?—I could not have remembered it until I saw it on the table the other day. 416. Do you remember the colour ?—I think his was a black brand. 417. You had other duties for the company in addition to detective-work ?—No, I could please myself about that. I could go rabbiting or do anything I wished. 418. You had charge of the sheep on the turnips, Stuart told us ?—I had to look after the sheep there, but that did not take me all day. It took up very little of my time. 419. But you were free to do other work just as you pleased ?—Yes. 420. You said in 1894 you were shepherd for the company for two or three months. That refers to what you put in in your odd time ?—Yes. 421. Had you dogs there ?—Yes. 422. Where were they kept ?—At the hut. 423. Now, on the night in question I understood you to say that you were on your way back from Gregg's, and you met young Meikle driving sheep on the road, about half way along between the hut and the boundary ?—Yes, somewhere about there. 424. You had just come through the fence, and he was just coming along with the sheep ?—Yes. 425. That was to say you were both on the south side of the fence—both on the'road ?—I think I was on the north side of the fence. 426. Where was he ?—He was to the south of me. 427. Was he on the road when you met him ?—Yes. 428. Were you on the road when you met him ?—Yes, I crossed over the ferrce. He was on the turnips when I saw him first with the sheep, but when I actually met him he was on the road-line. I had got over the fence. 429. Just tell us exactly where you both were when your attention was first called to young Meikle. I understood you to fix the poirrt precisely on the plan where you met him ?—I met him on the road-line, and I crossed over the fence. 430. Where was he when your attention was first called to him ?—He was going round on the turnips, round the corner of the fence on to the road-line. 431. How far was he from the end of the fence ?—He was not very far. 432. He was not very far from the end of the fence when you first saw him, and you were on the turnips still ?—I crossed over to the road-line. 433. How far would you say, roughly, he was from the end of the fence ?—Perhaps 200, or 300, or 400 yards, as far as I can remember. 434. From the end of the fence, and still on the turnips ?—He was on the road-line then. 435. lam trying to get from you where young Meikle was when you first saw him ?—He was just going off the turnips round on to the road-line. That is, just about the end of the fence turning round to his place. 436. But you were watching him from the turnips ; while he was going round there you cut across i Yes. 437. What rate of progress was he making ?—Sheep do not go very quick at the best of times. 438. I suppose it is not an easy job in the dark with a small mob ? You took a short cut, and when you got to the road-line you were ahead of him, and you waited for him at the point he had got to pass ? Yes. 439. How long, about, did you wait ?—lt would not be a quarter of an hour, anyhow. It would be somewhere about that, because I had to walk a piece myself.
H.—2l;
172
[W. LAMBEhT.
440. Do you remember whether the dogs at the hut barked when he went round ?—I do not remember. 441. Mr. McGeorge, I think, sard on the occasion of your trial that the dogs must have barked, and that if the dogs did bark, he would have heard them. Do you remember were the dogs there ?— Some of them were. There was one with me. 442. How many were there altogether ?—Three or four altogether. One would be with me, and the others at the hut. 443. I call your attention now to the statements you previously made. First of all, before the Justices you stated on page 2 of the 1887 depositions, " Two or three yards from the hut I met Arthur Meikle with some sheep. He was driving them. Meikle was on foot. He had a dog with him. It was not a very dark night. I passed him on the road " ? —That is so 444. How did you pass him on the road ? —When I crossed over to the road I was ahead of him, and I came past him and spoke to him. 445. When did you first hail him. Was it at the time that he overtook you there ?—Yes. 446. Had you had a talk to the young fellow before ? —Ofterr. 447. Then the position is that you did not say anything to him as he was rounding that corner because you were too far off. How far away from you was he when he was rounding that corner ?—I suppose Arthur Meikle would be about 30 or 40 yards ahead of me before I crossed over to the roadline. 448. When you first saw him on the turnips he was pretty near the end of the fence, just about to make the turn, and you were 30 or 40 yards away. Then you went across and waited for him on the road, and had a conversation witlThim when he came up ?-^Yes. 449. Is it not correct that you must have been within a chain or two from the end of the fence yourself ?—Arthur Meikle would have to go twice the distance that I would go. 450. I am not concerned with the distance which you travelled, but the distance of both of you from the end of the fence. You say he was nearly to the end of the fence, almost at the turn, and you were 30 or 40 yards behind him, and that you cut through the fence on to the road-line, and waited for him to come along ? —Yes, that was about it. 451. I understood you, in answer to Dr. Findlay, fixed the meeting at about 300 or 400, yards from the end of the fence ? —I could not say to a yard or two what it was. 452. Was it about 300 or 400 yards from the fence that you met him, or from the hut ? —There is a great difference from the end of the fence and where the hut was. 453. You were speaking about the hut to Dr. Findlay, and the end of the fence to me. 454. I put it to you, what distance was it from the end of the fence that you met young Meikle ? Was it 30 or 40 yards, roughly, from the end of the fence ? —lt must have been 200 yards. It is 100 yards further, perhaps, to the hut. 455. What was the 30 or 40 yards you told me about so often ?—lt was the 30 or 40 yards that Meikle was ahead of me when he was driving sheep to his father's place. 456. lam trying to get him round the corner. When you first saw him he was about 30 or 40 yards ahead of you, and he was at that time going round the corner of the fence, and you were on the turnips ? —I do not know exactly how far he was ahead of me, it might have been 30 or 40 yards, and it might have been 100 yards. I cannot tell you how far I was away from him. 457. Well, we may take it at from 30 or 40 to a 100 yards you were from him, and he was turning round the corner of the fence. You cut across to the road-line, and waited for him there not more than a quarter of an hour, and he came up ? —Yes, that is so. 458. Where was it that the conversation began ? —When I passed him. 459. What did you say to him ?—I asked him where he was taking the sheep, andjris answer was that he was taking them home to get them fattened. 460. This is the statement in the Supreme Court I would remind you of. It is on page 19 :"I had just cut across the fence on to the road-line, and I met Arthur Meikle with a mob of sheep. It was not very dark. I spoke to Meikle. He had dog with him. I asked him where he was taking the sheep. He said he was taking them home to get a fat one. Road they were on was between turnips and Meikle's house. I went past him 30 or 40 yards towards my hut, then turned back and followed him 1 " —That is correct. 461. And that is what you are saying now ? —Yes. 462. I understood you to say something quite different. Then, in the cross-examination you said, " Met Arthur Meikle 300 or 400 yards from the hut. He was off turnips into road-line, going towards his house " ?—That is correct. 463. Then, in 1894, before Mr. Rawson, on page 32, you said, " I met Arthur Meikle on the company's land, on the turnips. I left him then, and went through the fence on to the road-line and waited till he came up with the sheep going on to his father's place "; and then under cross-examination you said, "He had to drive the sheep about 300 yards to get to the road. I waited till he came up with them —about half an hour." Does that statement correspond with what you are saying now ?—No, it does not. 464. Now, I would call your attention to this statement on page 44, at your own trial: " I crossed over to the fence, and waited till he got past with the sheep, and then followed him home." It is clear that is not the same statement you are making now ? —No, but that is the way Meikle did it. The facts come back to me. 465. You said then that from the turnips he drove them along to the fence, and then along the fence to the corner, and up to his father's house. How far did you watch him driving them along ?—I followed Meikle home with the sheep. 466. But you are taking him back now to the north side of the fence ?—No.
W. LAMBERT.]
173
H.—2l.
467. You have nothing further to say about the rounding of that point '{ —No. 468. You were entirely in young Arthur's confidence ? —Yes. 469. You had various visits from him before this ?—Yes, he used to come to my house. 470. You were good friends ? —Yes. 471. Was it that you did not know him at all, that from what his father had told you you reckoned he trusted you ?—I cannot say. He was very friendly with me, coining down at any time and having a drink of tea, and then going home again. 472. The sheep were taken through the white gate. What is the distance from the white gate to the sheep-yards ? —lt is not very far. 473. Can you give some sort of an estimate ?—lt might be 3 or 4 chains, perhaps more. 474. What do you say would be the size of the yard into which the sheep were driven ? —The sheepyards altogether, I fancy, would hold 200 or 250 sheep. - What would that represent in size ?—I could not tell you exactly. It does not take a very big yard for 250 sheep, anyway. 476. Tell us how these sheep were put into the smithy ? —The elder Meikle came after the sheep were in the yard ■ 477. You are sure of that now ?—Yes. 478. You were not quite sure of that before, were you I—He1 —He came before they went into the smithy, because he brought the lantern. 479. The two of them got them into the smithy ? —Yes. 480. How did they work them in ?—The lantern was put inside on a bag or something, and they were worked up to the door and two or three pushed or shoved in, and the rest followed. 481. Do you remember making a previous statement that they were shoved in one by one ?—No, I do not. , 482. I will just call your attention to it. Before Mr. Rawson in 1894 you say, on page 34, " They got the sheep up to the door, and then shoved one through at a time." You say it was only two or three that were shoved in, and the rest followed ? —Yes, there would be no necessity to shove the lot in. 483. They did not get hold of the sheep individually, and shove them in ? —No. 484. You are quite sure that this combing process to which you refer was resorted to in getting out the brand ?—Yes. 485. It is strange you have not mentioned it in the previous Court proceedings ?—I think I did. t tjAjE 4B6. How many times do you think you said it ?—I am nearly positive I mentioned it in the lower Court at Wyndham. 487. And what about the subsequent Court proceedings ?—I am not so sure about that, but lam positive I mentioned it irr the first proceedings against Meikle. Mr. Justice Edwards : The witness only answers what he is asked in any case. He goes witness-box to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, but immediately he goes beyond the answer to the question put he is told by counsel, " I wish you would keep yourself to the question, and if my friend wants any more from you he will get it by and by." You are making a point of something not being there, and I do not attach any importance to the fact of its not being there. Of course, if it is something clearly inconsistent with what the witness says in the box previously, that may or may not be of importance, according to the time that has elapsed ; but the fact that the thing is not there is not material. 488. Mr. Atkinson.] I was going to show something more than mere absence. (To witness) :He combed the brand out with a knife, were any chemicals used ?—No. 489. Did the wool come out ?—Some of it. 490. Did all the paint come out ? —Very nearly. I could not see much from where I was standing, 491. Did enough wool come out to spoil the fleece ? —No. 492. Had you ever seen that process done before ?—No. 493. How is it that you forgot such a striking circumstance as that ? How is it that you forgot to inform your company's counsel of such a striking circumstance, and that it would only come back to your mind nineteen years afterwards ? —I do not know; I mentioned it before. lam positive of that. 494. Yes, we have it that you mentioned it to two gentlemen before the proceedings ; but you cannot explain why you did not mention it in the subsequent proceedings ?—No, I cannot. 495. Of course, I put it to you that if you did not see the thing at all you might very easily tell a different story on different occasions ? —But I happened to see this. 496. Did it seem to you a wise precaution for a sheep-stealer to get the brand off ?—I do not know. Different men have different methods, I suppose. 497. As a matter of fact, I suppose on the face of it such a tampering with the mark would show to anybody who knew anything about sheep that there had been a theft committed ? —Yes, it would. 498. It was after all this was done that Meikle said he would defy the company ? —Yes. 499. Suppose you had gone to the station straight away, could you not have had half a dozen witnesses down at once and have had the police on the scene soon after daylight ? —Excuse me, I told them at the station next day. 500. Do you swear you told them the next day ? —I would not swear, but I know it was as soon as possible after. 501. You did not go up that night ? —No. 502. Could not the whole thing have been settled absolutely if that had been done ? Could you not have had half a dozen witnesses if prompt action had been taken ? —I suppose so. I told Mr. Stuart about it. That was all I had to do.
H.—2l.
174
|_W. LAMBEHT.
503. You were not sufficiently interested in your £50 to make a big effort like that ?—I told Stuart, I think, the next day —certainly it was not long after. 504. Now, with regard to the other marks. Do you remember what you said about the ear-marks in the lower Court ? —I do not remember what I said. 505. Or whether what you then said was the same as you stated in the Supreme Court a month later ? —I do not remember now. 506. On page 4 of the original depositions in 1887, under cross-examination, you said, " The sheep was killed in my presence. I cannot say what brand was on it. For all I know it may have been one of Meikle's. I supposed it was one of the company's sheep. I did not see the brand on it. I did not notice the earmark." Then, in the following month, before the Supreme Court at Invercargill, you stated (page 19 of Meikle's book), " After sheep dressed he returned, told his son to cut fire brand and earmark off, and to cut them up into small pieces. That was done. Earmark was two notches, either back or front. That was company's earmark. I did not see brand on sheep that was killed." Now, is there any possibility of confusion there—that in the lower Court you did not notice the brand, and in the Supreme Court you say you did : " I only saw the earmarks on that sheep, but it was one of the mob driven in " ?—That is so. 507. You had already stated to the Justices that you did not notice the earmark ?—I saw the earmark on that sheep, but could not swear positively whether it was the company's earmark or not, and then I told them what the company's earmark was. I did not say that that was the earmark of the company on that sheep. 508. "He told his son to cut fire brand and earmark off, and to cut them into small pieces. That was dons. Earmark was two notches, either back or front. That was company's earmark." Do you mean to say that you were simply telling the Court what the company's brand was, or that you did not know whether it was the company's earmark or not ? —That is what I meant. 509. At page 20, in cross-examination, you say " Saw earmark. Did not say before that I had noticed earmark." You did state that you did not notice earmark ?—Yes. 510. Did you notice the fire brand ?—No, I only heard what they said about that. I was aware they cut off the fire brand, but did not notice what it was, as far as I can remember. 511. On page 19 you said, " When I came out I met prisoner with lantern, carrying dressed sheep. The brand was on side of nose " ? —That was where the company branded their sheep. 512. You were simply making a general statement with regard to the company's practice, and not with regard to what you saw on that individual sheep ?—I could not see the brand on a dressed sheep, because the head was taken off. 513. I take it you were not saying that you could see a fire brand on a headless sheep ?—No. 514. Do you ask their Honours to believe that you were simply stating what the company's practice was, and not what you saw ? —I do not understand. 515. The statement is, " The brand was on the side of the nose " ?—That is the company's practice. 516. Did that mean that you saw it on the sheep or that you did not ?—I did not see it on the sheep, but I know the brand was ordered to be cut off. 517. What you said was that the brand was orr the side of the nose. You did not mean that you had seen the brand on the side of the nose ?—No, I simply said what I heard Meikle order his son to do. 518. You were not sure whether there was a ram there or not. It was only what you heard ?— I remember perfectly that there was a ram —so-many fat ones, so-many poor ones, and one ram. 519. Now, with regard to the date ?—Do you swear that you never definitely fixed the date as the 17th in the Supreme Court ? —No, I did not. 520. You admit that you did fix the date as the 17th, and that you had made a mistake in the date ? —Yes. " 521. Mr. Justice Edivards.] He made a mistake, because he was told that a particular occurrence had taken place on that night. You relied on Gregg for the calendar date, did you not ? —Yes, 522. You knew both events happened on the same day, and Gregg told you the date of that day ? —Yes. 523. Mr. Atkinson.] You do not deny that you did swear that the 17th was the date ?—Yes, qualifying it by McGeorge going away and the night I was at Gregg's. 524. You say you got the date from Mr. Gregg, at Invercargill ? —Yes. 525. That would be leaving it rather late, would it not ?—lt may have been, but that is the case, though. 526. Was not the point raised before the Magistrate ?—I do not remember whether it was or not. 527. You stated in your examination-in-chief, in the 1887 depositions, " It was about the 17th October ; was at Gregg's." Then did you not fix it precisely in your cross-examination ? I will read from your cross-examination at the bottom of page 3: " t remember 17th of October. I was at Gregg's. I took a note of it." The note which you then produced is something as to what we have here ? —Yes. 528. You never said anything about fixing the date with reference to McGeorge before the Justices ? —I do not remember. 529. You do not appear to have fixed it in the Supreme Court until it came to cross-examination ? —I do not remember. 530. At page 19 you say, "On the night of 17th October was at Meikle's first; then went over to Gregg's ... I remember night by McGeorge going away." You did not think it necessary, though a private detective, to take anything better than Gregg's word as to what the date was ?—That is so ; I did not give it much thought at all.
W. LAMBERT. I
175
H.—2l.
531. Do you remember what you swore to in 1894 with reference to the date ?—No, I do not. 532. Do you remember whether you swore that it was the day that McGeorge left ?—T may have. I would not swear whether I did or not. I know that th<) night McGeorge went away and the night I was at Gregg's was the night Meikle stole the sheep. 533. This is your statement as it appears made before Mr. Rawson in 1894 : " About the day McGeorge left the hut —I kept no account of dates —I was up at Gregg's to borrow some matches "?— That is so. 534. Is it so ?—The night I was at Gregg's is the day McGeorge went away. 535. You stated that the identity of the date was fixed by McGeorge's departure. You are perfectly certain that that was the day on which the sheep were stolen ?—Yes. 536. And also that that was the date that you were at Gregg's ? —Yes. 537. When first taxed with this after Meikle came out of gaol, this is your statement: " About the day McGeorge left I was up at Gregg's to borrow some matches " ?—Yes. 538. Does not that at once show you that McGeorge's departure was not the day by which you fixed the theft ?—McGeorge's departure was on the same day as I was at Gregg's. 539. Then when you said it was only about the same day that was not correct ? Dr. Findlay : My learned friend knows that Gregg says the same thing. Mr. Atkinson : The point is what the witness has sworn to. It is not a question of fact. Mr. Justice Edwards : What difference does rt make if he said " about " on one occasion ? Mr. Atkinson : I should think all the difference in the world. It is a question of what is in his mind. If he has fixed the real ey,ent by the date of McGeorge's departure Mr. Justice Edwards : He fixed it positively by going to Gregg, and said that was the date McGeorge went away. There does not seem to me to be anything in it. Ido not take the slightest notice of it at all. 540. Mr. Atkinson (to witness).] In cross-examination you said that you took a note of the day but not of the date that McGeorge left the hut. What note have you taken of the day ? —Nothing but the fact of being at Gregg's house. 541. You took no note of day or date, but took note of the two events ? —That is so. 542. Is that what you mean by noting the day ?—Yes. 543. Did you also say, " I never said the crime was committed on the 17th, it was on or about " ? —I may have said it, but Ido not remember saying it. It is correct, I suppose. 544. Will you admit that you swore to its being the 17th ? —I admit swearing that, certainly, but qualifying it. Mr. Justice Edivards : He seems to have said " on or about " in the Court below, but when he got to the Supreme Court he, very foolishly, thought he had got it fixed. 545. Mr. Atkinson.] There was no day of the week even noted in your memo.-book ?—No. But I think it was on the Wednesday. 546. At page 46 you are noted as having sworn, " I don't think I swore it was the 17th. I swore it was the day I was at Gregg's hut, or about the time McGeorge left." That is not in accordance with your memorandum, is it ?—No. 547. On each previous occasion when you had been swearing to making a note you were always referring to a day and not to a date ? —Yes. 548. You have forgotten the conversation in Invercargill with Meikle on the Bth November ?— Yes 549. You referred in your evidence there to having made a note of the date ? —Yes. 550. Do you remember what sort of a note that would be ?—I forget now; it is a long time ago. 551. I understand you to say that if the 17th was so wet a day as described, McGeorge would not have started ?—No, he would not have started. 552. Supposing it was a nice morning ?—lf it had been a nice morning he might start. 553. Did I understand you to say that it would be twenty-five miles to Mataura ? —I think it is, round the road by Wairikiki. I never saw a dray going through the gorge. 554. What journey are you treating as twenty-five miles ? —Going to the station and to Mataura. 555. What was the distance to Mataura from the Islay Station ? —Twelve or thirteen miles. 556. And from the hut to Mataura ? —About the same. 557. It is about sixteen miles, according to my instructions ? —1 could not say to a mile or two. 558. With regard to the question of these skins, you are quite clear that you never said anything to Meikle about the putting of them on to the property ? —Yes, quite clear. 559. Neither to him nor to anybody else ?—That is so. 560. And that wherever he got the information from that he gave to Detective Ede on 3rd October it would not be from you ?—No. 561. Is it also not true that you asked McGeorge for some skins a week or two before he left ?—I never mentioned skins to him—not for that purpose. 562 Ido not suggest for that purpose. Did you mention the matter to him at all ?—-He might have taken skins to the station. 563. I mean did you ask him to get two skins for mats ? —No, I did not. 564. Why are you sure about that ?—lf I wanted two skins Ido not see why I should ask McGeorge for them. I could get them without-asking for them at all. 565. What was the arrangement at the station with regard to skins—had you a free hand, could you help yourself to skins as you liked ? —No. 566. What would you have done if you had wanted skins ? —I could have taken skins if I had wanted to. 567. Could you have picked them up round the hut ? —Yes.
[W. LAMBEBT.
H.—2l.
176
568. On page 45, how is it that you said, " It is not true I asked McGeorge for two skins before he left"?— Yes. . 569. Have you any recollection of what the skins were like—of the age of the skins ?— J could not say what age they might be, they might be fifteen or twenty days, as far as I remember. They were nice fresh skins, anyhow. 570. In 1895 you said (page 46), " The skins were not six weeks old. I say they were not older than fifteen days. They were just nicely dry." You cannot alter that from memory ?— No. 571. It would be somewhere early in September that you first met Meikle, when you came to Islay ? —It was a while after. 572. About the middle of September ?—Yes. 573. Do you remember a conversation with Meikle on the day of Stuart's arrival ?—I cannot say that I do. 574. Do you remember telling Meikle that somebody was coming smarter than you, or words to that effect ?—No. 575. You say (page 20), " I told Meikle that another man had come to find out how sheep were going. That was the day Stuart came. Never said so to any one else " ?—I may have told him ; I do not remember it. 576. You do not remember whether you told George Davis ?—No. 577. Do you remember a conversation about a week later with Meikle in which you referred to " daisies " of letters that you had seen ?—No. I do not remember anything about the letters at all. 578. Two " daisies " of letters-shown to you by Mr. Troup ?—No. 579. Your home was at Mataura ? —Yes. 580. Have you any recollection of being in Mataura at that time at all ?—No. I may have been there, but I could not say whether I was there on the 17th or not. 581. You told Dr. Findlay that you did not remember seeing Fraser there ?— That rs so. I do not remember seeing him there. _ . 582. You do not remember a conversation with him or Constable Leece of which he speaks, which you preface by saying " For Goodness' sake keep me away from that constable " ? —No ; I had no occasion to say that to him. 583. You'swear there is no such conversation ?—I do not remember such a conversation. 584. In 1888, do you remember whether your memory was clear on the subject ? At page 46 you said, " Nothing as to what Fraser said about Constable Leece happened " ?—I believe that is correct, 585. If you were in Mataura on that day, can you say about what time of the day it would be ?— No. It might have been in the morning or it might have been in the evening ; I could not say. 586. Mr. Fraser swore it was in the evening, and that you did not leave him till 8 or 9 —are you prepared to deny that now ?—Certainly not. 587. But you did deny it in 1895 '?—I may have, but I have no recollection of meeting Fraser. I may have met him, but I would not swear that I did not. ' 588. At that time you swore that you had not met him unless it was in the morning, but now your memory is gone. Following on what I have read, you said, " I did not see Fraser day Barclay was castrating the colt, unless it wa? m the morning." You remember being with Barclay at Waddell's one wet day ?—Yes. 589. Can you remember whether you safl Fraser on that day ?—No, Ido not remember seerng Fraser at all. t 590. You are not prepared to say you did not see mm on the evening of that day ?—I do not thrnk I did. 591. In 1895 you swore distinctly that you did not ?—I do not know what I then swore. Mr. Justice Edwards : He made that statement in 1895 ? • Mr. Atkinson : Yes. Mr. Justice Edwards : That was eight years after. I cannot see how a man can swear positively as to that. The witness is called upon for an answer, and he says, "I am sure it is_ so." You cannot possibly say that he is committing perjury because it turns out so after the lapse of time. Of course, if he pledged his oath after the occurrence to a particular fact, that is a different matter. Mr. Justice Cooper : Did he swear to that circumstance—not having met Fraser—in the trial of 1887? Dr. Findlay : No, sir, it did not arise. Mr. Atkinson : I would put it, your Honours, that the conscientious answer, considering|the* : distance of time, would be, " To the best of my recollection, I was not there." Mr. Justice Edivards : Where is the statement ? Mr. Atkinson : Page 46, about half way through the first column. His Honour : You do not seriously suppose, Mr. Atkinson—you have been a Judge's secretary— that a Judge's notes represent all that is said in Court by a witness. The witness is very likely asked half a dozen questions, and ultimately, after the goading of counsel, he is quite sure he did not, and the Judge very probably writes down the last answer. Mr. Atkinson : He is positive as to — Mr. Justice Cooper : If it is the circumstance he denies, and not the date—if he says he never met Fraser—that is another thing. It may be a lapse of memory. Mr. Atkinson : It is immaterial to me, for this reason, as to whether this shortness of memory was a deliberate inaccuracy or not. In any case, that was eight years after the event, and now we are eleven years after that again, Any inaccuracy would be more now, and in a positive matter on which the witness would not be clear at the time would clearly tend to outweigh the positive value of testimony at that time. lam not concerned trying to judge him by the case,
W. LAMBERT.]
177
H.—2l.
592. Mr. Atkinson (To witness).] Do you remember in which direction you went with Waddell that day ?—Yes. 593. Which way ?—Out the Dunedin road. 594. In the direction of your hut, or the other direction ?—Bight towards the station. 595. Then you clearly agree that you went both in the direction of Dunedin ? —Yes, that is the day we were castrating the colt. 596. How far did you go ?—I think I went as far as Perry's. Barclay went in there, and I went on. 597. How far is that ?—From Waddell's ? 598. Yes ? —I suppose, nearly four miles. 599. And then from there ?—On to my hut ? 600. Without calling to Mataura ?—I was the opposite way to Mataura. 601. Then it should be quite clear to your mind that you could not have seen Fraser at Mataura that night ?—Quite so. The night I was castrating the colt I did not see Fraser. 602. Have you any recollection of the weather that day ? —Yes, it was not very good. 603. You got back to the hut that night or day, whichever, it was ; then do you remember seeing Meikle the day you got back or the day after ?—I could not remember whether I saw him then or not. 604. Do you remember calling at his house, having heard his boy had been very ill ?—I remember when young Meikle was ill, I could not say whether it was then or not; I fancy not. 605. Do you remember any conversation at all ?—When the young fellow was ill ? 606. Yes. Did you make any inquiries about the boy ?—-Yes, I asked one day how he was getting on. 607. Did you say, " He was near pegging out last night " ?—No. 608. Do you remember saying you " Had a good boose at Mataura last night " ?—No. 609. You did not use either of these expressions ? —No. 610. Meikle has sworn you used these expressions on the 18th October ?—No. 611. If Fraser has sworn this, do you contradict him ?—I do. 612. You said that the time Meikle started for Dunedin was about this time ?—lt was about that time. I know he left for Dunedin some time about then with a horse. 613. You could not remember the date ? —I know he left for a week at some time. 614. About the 19th ? Do you remember you saw him every day or so before he left ?—Quite likely. 615. You knew he was going, and saw him when he came back ?—Quite likely. 616. I think you told us that you did not visit his house while he was away ? —I do not know whether I did or not. 617. Were you about the property, or did you work rabbiting ?—I was about there as usual. It is quite likely I did. 618. Can you recall when you were last at Meikle's before the police searched ?—Yes, I think the last time I was there I went to sharpen a knife. 619. Before that, and soon after his return from Dunedin, do you remember making any remark to him about the precautions the company were taking in marking the sheep ?—I do not remember it, but I suppose I did tell them about the private mark. I forget now, but it is quite likely I did tell him. I do not remember telling him. 620. Was this marking done at the time of the muster ? —The general muster ? 621. The muster on the pre-emptive right ?—I could not tell you that. 622. You heard, of course, a day or two ago, which Trotter fixes as being the 26th or 27th October, of the muster of the sheep on the pre-emptive right. You have no recollection of the date yourself ?— No. 623. Was that a usual time for the company to be mustering ? —lt all depends—some people muster any time, barring when the sheep are lambing. 624. That is what I yvas coming to, what is the lambing season in that part of the world ?—Some of them would be lambing then. 625. I take it that there was a special reason for the muster on the pre-emptive right ?—Yes, there would be. 626. Coming on to this knife-sharpening business ?—How near can you fix the date of that with reference to the search by the police ?—Oh, within a few days, anyhow. 627. Was it within a day or two ?—lt may have been, Ido not think it was the night before. 628. Was it the night before ?—I do not think so. 629. Do you remember when Arthur Meikle was arrested ?—Yes. 630. What day was that ?—I remember them bringing him to Mataura. Ido not remember the day. 631. Do you remember how long after the search ?—I could not say. 632. It is not in dispute that it was the day after the search—the search was two days, and Arthur was arrested on the day after ? Dr. Findlay : The 4th November. 633. Mr. Atkinson.] They arrested on the 4th, and the police searched on the 2nd and 3rd. Are you quite clear that it was not the night before the police came in ?—I do not think it was. 634. And you will not swear positively ?—No, I will not. 635. You did swear positively at some previous proceedings. The question was put to you in 1887. Your first statement about it was in 1887 (page 20, Supreme Court, at Meikle's trial). "Left before arrest of Arthur Meikle : left before 3rd November : one or two nights before." If even one or two nights before, that would fit it on the nightbefore ?—I could not say. 636. It would, clearly give the day ?—I suppose it would.
23— H. 21.
[W. LAMBERT.
178
H.—2l.
637 Did you not swear subsequently in 1895 that it was not the night before the police came (naee 46) ■ " I went one night to get a knife sharpened, I do not think the night before police came. And in cross-examination, " After that I had my knife sharpened in the smithy. That was not the night before the police came." That is more definite than you are putting it now ?-I would not be sure, Ido not think it would be the night before the police came. I would not swear. 638 You would not swear that way if you were not sure m 1895 ?—I do not think so. Dr Findlay ■ You have just read his examination-in-chief. You want to read the two together. 639 Mr Atkinson.] I read that as well as the positive statement in cross-examination that it was not the night before the police came. Who did you apply to when you went to get the knife sharpened i —That I could not tell you. 640. What time of the day was it ?—lt was about 6 o clock, after 1 had tea. 641. Or even a bit later ?—I do not think it was much later. 642. What time do you have your tea ?—Somewhere about 6 o'clock. 643 And you had to go what distance ?—A mile after that. 644. Where did you go that evening after you got your knife sharpened ?-Do you mean drrectly after' 645. Yes, the same evening ?—I do not know. I might have gone over to the hut where Harvey was stopping ; quite likely I went over there. _ 646 Had you any reason for getting the knife sharpened ?-Yes, I was going to kill some sheep at the station. ~, ~ , ~ 647 Did you spend the night in the hut or go on to the station ?-I did not go on to the station. It is quite likely I went to the hut, and had a pitch with the others, and went down to my hut afterir 648 Your memory is not clear on that point ?—No, but that is very likely what I would do. 649 You stated previously, I think, when things were fresher in your mmd, that you went home to Mataura that night, or at least you went home that night ?-Drd I say to Mataura ? 650 Well you said ten miles. At the end of the examination you say, referring to that occasion, " I left Meikle's, and went home ten miles " ?-That might be so. If I did I did not stop very long at 65L Was it not sixteen miles the way you used to go ?—I do not think it was that distance the way we used to go through Brown's place ; it was a beaten track. 652. You think you did go home that night ?-If I did I did not stop at Meikle s very long after the knife was sharpened. 653 Who helped you with the sharpening of the knife ?—Arthur Merkle. 654. Did you see Meikle himself that night ?—I think he drd come out 655. Had you any conversation ?-I could not swear positively that I drd see Merkle, but I belreve W <356 Then it is no use asking you as to any conversation—you remember nothing I—No, Ido not 657. Was there any complaint that it was an odd time of night to get a knife sharpened {—Not that I remember. Ido not think there was. 658 This knife was sharpened in the smithy ?—Where the grrndstone was. 659 And Arthur worked it for you, and that was the last visit to Merkle s before, I suppose, they were both arrested-in fact you would not be again in the place after that ?-I could not remember whether I was or not. 660 You did not come in with the police ?—No. , 661. You did not take part in the search ?—No, I did not know when they were coming in. I just told them the facts of the case. I never knew when they were coming. 662. When did you see Stuart before the knife-sharpening ?—I used to see him every few days— perhaps a day running I would not see him. 663 Did you see him a day or two before this ?—Very likely 1 did. 664. Had you spoken to Harvey about this knife-sharpening ?—I cannot remember whether I did or not —I may have. , ~ . 665. I will try to recall it to you. Do you remember Harvey sayrng something about his feet being sore, and referring you to Arthur ?— No, I do not. '666. Do you remember Arthur going in to get the key ?—No. 667. Had you got any bag with you ?—No, I had not. 668 No blankets or anything else ?—What would I take my blankets up there for ? I would have to fetch them a mile back again, as I would have to pass my hut when I left Meikle's to go home. 669 I will put this to you in order to get at the other side : Was rt not a little bit out of your way to go to Meikle's to get a knife sharpened if you on to Mataura ten miles the same night ? —No, Ido not think it was. 670. Was Meikle's on the way to Mataura ?—No. 671. Was it not ten miles exactly in the opposite direction ?—Yes. Dr Findlay: He did not say that he came to get his knife sharpened. 672. Mr. Atkinson.] What did you come for ?—I do not know exactly. I took the knife up 673." You did not go inside the house ?—I do not think I did. 674 And you had some killing-work in view ?—Just a sheep. 675 In 1894 you were questioned on the point before Mr. Rawson, and your answer (page 35 of depositions) was, "I do not remember anything>bout a_ grindstone." Was your mind a complete blank then ?—No, it should not have been. 676. And you have told us all you can recollect now about it ?—Yes.
\V. LAMBERT.]
179
H.—2l
677. I wonder whether you would recognise that map (handing witness a map) ?-—No, I do not. 678. You say in your evidence at your own trial (top of page 44), " I recognise plan as being correct " ?—I think this was pointed out to me —how the places were situated. Mr. Atkinson : It may be of some assistance to your Honours. This is a plan of the locality. Mr. Justice Cooper : That is a small plan. Mr. Atkinson : It is good for the general lie of the country. I will put it in with the other one. His Honour : You had better put them in at the close of your examination. Dr. Findlay : The roller-plan is the one —the large plan produced at Meikle's prosecution, and the small one just put in is that produced at Lambert's prosecution. His Honour : This roller-plan was specially examined on by some of the witnesses yesterday, and we cannot understand the evidence unless we have it. Mr. Atkinson : Yes, Mr. Troup, your Honour. 679. Mr. Atkinson (to witness).] You made a statement in your examination-in-chief with regard to the payment of the £50. It seems that you stated on previous occasions that the money had not been paid ?—That is so. 680. How long after it was due was payment delayed ? —A long time —a good while 681. How long ?—More than twelve months—twelve months or more. 682. Was it more than two years ? —lt may have been ; I know it was more than twelve months— about twelve months. 683. How is it that on previous occasions you denied that it had been paid ?—lt was not paid to me. I never got it; Mrs. Lambert used to get it. 684. Do you mean to say that Mrs. Lambert was such an autocrat that you do not know when she is getting a large sum of money ? —She never got a large sum. 685. Was Mrs. Lambert drawing instalments month by month ? —I was away from home, and it was a good job that it was that way. 686. Tell us when you first knew there was any payment made at all on account of this £50 ?—I do not know whether it was after I came home or not. 687. When did you come home ?—1897 or 1898. 688. When did you find out there was some of it paid ? —About twelve months after, I suppose. 689. You stated, I think, after that, more than once, that you had never received any money ? —I think that is a wrong meaning to put on what I said. I said I never was paid the £50. 690. And you thought that was a fair answer when you had got some of it, and not all ?—I think I was asked if I was paid £50 for the conviction of Meikle, and I said, " No," I had not been paid. 691. Did you know at the time that your wife had been paid ?—No ; sometimes I used—more shame to me —go drinking, and they did not tell me everything. 692. Had you not some of it that way ? —I might have had. 693. Do you tell me seriously that in 1894 you were not aware the whole of that money had been paid ?—lt is not likely that I did, because when I wrote to Mr. Cameion that was the first time I knew it had been paid. 694. Mrs. Lambert had not left you, had she ? —No, I do not think so. 694 a. In the 1894 depositions, on page 33, you say, " I never got £50 from the company. No one got £50 from the company for me " ?—That is so, I wrote to them. 695. And you repeated the statement in 1895 ?—Yes. 696. And at the same time irr 1895 you stated your wife received your wages from the company ? —Yes. 697. And you are still unaware in 1895 that your wife had got the money ? —That is so. 698. Can you fix at all the date of this letter which you speak of ? One letter we have a copy of, dated the 14th November. How do you fix the date of this previous letter you speak about ?—I could not tell you. I think I was with Mr. Hayes when I got one letter. 699. Could you fix it within a week or so —was it before or after the letter of the 14th November ?—I could not say. 700. Mr. Meikle was arrested on the 7th, and this letter put in is dated the 14th ? —I never received any letters from Meikle before his arrest. 701. Then you must have received the letter offering £5,000 between the 7th and 14th ?—I could not say whether it was before the one produced or not. 702. Mrs. Lambert's statement was that it came before —that is, the Sunday after Meikle was committed for trial. Mr. Meikle was committed 'on the 21st, and that was a Monday. The Sunday before or after Meikle was committed for trial would be either the 20th or the 27th. But you are still not sure whether it would be before or after the first letter ?—That is so. 703. Was this letter produced or mentioned in the Supreme Court proceedings against Meikle ? —I think it was. There was some letter there. At my trial they were looking for a letter for days, and this was the letter. They could not find it, and they said it could not be found ; but I think they had a record of it. 704. On page 20 you refer to a conversation you had with others on the Bth November : you said, " Prisoner followed me, said if I kept my mouth shut about this matter he would summon the company for £5,000 and would share it between four of us " ? —Yes. 705. That was substantially what was in the letter ?—Yes. 706. Do you remember the four between whom this £5,000 was to be shared ? —No; there was somebody else mentioned there, but I forget. 707- Referring to your statement before the Justices on page 4 of the depositions of 1887, " Meikle said the £5,000 was to be divided between yourself, Mr. Finn, Meikle, and myself " ?—Yes, something to that effect.
H.—2l.
180
[W. LAMBERT.
708. The letter you received was somewhat similar ?—Yes, worded something like that, but I do not think the names were mentioned. f \i ) F-*-.l 709. You were careful enough to note the date of that conversation of the 8th r November at the North Star Hotel, but you did not get hold of this valuable letter ? —I forget what enabled me to fix the date. Something happened on the day when Meikle came to me which caused me to ask the date, and that is how I fixed it. That is about the only one I did fix. 710. You knew the letter to be of importance, I presume ?—Yes. 711. You are satisfied the letter came from Mr. Meikle ?—I think it did. 712. If you had the letter of the 14th in your possession at the same time you would be pretty sure ? —I do not think I retained the letter. I think Mr. Troup or somebody took the letter from me. 713. Did you read it before you lost it or passed it on ? —Yes. 714. Do you remember that in 1895 you were not prepared to swear positively that it was Meikle's letter ? —I would not swear positively now. 715. It was a mad letter for Meikle to write, assuming it was his, when he was under arrest ?— Yes, it seemed that way. 716. And it seems a mad thing for you to have lost it ? —I did not lose it, somebody got it. 717. Mr. Justice Edwards.] What became of it ?—I think I gave the letter to Mr. Troup. Mrs. Lambert brought the letter over to me where I was shearing, and I think Mr. Troup took charge of it. 718. Mr. Troup was not asked about it ? You were not asked about it at Meikle's trial ? —I do not think so. Dr. Findlay : It has been stated before that he gave it to Troup. Mr. Justice Cooper : The letter is referred to by Mrs. Lambert in her evidence, and the conversation with Troup about it. 719. Mr. Atkinson (to witness).] There was a previous reference in 1894. On the top of page 33 of the depositions of 1894 you say, " I got another letter from Meikle besides the one he has produced a copy of." You did not have three letters, did you ? —I may have. 720. How many letters did you get from him ?—I am positive I got two, at any rate. 721. You had not taken the precaution to take a copy of his letter before you parted wrth it ? — No. 722. There is a statement in the depositions of 1894, page 34, relating to the sheep incident: " The first conversation I had with Arthur Meikle was when he said he was going to get a fat one. I suppose his father had told him I was all right." What did that first conversation refer to ? —I do not know, I am sure. 723. Does it mean that you had spoken to the young fellow previous to that evening ? —Oh, I had. 724. The other statement is incorrect, or it must have been qualified by something in the context. When did you first see these stolen sheep, as you call them, after that night ?—I never saw them again. 725. Did you see some of them at the Court in Wyndham ? —Yes, I did see two. 726. Now, I just want to take you through the witnesses who are in direct conflict with you upon one point or another. You have already contradicted, in answer to Dr. Findlay, the conversation which Templeton swore to in 1887 and 1895, and agairr last week. Have you consistently denied that conversation in the other proceedings ?—I could irot remember. 727. Before Mr. Rawson you said you did not remember the conversation with Templeton. Had it completely passed out of your mind ?—I did not remember such a corrversatiorr with Templeton. 728. Can you remember now having had a conversation with Templeton about some row in a publichouse ? —I do not remember there being any row. 729. Was not there some unpleasantness at Mr. Boyd's hotel ?—No. We might have had a drink or two too many by shut-up time, and he may have said we should go home. 730. Then you contradict Harvey's statements with regard to the £50 and the sheepskins ?—Yes. 731. And Mrs. Shields's statement to the same effect ?—Yes. 732. You contradict the statements of Mr. George Davis with regard to various matters ?—Yes. 733. You contradict the following statement of George Davis : " He said something about putting skins or sheep on the place. I said, ' Did Meikle ever do you any harm ? ' He said, ' No, he did not.' I said, ' Don't you interfere ; let them do their dirty work themselves, or you will be getting into trouble.' " You derry any such statement as that by Davis ?—Yes. 734. What about 100 lb. grass-seed in the hut ? You had no conversation such as that with him ? —No. 735. You made no proposal to hinr with regard to some barbed wire ? —No. 736. With rrgard to Arthur Meikle, you are in the same conflict as to the £50 and the sheep and the skin in Mr. Meikle's house ?—Yes ; I never mentioned to any one that I was to put skins on Meikle's place, or sheep either. 737. Coming to your own trial, you contradicted the statement of Mr. Henderson, who had been Registrar of the Supreme Court at Meikle's trial, as to the date —as to whether you had sworn to the 17th October ?—I remember that Mr. Henderson wanted to appear for me at my trial in the Court. 738. I will put first of all this statement to you, and then you can recollect it. Of course Mr. Henderson was also a witness as to whether you had sworn to a date ?—Yes. 739. Is this correct —Mr. Henderson's evidence on page 31 : "I was standing at door of hotel. lam sure he knew me. He referred first to Meikle's case. I made the remark, 'It was a dreadful thing that a man could be found for fifty notes to swear another man's life away.' I can only give the gist of his answer. It was something to the effect that Meikle was no good. He said that he was a bad b , and that he would give him more yet. He looked past me and saw some man making a sign to him, and he left me. I then irrquired, and found out who he was." You absolutely contra-, diet Henderson's statement ?—I do.
181
W. LAMBEET.]
H.—2l.
740. You were going to make some explanation ? —He said I should get good counsel, and I asked who he would recommend, and he replied he thought he was good enough. 741. He was touting for a job he could not get, and then he turns round and lies against you in the Court ?—Yes. 742. Then as to Mr. and Mrs. Meikle —you are in conflict with their testimorry ; and, coming to your trial, there is Mr. Templeton's evidence, which has been repeated here ; and Mrs. Howe, the nurse, who was called at Mr. Meikle's trial. It is on page 36 she says, " I remember seeing Lambert there. I saw him more than once. He said he was to get £50 from Cameron and Troup to put skins on Meikle's place to catch Meikle," and so on. You contradict all that ?—Yes. 743. And Harvey also ?—Yes. 744. Mr. Fraser I have dealt with in detail, both as to your being at Mataura on that wet night, also conversation with Constable Leece when you were talking with Fraser ?—Yes. 745. You contradict McGeorge as to his statement that you asked him for two skins, and the statement that he made in 1895 that he left some skins hanging for you on the fence ?—Yes. 746. You heard Perkins swear here, two days ago, that when he was employed by Meikle in September he was ploughing alongside the pre-emptive right, and that he asked you to take the comparry's sheep off, and that you mentioned to him that you were to get £50 for trapping Meikle. Is every word of that incorrect ?—There is none of it correct. 747. Have you made any similar reference to any other people—similar to what Henderson swore to ?—I do not think so. 748. Do you know Mr. Redding, who kept a billiard-room once in Gore ?—Yes, I know him. 749. Did you go to his house ? —No, I was never there. 750. Never played a game of billiards in the billiard-room ? —Oh, yes, I have done that. I thought you referred to his private house. 751. Did you ever discuss Meikle's case with him there ?—I do not remember having done so. 752. I put it to you in order to recall it to you, if possible. Mr. Redding asked you about Meikle, and further details are mentioned ? —I never mentioned such a thing. 753. Dr. Findlay.] About five of these people say you were to get £50 to put skins upon Mr. Meikle's land or buildings. Mr. Meikle swears you said you would put them in the smithy or barn. You denied that this morning ?—Yes. 754. Now, it is suggested to you that you came along with a knife in order to get it sharpened, that you knew there was a grindstone in the smithy, and, under pretence of getting the knife sharpened, you got entrance to the smithy in order that you might put two sheep-skins in there. Now, were there any other places on this farm where you could have put the two skins ?—Plenty. 755. This was not the only place ?—No. 756. So that you cannot recall any special reason why you should want the barn in order that you might plant the skins in that particular spot ? —No ; there was a shed away down the paddock where they could have been put. 757. And in the stable, for instance ?—Yes. 758. Were you to get the £50 only if you put them in the smithy ?—No. 759. Now, you tell us that your taking your blankets up to Meikle's would mean carrying them back again ?—That is so. 760. He, being a very careful man, asked what was in your pack, and you said your blankets. Would he not know they would not be blankets for your own use that you were carrying there and back to your hut ?—I suppose so. 761. It was put to you seriously eight years after you gave evidence ?—I do not remember anything about the grindstone. 762. You remember that you swore to the grindstone on a previous occasion ?—I think I did. . 763. Now, as to this second letter you received. Do you remember whether or not that letter was missing at the trial of Meikle ?—Yes. 764. Do you remember mentioning the fact of the letter to the Crown Prosecutor, Mr. McDonald ? —I think I do. Mr. Justice Cooper : The letter seems to have been traced to Mr. Troup. Dr. Findlay : I asked Mr. Troup, and he said that he could not remember the letter. Mr. Justice Cooper : It should be either affirmed or denied. Dr. Findlay : I can call Mr. Troup again. The Crown Prosecutor's recollection is that the letter was mentioned at the first trial of Meikle. Robert Troup recalled. 765. Dr. Findlay.] I want to ask you about a letter from Meikle to Lambert —not the one on 14th November —in which reference was made to the sharing of £5,000. Do you remember it being said that Lambert received a letter from Meikle in which an offer to divide £5,000 was made ?—I remember well the letter being spoken about. 766. Was that at the first trial ?—The trial of 1887. That was the only trial I was at. 767. Lambert says that his recollection is that the letter was handed over to you ? —lf it was handed over to me I do not remember it. 768. You do not remember receiving it ?—I am almost certain I never received it. 769. Who was there in November ? —Stuart. 770. When did you come back to the station ?—About the end of December, immediately before the Supreme Court case in Invercargill. 771. If the letter was handed over to the manager it would be to Stuart ?—Yes. 772. You remember this letter being spoken about at the first trial of Meikle ?—Yes.
182
[R. TROUP.
H.—2l.
773. How long were you there as manager after the conviction of Meikle '<—About two years, more or less. . . , , 774. You told their Honours that before Meikle's conviction the company was losing sheep, and had lost over one thousand in the preceding year ? Mr Atkinson : That is going on to events subsequent to the conviction. Dr Findlay : It is surely admissible. What I desire to ask the witness is this :he continued as manager of the company for two years ; sheep were on the same piece of land from which these sheep had disappeared the year before ; and his evidence is to the effect that after Meikle s conviction they lost no sheep for two years, although musters were regularly taken. Mr Justice Cooper : What inference is to be drawn from that. Dr. Findlay : If before the conviction of Meikle these sheep were regularly disappearing, and after his conviction they ceased to disappear, the inference was that he was rightly convicted. Mr Justice Cooper : Another inference might be drawn : that the sentence of seven years—assuming he was an innocent man—frightened away the sheep-stealers, who did not continue their depredations any longer. That inference may be drawn. Dr Findlay : Quite so, my friend, and I may draw different inferences. Mr Justice Edwards : There are no rules of evidence in this inquiry—we have not attempted to keep any. Three-fourths of the rules of evidence have been abused on both sides. You could not stop a question like this, of course. Any inference you like can be drawn from it. Mr. Atkinson : lam not taking any objection on technical grounds. lam taking objection on the ground that it is introducing a line of evidence which it is impossible to meet. Mr Justice Cooper : It is capable of two inferences which may be drawn. Mr Atkinson : If my friend thought that the one to be drawn outside the Court was the one you had suggested he would not lead the evidence. Am I entitled to bring evidence to show that my client lost three-fourths of his sheep during the first years he was in prison, and to ask the Court to draw the inference that the company stole them ? 775 Dr Findlay (to witness).] You continued about two years. A muster was made in August, and another muster was made in October of the sheep on this pre-emptive right land near Meikle s farm?—ln 1887 ? , , T 776. Yes ; the muster showed that in these two months how many sheep had disappeared «—1 think it was eighty-seven. , . , c , • ■ *■ » v 777. You have given us the number that disappeared in the year of his conviction '—Yes. 778 When was the next muster made ?—About the New Year of 1888. 779! Was there any muster made after that ?—There would be a muster for dipping, one tor shearing and perhaps they might transfer the leasehold-sheep to other parts for a period. ' 780 How many musters do you have in the year ?—Two, anyway, or three. 781 You have told us what happened before Meikle's conviction. What was found on the conclusion of these musters ?— No loss worth recording on the leasehold or on the other part. 782. Mr. Justice Cooper.] I understood you to say that something like a thousand sheep were stolen in the previous twelve months ?—Yes. 783. Do you suggest that Meikle stole those thousand ?—No, Ido not. Mr Atkinson : Then other people must have been stealing sheep ? Mr. Justice Cooper : I should think if a man stole a thousand sheep in twelve months it would not require a private detective to sheet it home to him. _ 784 Dr Findlay (to witness).] Do you remember how many musters were made in 1888 <—Iwo. 785~ Throughout the two years following Meikle's conviction the losses which had been so large before ceased altogether ?— Yes, it became extinct; there were no losses worth recording 786 We have it on evidence that twenty-six sheep and one ram were found upon Meikle s farm We have had it from the police that the sheep on Meikle's were mustered and twenty-six were drafted out I want you to tell me whether, looking at the circumstances, a person could have accurately counted the number of sheep and the rams on Meikle's land without such a muster as the police made ?—lt would depend on the number of sheep Meikle had. 787. Eight hundred ?—lf you put twenty-six sheep in amongst eight hundred you must have new men to ascertain exactly what you have. 788. You mean it cannot be done ?—Yes, unless you have some special class ol sheep. 789 You must have a muster ?—Yes. You must get them together. 790 Mr Atkinson.] Were there any changes in the company's staff in the period of two years which you were at Islay after Meikle's conviction ?—There are always little changes, but Ido not recollect exactly what changes there were. 791. When did Mr. Christie come ?—ln the year of 1890, as far as I can remember. 792 Are you sure it was not the year earlier ?—I would not swear to it. 793. Now, with reference to that letter. Dr. Findlay put it to you that there was a letter spoken of at Meikle's trial ?—There was a letter spoken of at Meikle's trial about this £5,000. 794 You know there was one letter produced there ?—What were its contents ? 795. Tell us what you know about the contents ?—I was not present at Islay during the latter times, so that I never saw it unless I saw it in the Court. _ _ 796. Where did you hear about the contents of the letter to which Dr. Findlay called your attention ?—Just from the other employees on the station, and at the Court. 797 You are a careful man, and kept a diary very punctiliously, and I suppose if a letter ol that importance came into your custody you would not have lost the run of it ?—lt just depended a good deal on the value that the latter might be. 798. If a letter of great importance ?—lt certainly was deserving of being taken account ot.
183
H.—2l.
E. TROUP.]
799. Are you familiar with Mr. Meikle's barn and cow-shed ?—No, I cannot say I am. 800. You could not explain a point in the plan ? —lt is nineteen years ago since I was on the place, and I never was so intimate with the place as to be able to speak to it. 801. You were questioned about your conversation with Constable Leece with regard to his recommending of a private detective which ended in the employment of Lambert. Is there anything you can fix the date by ? —The letter sent by Cameron to me after going to Dunedin. It was prior to that that the conversation was heard. 802. How long prior ? —The letter would identify it. It was not long prior. 803. Mr. Justice Cooper.] Do you recollect whether you ever saw the letter that Meikle is said to have written to Lambert ?—I never saw it. 804. Mrs. Lambert says she not only showed it to you, but gave it to you ? —I never saw it. 805. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Mrs. Lambert spoke in 1895 ?—Mrs. Lambert must have made a mistake, because if it had been shown to me I would have remembered it. I have a good memory. The Commission adjourned until Monday, 14th May, at 10.30 a.m., at the Supreme Court, Wellington.
Wellington, Monday, 14th May, 1906. John Daniel Redding, examined. 1. Mr. Atkinson.] What is your full name ?—John Daniel Redding. 2. You are manager of the Wellington Social Club ?—Yes. 3. In Brandon Street ? —Yes. 4. And formerly you kept a billiard-room in Gore ?—Yes. 5. During what years were you keeping this place in Gore ? —I could not say. I was there some seven or eight years. 6. You cannot tell us even approximately ?—Between the eighties and the nineties. 7. Did you ever see William Lambert in your place when you were there ? —Yes. 8. Did you ever have any conversation with him about Meikle's case ?—Just on one occasion. 9. Tell us exactly what took place, as well as you can recollect the event. Was it after Meikle was convicted ?—I believe it was, to the best of my knowledge. 10. Do you know whether he was still in prison ?—I could not swear. 11. Of course you knew Lambert had been a witness ?—Yes. 12. Tell us as well as you recollect what took place ?—We were having a drink at the bar 13. Was that in your own house ? —No, it was in White's Railway Hotel. Some conversation cropped up re the Meikle case, and I happened to pass a remark to Lambert, " Did he really steal the sheep ? " and he said, " If he did not, Jack, he has before." 14. Anything further ? —No. The conversation dropped, and he went away. 15. You did not press him any further ?—No, it was nothing to me. 16. Was there then or at any other time reference made to Lambert's payment ?—I could not say. No, not that I remember. 17. Dr. Findlay.] This was a conversation at the bar in the hotel ? —Yes. 18. I suppose you do not remember: all that preceded the conversation, or what followed it ?— No, it is so long ago. 19. Just so. How many years ago, do you think ? It is between the eighties and nineties, you say ? —Yes, as far as I can recollect. It is a long time to think back. 20. No doubt it would be, supposing we were to take it as being about the time of the conviction in 1887. That would be about nineteen years ago ? —Somewhere about that. 21. You do not know what the general conversation was, you only remember this remark in it ? —Only just going to the bar together : we had been playing pool and billiards together. 22. You do not remember the context ?—No, there were a few in the bar. 23. You made no written note of it ? —No. 24. You are speaking entirely from memory ? —From bare memory. Mr. Atkinson : I have no new witnesses to call. I was going to ask to be allowed to recall Meikle in rebuttal of certain statements made, but as he will be mainly in connection with Scott's evidence, I propose to call him after Scott has given his evidence. Dr. Findlay : I desire to say that since I came to Wellington I have had an opportunity of seeing Scott. Scott, as you will remember, was sent to gaol in 1887. He has not given evidence as the other witnesses have in 1895, consequently he has had no occasion during these nineteen years to recall the events of the night he was there. I asked him for his evidence. So far at it refers to anything not personal to himself it to some extent supports all our case ; but what I feel about it is that his evidence is too vague, in my judgment, to be of service to us. Scott is here in Wellington, and my learned friend, if he wants to put him in the box, can have an opportunity of doing so. But Scott is applying now, and very vigorously, to follow the same course as Meikle in regard to his case, to have his case investigated with a view to the same end. Mr. Justice Edwards : Applying to Parliament ? Dr. Findlay : Applying to have his conviction for the horse-stealing quashed. His Honour : We will have every convicted person applying for relief after this. Dr. Findlay: All that applies to the horse-stealing case is exceedingly definite and clear in his mind, but his evidence in regard to this case is too vague, in my judgment. I have led evidence, so far, of which I have no manner of doubt, and Ido not propose to call him at present. He is in Wellington, and has a lot of documents which he will be very pleased to show Mr. Atkinson if he wants to see them. I now propose to call Mr. Mac Donald.
184
H.—2l.
[t. m. macdonald.
Thomas Morrell Mac Donald examined. 25. Dr. Findlay.] Your full name ?—Thomas Morrell Mac Donald. 26. You are Crown Prosecutor at Invercargill ?—I am. 27. And you have been for something over thirty years ? —Something over thirty-five years. 28. You prosecuted in the case of Regina v. Meikle in 1887 ? —I did. 29. The Crown had nothing whatever to do with the case in the lower Court ?—No. it ; 30. Mr. Denniston, the present Mr. Justice Denniston, was counsel with you in the higher Court ? . Yes. The rase came into my hands in the ordinary way. The prosecution was a private one before the Justices, and at the close of the prosecution, as usual, the prosecutor was asked whether he would leave the prosecution in the hands of the Crown or in the hands of the solicitor appointed by himself. It was left in the hands of the Crown Solicitor. Mr. Denniston had some business at the sittings in December, among others a criminal to defend, and some civil business. He informed me that he was the company's solicitor or counsel in Dunedin, and that as he was going to Invercargill he had been asked by the general manager to be present in Court to watch the case for the company, and to give such assistance as he thought was desirable. I then said to him, " You may as well, then, appear with me, if you don't mind." He said, " I should be very glad " ; and he did appear with me. We shared the work, and the case was carried on by both of us. 31. You were there throughout the conduct of the trial ?—I was throughout the whole trial, but I was not present during his reply. I was present during the whole of the evidence. 32. I want to call your attention to the observations to which Mr. Atkinson has referred, Judge Ward's references to Templeton. You cross-examined Templeton ?—I did. 33. Now will you tell their Honours shortly what Templeton's attitude and evidence were ?—Templeton war called to prove a conversation with Lambert, intended to show that Lambert had told him that the company had instructed him (Lambert) to go for Meikle, bat that he would stick to old Meikle. The date assigned by Templeton in his examination was the 24th September, 1887. I may say here that Lambert had already given evidence showing that he was in the employment cf the company from the beginning of September. I cross-examined hrm for the purpose of showing that a conversation, and the only conversation, with Lambert which was fixed by Templeton himself took place at a time when Lambert was not in the employment of the company, therefore rendering it extremely improbable that any such conversation as Templeton alleged took place. 34." What date did Templeton give for the conversation ?—Templeton gave 24th September. 35. Twenty-two days after Lambert had sworn that he joined the company's service ?—Twentytwo days. At that time Templeton fixed the conversation by reference to certain events, one of which was that something had taken place with regard to Lambert being turned out of the hotel; also by the presence of certain people in Wyndham at the time. In cross-examination he stuck to the 24th September vehemently, and assumed a very aggressive attitude towards me. He was very demonstrative. 36. Mr. Atkinson.] Was it mutual ?— Not at all. I was perfectly cool. 37. Dr. Findlay.] Well, go on ?—He stuck vehemently to the 24th September, and said, "Do you mean to say I came here to tell lies ? " Then I asked him would he be surprised to know that it was the 24th August. Then I challenged him with the presence of some other witnesses. He said, " I cannot speak positively without reference to books." His demeanour as a witness, I should say, was unsatisfactory. It appeared to me to show very strong partisanship for Meikle, to say the least of it. 38. Next morning Mr. MacGregor admitted that the date of the interview was the 24th August, and not the 24th September ?—He did. 39. Now, I want to call your attention to Harvey's evidence. The notes show that Harvey first stated he brought in the skins two or three days before the police came, and placed them in the smithy ? Yes, Harvey's evidence was simply to the effect that Lambert had been there the night before the police'came, giving the suggestion that Lambert had then an opportunity of putting in the skins. There was a mass' of evidence given to show that Lambert had given expression to his intention of laying the skins there, and that was the object of that evidence. 40. There he says it was two or three days before, and we have a note that he was corrected in the upper Court by reference to depositions in the lower Court, when he was trying to say they had been put there for the whole time between the warning he got and the arrival of the police. What is the meaning of the note in Judge Ward's notes, " Strike that out about the ploughing," or words to that effect ?—I clearly remember the incident that preceded that remark, which came from the witness. If your Honours will allow me just to refer to the printed notes. Mr. Justice Cooper : What is the remark ? 41. Dr. Findlay.] It is quite unintelligible to me in the printed copy—" Strrke out that about ploughing " ?—lt is in Harvey's evidence, page 25, " You might leave out that about ploughed land." 42. Mr. Justice Cooper.] It is in the text of Harvey's evidence ?—ln parenthesis. There is a paragraph two or three lines above : " Fence very deficient between prisoner's and Mincham River ; owing to grounds being ploughed stock can get through easily." That note does not convey exactly what the witness stated ; it is the purport of it, but what the witness stated was that in consequence of the land being ploughed the furrow directly under the bottom of the fence increased the distance or space between the bottom wire and the lower ground by about 5 in. 43. Dr. Findlay.] The purpose was to enable sheep to get through ?—To enable sheep to crawl under the wire which divided the ploughed land. The Judge turned to the witness and said, " What do you mean ? Where was there room for the horses to draw the plough if the plough werrt under the fence." The witness looked embarrassed and said, " Well, your Honour, please strike that out about the ploughed land " ; and I think the Judge said in somewhat stern tones, " I think so,"
T. M. MACDONALD.]
185
H.—2l.
44. I stated earlier in the hearing of this case that you received a message as Crown Prosecutor from Scott, stating that he was prepared to give evidence in support of Lambert ? —Yes. 45. Where was Scott at that time ?—He was in gaol, I think. lam pretty certain it was after his conviction. 46. Did you, in fact, get such a message ? —I did get such a message, and sent Lambert and, I think, a clerk in my office, Mr. Hamilton, who was a solicitor, to interview him to see what the evidence was, to enable me to make an affidavit upon which I could obtain a- writ of habeas corpus on which to bring him up. 47. He was not called ?—He was not called. 48. Tell their Honours why ?—The evidence I was led to suppose from the statements Lambert and my clerk made to me were that he would support Lambert's testimony as to the taking of the sheep on the night in question. After a consultation with Mr. Denniston, considering that Scott was a convicted prisoner, and that his testimony was animated by his feeling against Meikle, we thought it undesirable, considering the strength of the Crown case, to call him ; and I did not call him. I have papers on my file—l have the press copy of the affidavit upon which application for the writ of habeas corpus was sworn on the morning of the trial, 16th December. 49. That is the reason he was not called ?—That is the reason, and that is the reason why he referred to the fact that Lambert was going to be a witness. 50. Mr. Atkinson.] When did you mention to His Honour that Scott was willing to give evidence ? —I think on the 16th December —probably on the morning of the 17th. 51. Was that after the conclusion of the trial ? —No, I think it was during the trial. The papers were before me for a motion. 52. For securing Scott's attendance ? —Yes ; and I waited to make an explanation why the evidence was not being called. 53. You say it was owing to the probable animus by Scott ?—I am speaking now from recollection. 54. The fact is not that Meikle had given evidence against Scott and Scott had been convicted before you were aware of the testimony he might give ?—I think so ; I would not be absolutely certain. It was immaterial, because Meikle and his son had already given evidence against Scott in the lower Court, and I was told that Scott had a strong feeling against Meikle. 55. You say Lambert saw him and, you think, your clerk ? —Yes, I cannot be absolutely certain. 56. With reference to Templeton, you say that the evidence before the Court was that Lambert had been employed from the beginning of September ?—Yes. 57. Ido not know whether you profess to recall the thing with precision ? —I was referring to Lambert's evidence before the Supreme Court. 58. Do you dispute the accuracy of His Honour's note on page 19 : " Employed by company about beginning of September " ?—My information was that he was employed during the first week in September ; that is what I understood. 59. I am trying to get at what is before the Court and whether your recollection is clear that this note was incorrect which makes Lambert fix the date " about " the beginning of September ?—I do not think that is incorrect, but my impression was that he stated he was out of employment in the beginning of September. 60. You would'not say that this is incorrect which fixes the date by " about " ? —No, certainly not. 61. You said that Templeton's evidence implied that the company had instructed Lambert ? — No, Ido not think I said that. What I said was that it raised the extreme probability that Lambert was in the employ of the company at that time. 62. Was there anything in the conversation to imply that he was in the employ of the company ? — I think there was. I mean employment in that particular capacity. 63. What I am trying to bring out is how much was before the Court, and how much was implied by the conversation Templeton deposed to. May I put the words to you : " Lambert put his arm round my neck, and said, ' Look here, Jack, company wants me to go for poor old Meikle, but I will stick to Meikle.' " Well, there is nothing there to imply that the engagement had actually been made ?—lt seemed to imply that he had been approached. 64. Well, assuming there had been a conversation on the subject while Lambert was at Sunnyside, it would still be possible that that reference might have been made in view of that before Lambert had accepted the engagement ?—That is possible ; but I should think the inference would be the other way. 65. Did you see Lambert before the indictment was drawn ? —I do not think so. I think the indictment was drawn about a week before the sittings, if I remember rightly. 66. When did you first see Lambert in connection with the case ? —Shortly before the case came on for trial. 67. This statement had been taken before you were in the case ? —Yes. 67a. How many days before the trial ? —I am not sure, but I particularly wished to examine Lambert, on account of the peculiar position he occupied. He had a pecuniary interest in the conviction, and we wanted to see if he was likely to give his evidence at all fairly. 68. You had nothing to do with the proceedings before the Justices ?—Nothing whatever. 69. And Lambert had not been to your office in that connection previous to the visit you mention ? —I have no recollection of that, but I feel positive that he could not have done. 70. Then Templeton having assumed a hostile attitude without provocation from you you got from him before he left that his books were his ultimate criterion ? —He said something to the effect that, as to what had taken place, he toned down, and he said, " I do not know that I can speak independent of my books." Templeton having subsequently admitted his wrong, it was not necessary to call witnesses to prove that he was wrong.
24— H. 21.
186
r T. M. MaCDONALD.
H.—2l.
71. Dr. Findlay.] I want to ask you about this diary—the diary which is now in therr Honours possession, and which was brought to you in Dunedin: when was it first brought to you ?—A day or two after the Commission opened. Troup brought it to me, and from that time until it was produced in Court I had the sole custody of it. • •»."* tv. 72. Who discovered the entry on the 26th October which contains the results of the muster ol tire sheep on the pre-emptive right ?—I did, in your room when we were sitting together. You were at the time engaged in taking notes, and I was looking through the diary page by page, and came across thrs entry. I made an exclamation, and drew your attention to the fact. 73. Did any one else direct your attention or my attention to that entry ?—No one. When 1 drew your attention to the entry you at once expressed the wish to see Stuart and Trotter and the men who were at the station at the time. Troup came in shortly afterwards, and he was sent to get these men down. . ■ i 74. The diary did not leave your possession until it was handed to the Court the following morning < No. 75. Mr. Atkinson.] Are you familiar with the handwriting in the diary, or any of it ?—I am fairly familiar with Troup's, but I know nothing at all of Stuart's or Trotter's. 76. Could you recognise Troup's handwriting without reference to him ?—I thrnk I could. 77. Have you compared it since ?—No, I know it simply from general appearance and from what Troup stated. , M 78. With reference to the question as to whether Templeton's error had been admrtted to Mr. MacGregor before the witnesses were called, might I call attention to a statement in the Judge's report on page 29 ? " The first witness was one Templeton, who swore to a conversation with Lambert, getting full particulars of time and place, but finding that certain witnesses were prepared to prove an alibi for Lambert, desired Mr. MacGregor, counsel for prisoner, to retract his evrdence next morning " ; and so on ?—I think that is a mistake. Of course it is a question of recollection, but I have a strong impression that it was after the rebutting case was before the Court that Mr. MacGregor made that statement. It may have been in the morning before his address to the jury, or rt may not have been until the address was given. The Commission adjourned sine die.
WELLrNGTON, Wednesuat, 2nd January, 1907. The Commission met at 10 a.m., at the Supreme Court, Wellington. Mr. D. M. Findlay: I appear for the Crown. Dr. Findlay having now become a member of the Executive has relinquished his brief on this Commission, and I am instructed to appear with Mr Macdonald, Crown Prosecutor, Invercargill. Unfortunately, Mr. Macdonald has been suddenly taken ill and I do not think will be able to appear before to-morrow morning. But, your Honours I am merely second counsel in the matter with Mr. Macdonald, and, with your Honours' permission, it is his intention to take the leading brief should he, as his medical advrser thinks, be sufficiently recovered to-morrow. Mr. Justice. Edwards: You are prepared to go on to-day, at all events I Mr. Findlay: Yes. , . Mr. Atkinson: Will your Honour intimate the hours of sitting during this hearing I Mr. Justice Edwards: We cannot give any intimation except that we will sit the trme necessary to get rid of this matter. Mr Atkinson: I do not mean the days of sitting. I understand the reporters would like an indication of the length the Commission propose to sit each day in order that they may overtake the work each day. That is my only reason for asking. _ _ Mr Justice Edwards: The reporters are officers of the Court, such as it is, and they can apply for any information they want to the Secretary. I do not feel disposed to bind myself to any hours at all. . . Mr Findlay: With regard to the evidence taken on Commrssron at Home, your Honour, m order that the Commission should not be delayed and that the matter should be disposed of, it has been agreed between my friend and myself that the evidence shall be abandoned. Mr. Justice Cooper: That is Cameron's evidence. Mr. Findlay: Yes. Mr Justice Edwards: When is that evidence due 1 Mr Findlay: The mail by which we expect this evidence will be due some time this month. Mr Atkinson: I have intimated to your Honours and to counsel for the Crown that I desire to call certain witnesses whose names I have given to your Honours, and in regard to whom your Honours have issued subpoenas. I will now proceed to do so. .... , Mr Findlay: Before the evidence is actually called I should like that our position with regard to the evidence should be clearly understood. Ido not wish my friend to feel that he has a free hand to call any evidence he may think fit to call. The position has been set out by correspondence between us, that, while the Crown will not object to fresh evidence, we have said in our letter to Mr Atkinson it is quite obvious that the whole question of whether fresh evidence may be called is entirely one for the Commission and not for the Crown, and that our non-objection, so far as it goes only refers to witnesses whose evidence is relevant and admissible. * 'Mr Justice Edwards: Ido not quite understand you. You consent, as I understand notwithstanding the claimant has closed his case as long ago as May last, to the callrng of fresh evidence if relevant and admissible.
187
H.—2l
Mr. Findlay: That is the position. Mr. Justice Edwards: Very well. Then, you will object to what you think is irrelevant and inadmissible. Mr. Atkinson: I think, your Honour, that what my friend has in his mind is that I made application to take the evidence of certain witnesses on commission in Invercargill, there being one rule which would dispose of the admissibility of the whole lot, and my being in doubt as to whether the Commission would admit them. I may say that I have no witnesses of that class here. That application is still pending before the Commission, and I do not think I shall trouble my friend in regard to it. Mr. Justice Edwards: There is nothing pending before the Commission. At all events, 1 have not heard about it. Mr. Atkinson: The application was made during the last Court of Appeal. Mr. Justice Cooper: Just a matter of conversation—not a formal application? Mr. Atkinson: Yes, an application and affidavit, if your Honours remember. Mr. Justice Cooper: It was not proceeded with. Mr. Atkinson: It was never abandoned. Dr. Findlay was away, and Mr. Findlay appeared, and the matter stood over until Dr. Findlay's return, and then Mr. Justice Edwards was away. I do not wish to mention the matter to provoke a discussion now. Mr. Justice Edwards: This appears to me a strange mistake. At all events, if there was any application you wished to press you have had every opportunity to press it —repeated opportunities to press it. Mr. Justice Cooper: You say some application was made to Mr. Justice Edwards and myself at a time when Dr. Findlay was absent, and that that application was not pressed because Dr. Findlay was not present. Mr. Atkinson: It stood over expressly to allow him to be present. Mr. ■ Findlay: I have some recollection of it, because I appeared with my friend when the application was made, and that was a special application to take evidence with regard to some fact contradicting Mr. Lambert's evidence in reference to his alleged forging of a promissory note. His application was confined to that. My friend closed his case in Wellington, and he closed his ease in Dunedin, except only as to the evidence your Honours heard in Wellington. Mr. Atkinson: My friend has seen the papers, and if we can see j-our Honours in Chambers I do not wish to raise the point now. Mr. Justice Edwards: You have got a certain number of witnesses, and it is quite too late to talk of any others now. Mr. Atkinson: I hope I may mention the matter in Chambers. Mr. Justice Edwards: I think we had better have the proceedings in this case in public. At all events, the reporters can have notice to be present. Mr. Findlay: It might be well to dispose now of anything that is in my friend's mind as to other witnesses. Mr. Justice Edwards: I do not understand the position. Mr. Atkinson recently applied for and obtained the means of bringing twenty-two persons here. I cannot conceive what he means by this reference to the other matter. If he wanted to bring these persons here he should have included them in the application he made since the beginning of December. Mr. Atkinson: Of course there were reasons why I could not. Mr. Justice Edwards: Well, the reasons can be stated. Mr. Atkinson: First, the evidence was not admissible according to the ordinary rules of evidence, and the President stipulated that no evidence to be produced here should be of that kind. Secondly, some of these witnesses are hostile, and therefore could not have been brought this distance. Thirdly, assuming I could have got the Colonial Secretary's certificate, Ido not think it would have been right to bring several witnesses here at the expense of the country whose evidence might be ruled to be inadmissible. Mr. Justice Edwards: The whole of the proceedings in regard to the taking of this fresh evidence are in derogation of the rules of law, but, in order to prevent the suggestion of hardship, it is being admitted, notwithstanding its inadmissibility. That is the long and short of it. Mr. Findlay: It appears from what Mr. Atkinson says now there is going to be another application for more witnesses after this is finished: that he is going to renew a pending application. Mr. Justice Edwards: There cannot be any pending application; the thing is preposterous. Mr. Justice Cooper: You cannot ask for any commission now. We must finish the inquiry within the next few days. It is impossible to get a commission to examine witnesses in Invercargill. You have postponed the matter too late. James Christie sworn and examined. 1. Mr. Atkinson.] Your name is James Christie? —Yes. 2. You are manager and editor of the Bruce Herald, Milton? —Yes. 3. You were formerly manager of the Islay Station? —Yes. 4. Who were the owners of Islay Station? —The New Zealand Mortgage and Investment Association. 5. On what date did you take, charge?—l think I went up to the station some time about the end of 1888, but I find on looking up a letter-book I have that my salary dated from the Ist January, 1889. 6. Who had charge of the adjoining property, formerly Mr. Meikle's, when you arrived?— I cannot recall any one being in charge of it unless Mrs. Meikle.
[j. CHRISTIE.
188
H.—2l.
7 What was the state of the cultivation of Meikle's property? Mr Findlay: That is subsequent to the whole proceedings. I do not know whether the Commission's time is going to be wasted. Evidence in regard to the condition of things in October, 1887, has been proved. Mr. Justice Edwards: Is that the date of the alleged theft? Mr. Findlay: Yes. . Mr. Justice Edwards: You are now bringing evidence as to the condition in January, 1889. Do you really suggest, Mr. Atkinson, that can have the slightest relevancy to the matter ? Mr. Atkinson: Yes, I suggest it has. Mr. Justice Edwards: What relevancy ? , , Mr. Atkinson: As to the quality of the soil. It cannot be transformed entirely by magic m twelve months. . . , Mr. Justice Cooper: You mean as to whether it was of such a nature as to tempt sheep J Mr Atkinson: Yes. However, Ido not wish to waste time on the question. Mr Justice Edwards: Well, you had better go on. Of course, it must be apparent you cannot possibly attach any weight to this; but I do not propose to reject it, so far as I am concerned. You have to remember that you owe a duty to the Court in the matter and to yourself. Mr. Atkinson: I realise that. I would like to state that I have not produced three of the witnesses that your Honours subpoenaed, having ascertained thaty their evidence was of slight value; so I trust your Honours will realise I have felt my responsibility. 8 Mr Atkinson (to witness).] You took charge in 1888: were any of the company s sheep short when you took them over ?—Well, I really cannot say if there were any sheep short, because I had no knowledge of how many sheep were supposed to be on the station. 9. How many did you take over? —I would have to get my book; I cannot remember the exact figures. There were something like sixteen hundred when they passed through the shears. 10. When you had your first muster how many were short from that number—subsequent to shearing in January, 1889?— Well, the following year when we got them in to shear we were something under a hundred under what we could account for as having died and been killed. 11. And on your next muster? —Well, it was the next muster after this that we handed over the station and stock to J. G. Reid, and I was going away to another situation, and I did not stop to muster the whole country. That is to say, we had the first muster, but I did not stop for the straggler muster, and up to the time I left there were some two hundred sheep short on the book tally, over and above those marked off from month to month as having died and been killed. 12. How many sheep would the pre-emptive right carry?—lt all depends on the time of the year. 13. Take the average for the year? —I do not remember the area. 14. Six hundred and forty acres? —It was never tested as to its carrying-capacity. It was only saved to wean young lambs, and was only used for a month or six weeks. 15. You cannot form any opinion?—ln the best seasons it was not a property that would carry many sheep. It certainly would not carry more than a sheep to the acre all the year round. '16. Do you know the fence along the south side of the pre-emptive right?—lf I had a map I might follow it from memory. It is a good many years since I was there. 17. Here is a map : can you find the hut on the pre-emptive right?— Yes. 18. Was there any gap there?— Yes. ; ~ , 19. Going north along the Wairikiki Creek, was there any fence along the pre-emptive right? —No. 20. Can you say had there been a fence? —There had never been a fence. The rrver was the boundary. . . 21. Where was the first fence across the pre-emptive rrght, gorng north?—lhat rs, gorng upstream. It was the boundary, but there was a gate going into a neighbouring farm. - 22. Was there any boundary between that and Belmont?—No, only a gate going rnto Sec--23. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Troup relative to Meikle's case while he was in gaol?— Well, I did have a conversation with him. He seemed very much aggrieved that I should go up to supersede him in the management of the station; but, of course, that was no fault of mine. I was sorry for the man going away, too, but I could not help it. He seemed to resent it very much; so much so that he put it almost in the way of a threat. These were his exact words They stuck to me, and I never forgot them. Although lam not interested one way or the other, I could not help hearing a good deal about it at the time, and I had a relative mixed up in it. Mr. Findlay: I do not know what this witness is going to say, but we have had not notice from Mr Atkinson that Mr. Christie was being called to give such evidence. Now I desire that any witness who gives evidence with regard to what Mr. Troup has said should be cross-examined by Mr. Macdonald. lam in a difficulty about this, because I have not prepared that part of the case at all. , , . . , Mr. Atkinson: I did not know anything about it until I saw the witness this morning; and with regard to my friend's application, I could not think of opposing it. , T , . . Mr. Findlay: I object to any evidence with regard to statements made, and I ask my friend to place'before the Court any reasons he may have for submitting such evidence. Mr. Justice Edwards: You must be aware, Mr. Atkinson, that you cannot call this evidence if we are to have the slightest regard for law. _ ■~,., Mr. Atkinson: Mr. Troup is here, and of course there are other witnesses prepared to testify to the same effect, so that this does not come as a surprise so far as the class of evidence is concerned; but, for the reason I have given, I have not been able to apprise my frrend that thrs wrtness was prepared to give evidence in this connection.
189
H.— 2l.
J. CHBISTIE.
Mr. Justice Edwards: Well, the time of the Court is being wasted, and there has already been a preposterous amount of irrelevance. Mr. Findlay objects to your referring to this matter now, and we shall not allow these questions to be asked. 24. Mr. Findlay (to witness).] You took charge, then, Mr. Christie, in 1889?— Yes. 25. Some months after Meikle was convicted and in gaol?— Fully twelve months afterwards. 26. Was it not more than twelve months?—l do not know exactly when Meikle was fn gaol. 27. He was tried in November, 1887; so that you know nothing about what happened before a period beginning, say, thirteen months after Meikle had left the property ?—No, and I did not want to know. I wanted to go there with an open mind. 28. Now, with regard to the fences. Are you aware that there was a fence to the south of the pre-emptive right along the road, and then there was Meikle's boundary ?—Yes. 29. That was not the boundary between Meikle and the company's property? —Yes, there was a ferice between Meikle's and the company's property. 30. This is Meikle's plan. There was a fence south on the road on the pre-emptive right side —along the road?— There was, I think, a fence there. There was a fence along Meikle's boundary which went down to the road-line. There was a fence on the other side of the road-line. 31. Does not the fence along the southern boundary and the fence from the hut run south — run into the river—because it appears so here in Meikle's plan?—No; the road-line takes along the river. 32. But on the other side of the road was there not a fence?— The road-line was open from end to end. Part of our ground was fenced down along here [indicated on plan]. 33. But the two fences, with the exception of the gap at the road, went down to the river?— Yes. 34. Did not a fence run down along this way [indicated on plan]?—l cannot recollect its being along that way. 35. Do you know whether any of the fences were altered or removed before you went there?— I could not say. Ido not think so. Thomas Wu.liam Perry examined. 36. Mr. Atkinson.] What is your occupation?—Hotelkeeper. 37. Where do you live? —In Christchurch. 38. You were once on Islay Station? —Yes. 39. In what capacity?—As manager. 40. Who succeeded you in charge on Islay?—Mr. Troup. 41. How many years were you in charge?— Somewhere about two years. 42. Do you remember in what year Troup came?—l think in 1886 or 1887. 43. Did Lambert do any shearing for you?—l do not remember his doing any shearing for me. 44. What was the general state of the cultivation on Meikle's property in your time —up to when Mr. Troup came?— Some of it was in oats, and some in grass and turnips. 45. Can you specify the area at all?—I could not. There was a good deal of it in flax—not cultivated. 46. Had you ever occasion to give notice to the police during your term of office with regard to loss of sheep on the station ?—No. 47. Were there losses?— Yes, small losses, just as there are on every station. 48. Was there ever anything beyond that? —No. 49. If there had been a thousand sheep lost from Islay during any of those years you would have known of it?— Certainly. 50. Were you ever troubled with Meikle's sheep trespassing, or vice versa, during that time? —Sometimes there were a few of Meikle's sheep on the station, and sometimes there were a few of ours on Meikle's. You could not help it. 51. That was the ordinary custom? —Yes. There was no dividing fence then between Meikle's and the leasehold. 52. There was some litigation with regard to fences, was there not?— Yes. 53. Who was it that sued? —Meikle. 54. Do you remember his suing for trespass of sheep while you were there? —Yes. 55. Do you remember whether he got judgment? —Yes. 56. Where had the sheep been trespassing?— Off the leasehold. They were trespassing on Mr. Meikle's oats. 57. You say he got judgment. Do you remember the amount?—No, I could not say. Mr. Findlay: Surely my friend can get better evidence than this about the matter. Mr. Atkinson: There is evidence already about it, so that lam getting all that is necessary now. 58. Mr. Atkinson (to witness).] Do you remember any other lawsuit between Meikle and the company ?—Only in regard to fencing. 59. What did he sue for?—He said the fence was not an ordinance ferice. 60. What was the result? —The company were able to prove that it was an ordinance fence. 61. Are you familiar with the boundary on the leasehold side? —Yes. 62. What sort of country is it there? —Very rough country, some of it. 63. Can you walk the whole length of the boundary?— You can walk, but it takes you all your time. 64. Can you ride it?— You could not when I was there. 65. Mr. Findlay.] What do you refer to as "the country on the leasehold side"?— That is where the fence is that Meikle sued the company about. It is on the Mimihau, along Meikle's property, right up to the bush.
H.—2l.
190
JT. W. PEBEY.
66. That is the leasehold on the east of Meikle's land?— Yes. 67. You say there was no fence then? —Not at the time we sued for the sheep, except what Meikle had done on the leasehold side. The sheep could get round that fence. 68. In those days I suppose the company was running sheep on the leasehold side ?—Yes. 69. And you say there were a few sheep found on Meikle's property and a few on yours? — Yes, at times. 70. Can you tell us how many from time to time?— Sometimes we found two or three on our side at mustering time, and sometimes two or three of ours were found on Meikle's. 71. Never any greater number than that? —I think the shepherd did get a few more on one occasion, but I could not say for certain. 72. But that was about the number?— Yes. 73. Although there was no fence at all there at that time? —No. 74. There was a fence, of course, on the northern side between the company's pre-emptive right and Meikle's? —Yes, there was a fence on that side, but the road-line was open. 75. Did not the company keep dogs at the hut there —at the gap on the road?— No. 76. You say there were losses that could not be accounted for at that station? —Yes; in rough country there would always be a certain number of losses. 77. There were some losses in your time which you could not account for in the ordinary way?—No, it is difficult to account for such losses. 78. What was the fence with regard to which there was a dispute?—An ordinance fence. A wire fence. 79. What part of the property.did it fence? —Down to the Mimihau. 80. Then, it was with regard to this line, part of which was not fenced? —Yes. 81. Was it with respect to the part not fenced? —It was in respect to the fence we put up running to the Mimihau. Meikle did one side, and the company did the other side. Mr. Meikle put an extra wire on his fence over and above what the company had put on theirs, and Meikle thought the company ought to do the same, but we were able to prove that ours was an ordinance fence. 82. Do you know about the time you left the station? —I could not say. It is so long ago. 83. You cannot say whether you were there in 1887 at all? —I left somewhere in the beginning of 1887. I could not say exactly the time. 84. You have spoken as to the general condition of Meikle's place : can you recollect what its condition was in the last year you were there as to grass and oats?—l know he had a lot of his property in grass, turnips, and oats. 85. Do you remember the condition it was in the last year you were there? —No, I could not say. 86. You have no general idea even?—No; it is too long ago. 87. Mr. Atkinson.] Referring to the losses of sheep during your time at Islay, what was the extent of them ?—I could not say now. We always entered in the diary what sheep we lost. 88. Were they more than ordinary losses? —No more than ordinary losses. 89. What do you mean by "ordinary losses"? —Well, you always lose sheep every year both before and after shearing, but I could not say as to numbers. 90. What was the total number of sheep on Islay in your time? —I think a little over two thousand. 91. How many rams would there be in that number?—l could not say. 92. Do you know what the normal proportion is?— About one to fifty, but these were not all ewes. 93. Was Macauly shepherd in your time? —Yes. 94. Do you remember Macauly recovering sheep from Meikle? —There were two Macaulys. I took the place of Macauly, the old gentleman, and the son was shepherding with me for some months afterwards. 95. Do you remember recovering some sheep?—l know he got some sheep from Meikle, but I could not say how many. 96. Had you any occasion to suspect any more than ordinary leakage from the Islay Run?— No. 97. Mr. Findlay.] What do you call "more than ordinary leakage"? Was there ordinaryleakage from the Islay Run ?—There were always losses. Edmund Wild examined. 98. Mr. Atkinson.] You are a farmer? —Yes. 99. Where do you live?—At the Mimihau. 100. How long* have you been there?— Twenty-five years, I suppose. 101. Do you remember the sale at Gregg's about the time Meikle was convicted? —Yes. 102. Did you attend that sale? —Yes. 103. Did you see Meikle's land when you attended that sale? —Yes. 104. Can you fix the date of the sale?— No. 105. Howlong before Meikle was convicted? —It was before he was convicted, but I could not say how long before. _ _ 106. You could not say whether it was three weeks, or a month, or what? —No; it is so long ago I could not remember. 107. Did you go on to Meikle's land?— Yes. When we left the sale at Gregg s place I went with Meikle over to his house, and when I left there Meikle walked down with me across the land down to the Mimihau Ford.
191
H.—2l
E. WILD
108. Can you recognise the place on the map? —[Place indicated on map by witness.] 109. What was the condition of the crops on Meikle's land? —It was coming up. When we went down across it there was a sheep lying by the side of the footpath—down on a piece of English grass. I said, " Why do you not skin the sheep?" " Oh," he said, "it belongs to the company." 110. Which part of the land was that on?—On what they called " Geary's," down below the house a good bit towards the creek. It was on a piece where he had some oats a year or two before. 111. You say the crop was springing? —Yes, there was a piece of oats by the side of the house, and a piece down in front. 112. Can you place it by reference to the boundaries [map shown to witness]? Gregg's land is that marked blue?— There was a piece up across here [place indicated on map] belonging to the company. Mr. Justice Edwards: It is absolutely useless, Mr. Atkinson, examining the witness on the plan, which I cannot see. When he says " There is a piece in oats here," we do not know where he means. Mr. Atkinson: I shall get it from him. He is not an expert in plans. Mr. Justice Edwards: It would be better to give a description of the land and not of the plan, so that the reporter can get a description on his notes. Mr. Atkinson: I should prefer, if your Honour would allow me, to ask the witness the question on the plan. Mr. Justice Edwards: It is a deliberate waste of time. Mr. Atkinson: There is no deliberation about it, your Honour. I wish to get through as soon as possible. 113. Mr. Atkinson (to witness).] Can you describe to their Honours, then, where that sheep was ?—lt was down where we came down from the house. 114. Between Gregg's and the house? —Down across to the ford —down there [place indicated on plan]. 115. Whereabouts was the sheep?— Just about there [place indicated]. 116. The sheep was pretty near to the house—between the house and the ford?— Somewhere about half-way between the Mimihau and the house. 117. What was the length of the crop on Meikle's then? —I could not say exactly what the length of the crop was. I did not take any notice of it. 118. Could you say approximately?—lt might have been Ift. high, perhaps, or more. At the front of the house it was further forward than the other. 119. Whereabouts was the other litnd with the springing crop—was there some near the house? —There was some down in the front of the house, and the other was over here, at the side of the company's—about 40 acres where the road would go round, and that ran up by the side of that, and then it ran further down below their paddock over to the road close beside the Mimihau. 120. That is to say, the 40 acres would be towards the pre-emptive right?—l could not say. 121. It was between the house and the Mimihau?—Not the Mimihau. It did not run down towards the Mimihau. It was the Wairikiki, which joins the Mimihau just below. 122. Had he got any land in grass?— Yes; that was in grass where we came across the sheep. That was in English grass. 123. How much, roughly, was there in English grass?—l could not say. Then, there was a piece in English grass up beside the house. There was a paddock that ran up to Gregg's. 124. Were there any turnips on Meikle's land then? —I do not remember seeing any. 125. Did you have a look at the pre-emptive right then, or about that time? Do you know the company's pre-emptive right?— Yes. That paddock was a piece of the pre-emptive right. 126. What sort of cultivation was that in?—l do not think there was any, scarcely, cultivated then. They had some turnips behind Gregg's house, but I could not say that it was that year. I do not think this paddock that the road goes round was cultivated at all. 127. What condition are turnips in in Southland in October?— Generally, they have not been sown long in October. 128. What sort of feed do they make for sheep in October? —Not much—scarcely anything. 129. But the previous crop—the winter crop?— The one before? 130. Yes. How long does the winter crop last—the turnip crop?—lt is gone before October. 131. Do you know whether the pre-emptive right was sheep-proof?—l could not say much about the state of the fence then. I did not examine it. The only place that I took an interest in was at the Tent Bush. Some sheep belonging to the company got in while I was there. 132. What time was this?— When Mr. Meikle's trial was on. I went over and looked after his place, because the children were left there alone. I went over to stay there while he took his trial. The boy told me. He said it was over at the Tent Bush where the sheep got in, and I went over. You see, the bush was on a slope, and the fence went down to the Mimihau, and the child stood there and the sheep ran round. 133. What was the condition of Meikle's crop at this time? —It was growing very nicely. 134. When was it you took charge of Meikle's property?—On the day he went away to take his trial. He sent over and asked me if I would be kind enough to stay there while he took his trial, and I went over. I believe it was on a Monday. I got over to his house just as he was going away—in fact, they had left in the trap. He said he did not want me to do anything but to stop there in case anybody should come there. 135. How long did you stay there?— About a week, I think. I believe it was just a week. 136. How did his crops and grass compare with those of the company?—As to grass, there was more grass than on the company's land. They had none in grass that I know of. It was pretty fair grass there. Nothing grew there much until the beginning of November. 137. Was there any other crop on the company's pre-emptive? —I do not know, but Ido not think there was.
[c. wild.
192
H.—2l.
138. Of course, you have seen Meikle's barn and the outbuildings? —Yes. I had just got up to the barn that morning when he went away when Mr. Troup and a man named Stuart came along with a chain, measuring right across. Just at the end of the barn they came to me, and they went up the fence between the grass paddock and the oats, up the road towards Gregg's. I had a mind to order them off, but I did not like to. _ 139. What I wanted to get at was as to the door from Meikle's yard into the smithy: do you remember that entrance? —The smithy is at the back of the barn, like. 140. Yes. Do you remember the doorway from the yard into the smithy?— Yes. 141. Could you drive sheep into that?—Oh, yes, I suppose you could. 142. What is the width of it?—l could not say, sir. 143 You have no idea at all, have you ?—I could not say—not to be sure. 144 Mr Findlay.] I suppose that after twenty years your memory is not very clear?—No, it is not. I never had a very good memory, and as I get up in years it does not rmprove a brt. 145. You were never a witness for Meikle before? —No. 146 You looked after his place, you told us, for about a week?— Yes. 147. Did you charge him anything ?—No. He was to have given me somethmg to stop there, but I never got it. ~,,,,. ~ m, , 148 You then, did it as a friend?— Yes. You see, my wrfe used to look after hrs wrte. llrat is how it was that I was often there. She was confined, I think, about a month or srx weeks before. 149. And your wife was the nurse? —Yes. 150. She gave evidence before, did she not?— No. 151. You have no recollection of this year at all from any other event—you do not remember what year it was, I suppose?—lf any one had asked me I could not have sard. 152. You say you went to Gregg's sale? —Yes. 153 And it was some time before Merkle was convicted? —Yes. 154 Do you remember whether it was the same year?—l could not say—not to be sure. 155 You could not say whether the time you went to Gregg's was the same?—l could not say 156 Can you tell us, roughly, about how many acres of oats Meikle had?—l could not tell you exactly. It might have been 20 or 30 acres, perhaps, taking both preces. 157. In the year you saw it?— The year I saw it—when I stayed there. I could not tell you exactly. , , 158. You think there were about 20 or 30 acres ?—Somewhere about that. 159. To the best of your recollection ?—Yes. 160. And the piece in front of the house, you said, was better than the piece near the company's boundary ?—lt looked better. , 161. I suppose you could not at this distance of time say whether the growth was 1 ft. or only 1 in high?—No; I did not take particular notice of it. 162 And you could not say, I suppose, whether the crop over at the other part that was not so good was just through the ground or nott-No, I could not say. The bottom part over against the company's ground was better than the top of it, and this piece in front of the house was better * an i e 63. e ßut yoTcould not swear positively whether it was 1 ft. high or only 1 in. or so?— No. It covered the ground ... ~ , . v . -, t . v , i „u 164 Where—the better piece I—Yes. I should thrnk rt would have been about Ift high 165. Now, you said in your evidence that nothing grew very much till November I—N ot till the beginning of November. , , 166. What are you referring to the growing of?— That on my own ground. You do not get a very big lot of grass before the beginning of November. . , 167 Down fhere in Southland, neither crops nor grass grow much till the beginning of November ?-No, not extraordinarily. Just at the beginning of November the growth starts away nice down there are very late> are they no t?— Generally speaking, yes. 169 Sometimes you do not harvest your crops till April?—lt rs late sometimes. 170. What is the latest time of the year you have harvested your crops?—l could not say. 171. Have you ever harvested them in May?— No. 172 You have harvested them in April, have you not?—l could not say. 173 And sometimes you have not been able to harvest them all because it got too late. Can you tell us at which trial it was that you took charge of Meikle's place-whether itwas the first or the second time that Meikle went? Was it when he went to the Supreme Court?-Yes, sir, that is when I went over to the house. • .. . T4 He went to the Supreme Court, then, in December ?-I could not say what time it was. It was when he went to the Supreme Court for his trial. You see, they all went away; there was nobody left there but the children. Robert Duncan examined. 176. Mr. Atkinson.] Your name is Robert Duncan? —Yes. 177. You are a farmer? —Yes, sir. 178. Where do you live?—At Menzies Ferry, Wyndham. 179 Is that where you were residing in 1887? —No. 180. Where were you living then?—ln Wyndham Township. 181 Do you remember when Meikle was convicted ?—Yes. 182 Had you occasion about that time to look at his boundary-fences (—Yes 83 Whatoccasioned your doing that l-The police came to us and asked us to go and look. 184! Do you remember the name of the policeman ?-I think rt was Constable Leece, or some name like that.
B . DUNCAN J
H.—2l.
185. What did he ask you to do?—To go and examine the fences to see if they were sheep-proof. 186. Did he promise to pay you for that? Was there anything said about payment?—l asked who was to pay me, and he said it would be the company's manager, I think. 187. Accordingly, you examined the fences? —Yes. 188. Had you had experience of fencing?— Yes. 189. Had you done any work at Isla}' in the matter of fencing?— Yes. 190. Who was that for?— For the company. 191. Did you have more than one contract, or only one?—l think there were two contracts— yes, two. 192. Did you put any of the fences up, then, near Meikle's land —on that side?— Yes. 193. Which fence was that?—l put one fence up—l think it was at Gregg's corner, down towards the hut—on the pre-emptive right, I think it was; and another one round a bit of a bend of the Wairikiki Creek, towards the hut. 194. What did you find on examining these boundary-fences, as instructed by Constable Leece? —I found that there were some parts in fairly good repair, but that in others the fences were a little out of repair—-not just what they ought to have been to keep sheep in. Some parts were really good. ■ 195. Would you say that the fence was a sheep-proof fence throughout?— You could not say throughout; no. 196. Did you see any sheep when you were going along the fences? —Yes. 197. What were they doing?— Grazing in the ordinary way. 198. Did you see any sheep trespassing on the other side?— Well, I did not catch them, but as we went along a sheep came through from the Islay side on to Meikle's ground. 199. Which fence was that?—lt was at the eastern side of the paddock. 200. There is a map beside you. The red land is Meikle's?—lt was after we passed the bush reserve towards the Mimihau Stream. 201. You know the company's leasehold, do you? Was it the eastern side? —The eastern side —the south-east side, towards the Mimihau Stream. 202. Then, did you examine the fence on the other side?— Yes, right round the other side, too. 203. Does the remark you have already made-about the general condition of the fence apply to the fences on the pre-emptive right also? —That was where I saw the sheep get through, and there are some parts round this side out of repair too—towards the south-east, I think it is. The wires were slack and the posts bent down, and it made the wires too slack, and then stock could go through easily. At many of the places you would scarcely find anything wrong, but in other places the wires would be slack. 204. That applies to other boundaries than the leasehold boundary : you are speaking now of the fences generally?— Well, you see, I am not exactly acquainted with the leasehold—with what really was leasehold and what was freehold. 205. You can show it on the map. You have already dealt with the eastern boundary; then I took you round the other side on the north—round the boundary between there and the green ? —Yes. ' 206. The corner marked "E R " is where the two sides join? —Yes. 207. Do you remember the state of the fence at that little corner marked " E R " —the school reserve?— Yes. There were two or three panels there that were broken down, like; and then from there towards the river there was a sort of sidling. Stock could get through there if they liked It was wide enough to let a dray through if it would not capsize; but it was a sidling, unfenced. 208. Could you fix the date of that?- —No, not one day. 209. Had Meikle been arrested then, or not?—l would not be quite sure. 210. Did you know why you were being asked to examine the fence? Did Constable Leece tell you why he wanted you to examine it?—He just said that he had had a look at it, and that he thought I would see things better. 211. Did you know why the constable was concerned in it?— Yes. I believe he told us that Meikle was arrested, or that the son—Arthur—was arrested, and the plea was that sheep could g through the fences. I believe he mentioned that that was why he wanted us to go round. 212. Did you have a look at Meikle's crops?— Very likely I did. 213. I mean when you were conducting this examination? —I have no doubt I saw them. 214. Have you any recollection now what they were like?—No, I could not recollect. 215. Or what the land was like on the other boundary—the pre-emptive right side?—l have a dim recollection of something, but I could not give it very clearly. 216. Well, then, Mr. Duncan, you gave evidence in the Supreme Court at Meikle's trial — for the defence, was it not?— Yes. 217. You were not called by the Crown?— No. 218. Did you oonduct that examination alone, or was there anybody with you?— There was my mate, Telfer. 219. Was he a partner of yours?—He was a partner, like, in the oontract. 220. Had you been working together for the company in the contract you referred to, or was that on your own account? —We were working for the company. 221. Mr. Findlay.] I suppose the fences were just ordinary farmers' fences? —Yes, only post-and-wire fences. 222. Were they better or worse than the fences of any of the neighbours around?—As far as that goes, they were just the ordinary sort of fences. 223. But as to their condition, they were just as good, I suppose, as anybody else's fences generally are? —Yes, I think they were. Almost any fence will get out of order now and again. 224. There was one spot you mentioned —a spot down by the river?— Yes.
25— H. 21.
193
[B. DUNCAN.
H.—2l.
225. That was the worst place, was it not?—lt was more open there. 226. It was more open there than anywhere else? —Well, that was just by the river; it was not fenced. 227. There was a gap below the lowest wire there, was there not? It not that the position?— At the river-side there was no fence. In some places there was a good bit of space below the lower wire, and it dipped in some places. 228. As to the fences—you know the pre-emptive right part?— Yes. 229. There were two fences between the pre-emptive right part and Meikle's place? —Yes. 230. Which fence are you referring to? Did you examine the fence fencing off the turnips from the tussock? —No; that was newly erected by us. 231. That was the one that would keep the sheep on the turnips?— Yes. 232. Were there not two dogs kept at the gap at the end of the fence ?—- Yes, that might be so. 233. You say the fence was down towards the hut on the pre-emptive right. What are you referring to?— When I said " down," I meant that it came down the hill. 234. The fences were up and continuous? —Yes, fairly. 235. Except that there was a slack wire here and there? —There was a part in the bush that was not continuous. 236. Was there any evidence of sheep having got through—any wool, or anything of that kind?—l cannot recollect seeing any. 237. Did you see any evidence of sheep having got through anywhere —on the fences?—l saw one passing. 238. Did you see any evidence elsewhere? —No; I cannot remember that I did. 239. You gave evidence in Meikle's first case in the Supreme Court? —Yes. 240. How did you come to give evidence for Meikle? Did you go and tell him anything?— No. Ido not know how that came about. 241. Mr. Atkinson.] Did you ever see any tracks at the crossing-fences that you erected on the pre-emptive right?—l was very seldom there. 242. What was the value of turnips for feed in October? —It depends on the scarcity and the demand. • 243. Do they make good feed for sheep at that time?— Yes; that is what they are grown for. 244. When is the season? —Down with us sheep would require to be fed in October unless it was a very early spring. 245. Would turnips be in ordinary good condition in October? —Yes. 246. Mr. Findlay.] They would be all right for feed, and sheep would take them willingly enough ?—Yes. John Telfer examined. 247. Mr. Atkinson.] You are a farmer? —Yes. 248. Where do you live?— South Wyndham. 249. Were you living there in 1887? —No. I was living about that time at Islay Station, working. 250. About the time Meikle was arrested?- —Yes. 251. Were you doing work for the company?— Yes. 252. Duncan was working with you? —Yes. 253. You put some of the fences up for the company? —Yes. 254. Did you examine the boundary-fence between Meikle's and the company's?— Yes. 255. Who was it asked you to do so? —Three men came to me. One was the constable. Ido not remember who the other two were. 256. Did they tell you what you were to examine them for?— Yes ; they explained that I was to examine the fence and see if it was sheep-proof. They said there had been a man round it before, and that he said that it was sheep-proof. ■ 257. You were to go round and see if that was correct?— Yes. 258. Was anything said about payment? —I do not remember. 259. What was the result of your examination? —The fence was not anything like sheep-proof —it was not even cattle-proof. 260. Which fence are you speaking of now? Do you know the company's leasehold? Do you know what was the boundary of Meikle's land?—We started at the north-eastern boundary, and went right down to the river. There were about a couple of chains on the eastern boundary at the river where there was no fence at all. 261. Following up the creek towards the pre-emptive right, what would you say about the f ence ?— There were parts that I think were down altogether. 262. Do you remember the school reserve? —Yes, there was a hurdle and gateway on one portion that stock could go through. 263. Did you see any sheep testing any of the fences? —Yes; I think there was one got through when we were going through the back boundary. 264. That is the leasehold boundary?— Yes. There is a little bit of bush here [indicating on plan]. The fence ran a few chains into that little bit of bush, and you could see the tracks of the stock, and where they had been going round it, 265. Who did you report to after you had made this investigation?—To the manager at Islay, if T remember aright, It was either to Stuart or Troup, but I think it was to Stuart. 266. You were not called in the Supreme Court for the Crown? —No. 267. You gave evidence for Mr. Meikle?—Yes. 268. Mr. Findlay.] I suppose the fences were as good as the generality of fences in the neighbourhood? —I oould not say as to that, because I did not go round other people's fences.
194
J. TELFEE.J
H.—2l.
269. Had you no knowledge of other people's fences? —I cannot speak as to them. 270. The bush was very thick, was it not? —Yes, scrubby, little bush. 271. It is peculiar that the man who went round with you—Mr. Duncan—saw no sign of sheep getting through You said for the first time to-day that you saw some tracks of stock?— Yes, where stock had been going round the end of the fence. The end post was in the scrub a bit. You could see the track of the stock at the end of the fence. 272. You said nothing of that in the Court?—No, I do not suppose I did. 273. When did you recollect that?—l have recollected it all along. 274. That occurred twenty years ago?— Yes. 27ri. You have never recollected it before?—l never was asked. 276. You know that you were called at Meikle's trial with reference to the sheep getting through the fence ?—I was called to tell the truth. 277. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Were you not called to give evidence as to the state of the fence? —Yes. 278. Why did you not tell the jury all about it?—l thought I would not be allowed to speak unless I was asked. 279. Mr. Findlay.] You thought it would not be allowed? —I answered all the questions I was asked. 280. Did you make any written report? —I made a memorandum in my book. 281. Did you never look into the book to refresh your memory before you came here? —No. 282. You rely upon your memory for something that occurred twenty years ago* —Yes. 283. How long did you take going round the fences?—We had a considerable distance to travel from the place where we were working, and I know it was pretty late in the afternoon before we got home. 284. You are speculating as to the time? —Yes; I could not exactly tell you the time. 285. There is another peculiarity about your evidence —I mean with reference to the broken hurdle. We never heard anything about that before?— Because I was not asked. 286. But you knew what you were being called for in 1887, when Meikle was tried—to tell the Court what gaps were in the fences? —I do not know. 287. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Did you not see Mr. Meikle's solicitor before you went into the witness-box ?—No. 288. Mr. Findlay.] Did you see Mr. Meikle before you went into the witness-box?-—No. 289. Whom did you see?—l do not remember. 290. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Your memory must be bad about it, because no counsel ever puts a witness in the box without knowing what he is going to say in a case of this sort?—l do not remember in this case. 291. Mr. Findlay.] Who gave you the summons?—l suppose it was the policeman. 292. You have no recollection? —No. 293. You cannot say whether it was Meikle? —No. 294. Where were you when you got the summons?—l cannot remember. 2!)5. Was it a summons to give evidence for the defence?—lt was a summons to appear in the case of Meikle. 296. You knew what you were going there for?— Yes, to answer questions as to the fences. The company would not have our evidence. 297. And you were there to show that these fences were not sheep-proof?— Yes. 298. And you said nothing about this gate and broken hurdle?— No. 299. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Why did you not say the fences were not sheep-proof?—l said they were not sheep-proof. 300. Mr. Findlay.] You say that you only answered the questions that were put to you?—l said the fences were not sheep-proof. 301. You were not cross-examined? —No; not so far as I remember. 302. You were asked nothing at all about anything but whether the fences were sheep-proof?— Yes : I am pretty certain of that—that I was asked no other question. 303. But were you not asked as to whether you saw sheep getting through?—No; I am pretty certain I was not. 304. How does it come about that you swore in the Court that you saw sheep coming through? Surely you must have volunteered that?—l do not think I said anything about it. 305. Here it is:—" Mr. Telfer: I saw one sheep go through from the company's land into Meikle's." How do you account for their asking that question?—l do not know. 306. Mr. Atkinson.] When did you first see me with reference to this case? —I did not see you until I came into this Court. 307. Have you ever done any work for Meikle? —No. .'SOS. Have you ever looked at any report of your evidence given in 1887 from that day to this?— No. 309. In answer to Mr. Findlay you referred to some memo, that you made of your examination ?—Yes. 310. What happened to that memo. ?—I cannot say. I thought it was useless when the company did not want it. 311. Did you or Mr. Duncan see the company's manager about it?—We told the manager iibout the fence. 312. Did you submit anything in writing to the company?—No; I do not think so.
195
H.—2l
196
Angus Cameron examined. 313. Mr. Atkinson.] What are you?—l am a contractor, residing at Edendale. 314. You remember the year Meikle was convicted? —Yes. 315. Had you been doing any work in the neighbourhood of his place or the company's at that time?— Yes, I was working for Meikle. 316. What work was it?— Contract ploughing. 317. On what part of his land in reference to the company's land?—l do not know what they call it, I am sure, but it was on some ground just about the homestead. 318. Were you working alone, or was anybody working with you? —There were two other persons working with me. 319. Do you remember who they were? —The Shields brothers. 320. Was anybody else working for Meikle? —Yes; there was a man named Perkins. 321. About how long were you there?— Pretty well all the winter. I could not say the time exactly. 322. That was the winter of 1887?— Yes. 323. Did you know the difference between the company's brand and Meikle's? —Yes; one was red, and one was black. 324. Did you ever see any sheep trespassing? —1 cannot say that I ever did. 325. Where were the company's sheep when you saw them?— They were mixed up at the time. 326. Could you give any idea of how many?—No, I could not. 327. What was the state of the cultivation of Meikle's land? —Pretty fair. 328. Do you know whether there was any grass sown there that year?—l know there was some. 329. You could not say how much? —No. 330. What was the condition of the fences? —It is that long ago that I cannot really remember. 331. Did you ever look at the pre-emptive right—did you see the cultivation there?— Yes. 332. In what condition was that?— Not very good. 333. Do you remember when you left?—l could not remember the date. 334. Can you remember how far the crop had grown then? —It was through the ground. 335. How far?— Simply an ordinary crop over the ground. 336. Mr. Findlay.] You cannot say the date to which you refer? —No. 337. Can you place it by the prosecution of Meikle? —I cannot tell. '338. What was the breaking-up for—ploughing? —It was for ploughing. 339. Do you do any harrowing? —Meikle himself was doing that. 340. What area was there? —I could not say. 341. One witness here told us 20 acres? —I would not say. It is too long ago. 342. Was there 200?— There should be 100. 343. Were you there more than one winter? —Just one and part of the spring, I believe, I was there. 344. What do you call the spring in Southland ?—August. 345. Sometimes the springs are the Ist August or later?—lf the weather is bad. 346. I suppose the crops do not come away until October?— Oats will before that. 347. You saw the company's sheep mixed up with Meikle's?—On two different occasions. 348. How many would you say?—l could not say. 349. Near the company's property? —It was above the homestead. 350. Where was that? —It was across the gully. 351. Where was his crop?—l do not know the names of the places or directions. 352. Where would it have been? —It would have been more south than where the ploughing was. 353. Where were you ploughing? —Near the homestead. 354. To the right of the pre-emptive right?—We would have been to the north. 355. You saw some sheep there from time to time?— Yes. 356. Can you tell us whether they were the same sheep?— Yes. 357. There was nothing to indicate that there was an increase in the sheep?—No, I took no notice of that. . 358 But there were some sheep there all the time?— There were sheep. 359. Mr. Justice Edwards.] What brands did you see?— One was red and one was black. 360. You saw two different brands? —Yes. 361. You knew that one of the brands was the company's?— Yes. I knew that from young 362. Mr. Findlay.] Did you see sheep bearing both brands?—l could not say. I saw different S iee *363 6r Were you called as a witness in this trial before?— Yes, at Wyndham and Dunedin. 364. When Lambert was convicted ?—Yes. 365 Who saw you about this evidence? —Nobody. 366. How did you come to be connected with the case?—l do not understand you. 367. You were not called at Meikle's trial? —No. 368. Did you see Meikle in the meantime? —I may have. _ 369! Had he spoken to you about the case?—l think he did. 370 And I suppose you told him or he told you what you were going to be called for?— No. 371! Do you recollect what he told you?— Simply that he was bringing an actron. It rs orrg company > s brand?—l could not tell you whether it was red or black. 373. Then why did you swear it was red? —I did not.
A. CAMERON.]
197
H.—-21.
374. Did anybody tell you so?—I do not think so. 375. Then, why did you swear, " I knew company's land and their sheep by the different brands. Company's brand was red; Meikle's black. I saw company's sheep on Meikle's ground a good few times." 376. Mr. Justice Edwards.] He has had nineteen years to forget it, and I do not wonder that he should. 377. Mr. Atkinson.] The oats were sown on the Ist August. How soon would they have been springing?— From a fortnight to a month. 378. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Are you a farmer?—l have got a small bit of land. Robert Kidd examined. 379. Mr. Atkinson.] Your name is Robert Kidd?—Yes. 380. You are a farmer, and living at Invercargill? —Yes. 381. You resided at Wyndham at one time?— Yes. 382. You remember the time that Meikle was convicted?— Yes. 383. How long have 3-011 known anything about farming?—l was brought up at farming. 384. Did you have occasion to visit Meikle's property?— Yes, one time when I was going up to Gregg's sale. 385. Do 3 7 0u remember the date? —No. 386. About how long was it before Meikle was convicted? —I could not say. 387. You rode over Meikle.'s property? —Some days afterwards. 388. Who was with you?—Wilson—Tim. 389. You rode over Gregg's to Meikle's? —W T e rode through there to Mimihau. 390. Had you any occasion to notice his crops ?—Yes. I saw them when we were riding overthere, because the horses were sinking. 391. Where were the best crops?—l think, towards Mimihau. 392. Could you give us an estimate of the area?—lt might have been 10, 15, or 30 acres. 393. What was the first figure you mentioned? —It might have-been 20 or 30 acres. 394. What would have been the height of the crop?—l think, about 7 in. There may have been some 4 in. or 5 in., or some about 8 in. 395. Was there any grass about?— Yes, I think we passed through a paddock of grass. 396. In what condition did that seem to be?—lt seemed to be fair. 397. 1 suppose you have been over Meikle's land on many occasions?— Yes, I have fished over it. 398. How does it compare with the adjoining farms?—l think he was a good farmer. . 399. Do you know the pre-emptive right at all?— No. 400. When sheep are put on turnips how long is the crop good to last in the ordinary season ? —That depends. 401. At that time of the year how are turnips?— Very well then. 402. Into what condition do they get?— Spongy. 403. Mr. Findlay. J The condition in which turnips are at that time depends on when they are sown? —Yes. 404. Do you remember when you went through there? —No. 405. You do not know when it was in the year, or can you judge from the state of the crop?— I think it was before this time. 406. Things are generally late in Southland? —Sometimes. 407. Judging by the condition, what time would you put it down to be? —I think about October, judging by the season. 408. You think it would be some time in October? —I think so. 409. Do you remember any other circumstances about Meikle's place about that time?— No. 410. I suppose your recollection of the length of the oats is correct?—lt was 6 in. or 7 in. 411. Mr. Justice Edwards.] 6 in. or 7in : how would it grow at that time?—lt depends upon the weather. 412. How would it grow, as a rule, at that time?—l think about 2 in. or 3 in. 413. This is curious. You assume this to have been sown in August?— August is supposed to be the spring-time. Mr. Justice Edwards: In six or eight weeks it grows that number of inches !Of course, you cannot be right. 414. Mr. Atkinson.] I suppose oats are sometimes sown in the autumn? Could these have been sown in the autumn ?—I do not think so. 415. When do you suppose that these would be fit to cut?— Perhaps, about the end of February. Ebenezeh Forsyth examined. 416. Mr. Atkinson.] What is your occupation?—l am agent for the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Company at Waimate South. 417. What was your occupation in 1887?— It was a varied one. 418. Had you anything to do in relation to Mr. Meikle's land? —Yes. I was employed by ,1. G. Ward to look after Meikle's farm in his absence. 419. How soon after Mr. Meikle was in gaol was that?—l should say a few weeks after. 420. What was the condition of his land when you took it over?—A good proportion was in crop. I was sent up there to see the crop properly harvested and threshed and put into the market. 421. Was the Ward Company interested in the crop?— Yes, they had a lien over it. 422. The crops were still standing when you went? —Yes. 423. Do you remember the month in which they were cut? —No, I cannot say from memory. 424. What sort of crops were they?—Oat crops.
H.—2l.
198
[b. fobsyth.
425. In what condition? —Medium crops. They were not heavy, and not very light either. I should think, so far as my memory goes, they were about a 30-bushel average. 426. What was the condition of the fences?— The fences were fairly good. They were fences very rarely seen on a farm. They were cattle fences; much too high for sheep. They were reallygood fences; but, of course, as you know, in summer-time the wires get slack, and every summer they wanted tightening up again. 427. Were the neighbours' sheep ever on the land while you were there? —Yes, some of the company's sheep were on the land in my time. I delivered some sheep to Mr. Troup on one occasion. 428. Do you remember which part of the land they were found on?—Of course, the sheep were running all over our farm. They were not confined to one paddock. 429. I was not speaking of Meikle's sheep?— They were found among Meikle's sheep, you understand. When I mustered Meikle's sheep I took them out and asked Troup to take them away. 430. Were any of these trespassers fat sheep?—No, Ido not think so. They were practically tussock sheep, and, of course, tliey are very seldom fat. 431. Do you know what sheep were on the pre-emptive right then? —Very few were on the pre-emptive right in my time. 432. What condition was it in?—lt was very poor country, and the feed was very scarce in my time. It looked to me as though a great part of it had been ploughed and not sowed down. 433. There was not much feed for sheep on the pre-emptive right at that time? —No. 434. Do you know whether Mr. Meikle's sheep got on to the company's land at that time?— 1 had a look through the company's sheep, in company with Mr. Troup, on one or two occasions to see if I could find any of Meikle's sheep,, but I did not succeed. 435. Was the pre-emptive right sheep-proof all round? —No. In some cases the road-line fence on Meikle's side was the only fence between them. 436. Was there any fence along the Wairikiki Creek? —No. 437. Do you know the road from the hut on the pre-emptive right to Mataura?—Yes. 438. What distance is it from the hut to Mataura?—l should say twelve miles. I have not been in that district for some years. 439. How long would it take a team to do the distance? —I should say four hours, because it is hilly country. 440. You know Mr. Meikle's smithy?— Yes. 441. And the yard ?—Yes. 442. Do you know what width the smithy door has?— The big door at the end is about 4 ft,, so far as my memory serves me. It is rather wider than an ordinary door. 443. Is there another door?— Yes; just a door you could squeeze through almost—about 2 ft. wide, I should say. 444. Could you take sheep in through that door?—lt would be possible, but not probable. No sensible man would try it when he had a 4 ft. entrance. 445. You say the narrow door comes up from the yard and the other from the open : will that make any difference or make the work easier? —Not a great deal. When the door was open it rna<l< a bit of a wing in the yard, and you could hold the sheep right up against the fence and hold the sheep that way. 446. Were the surroundings of the narrow door adapted for working sheep? —There was a cowshed there too. If you put a hurdle across the cowshed you could run into that, but there was no hurdle there that I know of. 447. There was no door across the cowshed? —No. It was an open shed, and if you tried to put sheep in there they would go through the cowshed. 448. Do you think it would be .possible for a lad with one dog to muster sheep on the preemptive right'on a dark nighl and bring them along?—l do not know if he could manage that. It iv possible, but not very probable. 149. Where there any dogs at Meikle's when you went there? —There was only one dog that was any good. There was another old brute. 450. Whose dog was that?—lt belonged to Arthur. 451. Was he fit for working sheep?—He was a very good useful dog, but of not much force. He was not a hard dog on sheep. 152. Was he what you would call a good forcing dog?—Oh no. 153. What about the old dog?—He was just fit to potter about. He was done. 454. Was the floor of the smithy the same level as that of the yard?— One part of it was. Coming in the side door it was about the same level. 455. There was no obstruction at the entrance at all? —Not quite at the entrance. A little further in there was a lot of lime stored, and at the edge of the door there was also a lot of battens that were stored there to be ready for shearing purposes. Still, there was room to get out and in. 456 Would they offer any obstruction to a person driving sheep in ?—Not a great deal. If a man could get in, a sheep could get in. Still, it would be very hard driving sheep through a small opening like that, 457.- Then, there was no elevation of any kind?— There was nothing to step over except a little bit of 4 in. by 2 in. battens. _ _ 458. Was this dog used for any other purpose besides sheep?—No, unless he brought in the cows probably, 459. Did he yap at all?— Not much. He made a little noise. He was not a strong forcing dog 460. What sort of crop was there on the pre-emptive right when you went there?— There was no crop that I remember. There was only a small piece, and it was not much.
E. POBSYTH.]
199
H.—2l.
461. In what condition was the turnip-crop for sheep by October in Southland? —The turnips then are pretty well done. There are no turnips much in October. They are generally done by September. 462. In what condition would the turnips be if they were not eaten off? —They would be soft and starting to grow again. 463. Mr. Findlay.] Would that not depend on the season a good deal, and the time the turnips were sown? —No; it happens in pretty well all cases, because the turnips in Southland are always sown before Christmas. A good farmer always reckons on having his turnips in before Christmas. 464. You do not know when these were sown ?—No. 465. We have heard from farmers that they are sown at various times. However, you cannot tell us what the condition of these turnips was in October—for all you know, they may have been a very good crop for sheep?—l do not think they could have been. Of course, 1 never saw the turnips. 466. Do you not know it depends very much on the season whether they are forward or backward at that time ?—I have never seen turnips in October there. 467. Supposing they were sown for the purpose of late feeding off? —They would not grow. Suppose you sowed them in February, you would have no crop. 468. Now, as to this yard —if you are working sheep at night and do not want any to get away 1 suppose you would put them in a yard?— Yes. 469. And that would be one reason for putting the sheep through the small door into the smithy, because they could put them into the small yard close by ?—Yes, there was a small yard close hy. 470. You had the sheep in an enclosure there? —Yes. 471. And that would be an advantage in driving them into the smithy, apart altogether from the size of the door?— You could chuck them in, for that matter. 472. And if you put a light in the smithy, that would lead them? —1 have had no experience in the matter of driving sheep at night. 473. Mr. Justice Edwards.] If there were two people there, and one person took a sheep in and kept it there, could not the other person put the other sheep in?— Yes; it could be done that way. 474. Mr. Findlay.] You say you delivered some sheep to Mr. Troup?—Yes. 475. How long were you at Meikle's altogether? —1 do not remember, but I think close on six months. 476. Can you tell me when you went there? —I went there before harvest—that would be about February. I cannot say exactly. 477. That was about three months after Meikle was convicted? —Yes. 478. Can you tell us how many sheep you delivered to Mr. Troup in the six months you were there? —Only once, when I mustered the sheep. 479. How many?—l do not remember. 480.WWars r it one or two?—lt would be more than one sheep, but it would not be a great many. 481. That was the only time you had any sheep at all? —Yes. 482. You told us the wire fence got slack in summer?— Any wire fence does. 483. You think the fences would be getting worse during summer?— Yes. 484. Then, they would be deteriorating after Meikle was sent to gaol? —Possibly. 485. Could they have altered considerably from the time you went there until you went away? —They did not alter considerably; they might have got slacker. 486. Mr. Atkinson.] What was the size of the yard adjoining the smithy?—lt would hold from three to four hundred sheep, so far as my memory serves me. 487. I am speaking of the yard from which the- sheep would be driven in the narrow door? — I should say about fifty sheep or so. 488. What are the dimensions?—l do not know. ■ 489. How much English grass was there on Meikle's farm?—l really cannot say. I do not know the acreage of the farm or the acreage of the crop. It is so long ago. Alexander Cameron examined. 490. Mr. Atkinson.] You are a farmer? —Yes. 491. You reside at Mataura?—Yes. 492. How long have you been there? —Thirty-two years. 493. How long have you had experience in farming?— Seventy years altogether. 494. Have you a sheep-farm of your own now?— Yes. 495. You know Mr. Meikle's farm?—l have been on it. 496. You know the pre-emptive right? —Yes. 497. Do you think it would be possible for a lad with one dog to muster merinoes on a dark night on the pre-emptive right, and take them round the corner and along the road to Meikle's?— The pre-emptive right is very broken land with gullies and ridges through it. It would take a very good dog to muster merino sheep on the pre-emptive right, in my opinion. 498. Suppose it was done in the dark?— Well, it would be a hard matter. I do not know what is possible, but I reckon it would be a hard matter to do anything of the kind. 499. You say it would be impossible without a very good dog?— Yes; you would require a specially good dog to do it and command them. 500. Have you seen Mr. Meikle's smithy?—l have seen some of his outbuildings, but I do not know whether smithy or not. 501. Do you know the narrow entrance from the small yard? —Mr. Meikle showed me the entrance the day 1 was there.
[A. CAMERON.
H.— 21.
200
502. What date would that be?—lt was after Mr. Meikle came out of gaol. I do not mind what year. 503. Do you remember if you gave any evidence in any of these proceedings? —Yes, I gave evidence at Wyndham. Mr. Justice Edwards: How do you justify bringing a large number of persons here at the expense of the country whose evidence you knew all about just as you do now, and could have brought in Dunedin in May last? Mr. Atkinson: I knew of these witnesses, and I told the Commission so in my original telegram. Mr. Justice Edwards: Will you tell me how you justify bringing a large number of persons here whose evidence you knew all about and could have brought before us in Dunedin in May? Mr. Atkinson: I put it to the Commission and the Government, and my application was granted. Mr. Justice Edwards: You know very well that is not so. You know perfectly well the Commission has never acceded to your application. You know very well what was done. Will you tell me how you justify this? Mr. Atkinson: I merely say I cut the list down as short as possible. Mr. Justice Edivards: Will you tell me how you justify bringing these people here at enormous cost to the country, when you could have brought them in Dunedin ? Mr. Atkinson: It was entirely a matter of indulgence either from the Commission or the Government. I made my request, and it was granted. Mr. Justice Edivards: You made a request, and it was not granted. Mr. Atkinson: Not by the Co"mmission. Mr. Justice Edwards: You put it—and it was obvious enough what was going to be done— in your telegram that the ends of justice should not be defeated by legal technicalities. Will you tell me how you justify your conduct in not bringing these witnesses in Dunedin ? Mr. Atkinson: lam not here, your Honour, to say anything more than I have said. It was quite clear I had no right to call these witnesses of whom I knew before the Ist of May last. I asked as a matter of indulgence, and the Government was good enough to consent, and there my responsibility ends. Mr. Justice Edwards: Not at all. Your responsibility does not end there. Thrs is simply a monstrous and scandalous waste of public money. Mr. Atkinson: I am sure the Government will be glad to hear your Honour's opinion. Mr. Justice Edwards: The Government know my opinion perfectly well. I recommended the Government, as you are aware —because there were no secrets between us or between the AttorneyGeneral and myself —to accede to your application, to prevent an assertion which was obviously going to be made, from the tenor of your application, that the ends of justice had been defeated by legal technicalities. Mr. Atkinson: If your Honour will permit me to say, I did not imagine that my application to the Commissioners for my half-dozen witnesses of whom I knew before the matter went on trial at Dunedin would be granted. T assumed they would be struck out, but I thought it was my duty to make the application because I had been asked to make it. The application was granted, and my client is indebted to the Government for its indulgence, and in spite of what your Honour has said I cannot take any further responsibility. Mr. Justice Edwards: All I can say is that if you intended to call these witnesses that are without the slightest value to your client'it was your duty to call them in Dunedin. I say it is a monstrous waste of public money. Mr. Atkinson: As to that, I decline to take the responsibility, because I stated exactly what the position was. I knew my position was untenable, but I put it as a matter of indulgence, and it was granted. Mr. Justice Edwards: The whole position was absolutely untenable, not merely in regard to the'witnesses you knew about, but in regard to the whole of the witnesses. Mr. Atkinson: If your Honour prefers I should not conduct the proceedings further, I am prepared to consider the matter before the Commission sits again. Mr. Justice Edivards: Certainly not. These witnesses have been brought here in order to prevent any assertion as to the ends of justice being defeated by legal technicalities. Mr. Atkinson: Then I fail to see what is the exact point of this present discussion. Mr. Justice Edwards: I ask you to justify your conduct in bringing these witnesses here at enormous expense to the country. Mr. Atkinson: I asked, as an indulgence, for witnesses for whom I had no legal ground whatever. I stated the disqualifications that existed, and the application was granted; and I submit with all respect that the Commission has no right to attack me for the present position, because I never kept anything back. Mr. Justice Edwards: I ask you to justify it. Mr. Findlay: I do not want any misunderstanding of the position in regard to the Crown's attitude in this matter. In the correspondence with Mr. Atkinson we distinctly stated he must not abuse the Crown's indulgence, and that he must not call evidence that wasclearly inadmissible. We have thrown the responsibility on my friend, because we have asked him not to abuse this privilege. .... Mr. Atkinson: I told my friend before I got that letter. He got a copy of my orrgmal telegram to His Honour the President, in which these witnesses were put in a separate list, and it is absurd to say in these general words afterwards he is going to place the responsibility on me. I make an application, and it is granted. I submit with all respect lam not entitled to the censure of this Court in view of the manner in which it has been done.
A. CAMKRON.
201
H.—2l
Mr. Justice Edwards: You make an application in a telegram. I have the telegram, and oan produce it and give the whole of the words; but among other words, as you are very well aware, was something that you hoped the ends of justice would not be defeated by legal technicalities. That is how your witnesses come here. Mr. Atkinson: If neither the Commission nor the Government exercised its duty in rejecting the evidence, why should I be abused now ? Mr. Justice Edwards: I have not abused you. I ask you to account for not bringing the evidence when in Dunedin. Mr. Atkinson: I submit the language your Honour has used or the asperity of your tone justifies my resenting it. Mr. Justice Edwards: I have not used any language which it does not beseem me to address to counsel from this bench. 1 ask you to justify your making this application now. Mr. Atkinson : I trust I have not retorted in any manner that does not beseem me to address the Bench. Mr. Justice Edwards: I think you have. Mr. Atkinson: I am prepared to bear that responsibility, but I decline to bear the responsibility in regard to the attitude of the Government for not enforcing the rule. Mr. Justice Edwards: That is your explanation for not calling these witnesses in Dunedin? Mr. Atkinson: My explanation for not calling them in Dunedin is this: I thought their evidence was of comparatively small importance. I could not foresee all the details of the trial, and, realising my responsibility in calling people at the expense of the country, I was anxious to reduce the cost to the best of my ability, thinking it would mean a review of previous trials rather than a rehearing. Mr. Justice Edwards: Surely you knew these people were in Dunedin, and you knew all about them? You admit that, Mr. Atkinson: I thought we were coming up to Wellington to dispose of the whole thing in a couple of days, and that that would be an end of it. It was not our fault that the thing was hung up, but, of course, we had an opportunity of hunting for fresh evidence. My application was based upon fresh evidence, and I put in my telegram that there was some fresh and some stale evidence, and now I am abused because Mr. Justice Edwards: I have already said that you are not to use that word. There has been no such thing as abuse. I have not used one word that does not beseem the Bench to use towards counsel. Mr. Atkinson: I did not intend to use the word "abuse" in any derogatory sense. May 1 substitute the word " censure," your Honour? Mr. Justice Edwards: I say again this is a scandalous waste of public money. Mr. Atkinson: In order to have my professional position made quite clear, in view of the turn things have taken, I think we should have the telegram here and the whole of the correspondence. Tf this discussion is resumed after lunch I should like to have them put in. Mr. Justice Edwards: Will you now, please, proceed with the examination of this witness. 504. Mr. Atkinson (to witness).] You saw the door —the entrance from the small yard into Meikle's smithy ?—Yes, I was shown the door, about 2 ft. wide. 505. Do you think it would be possible to work sheep in there? —I do not know what is possible, but to drive sheep in there, into a dark place, would mean a very hard tussle, because they would jib back as fast as you tried to get them in. 506. Could you do it with an ordinary dog?—l doubt it. You would have to take hold of them and carry them in. But, then, as soon as you put them into a dark place they would make a dive to get back to the light. 507. Suppose you had a light inside: how would that affect it? —They would not care about a foreign light if they had a chance of getting any skylight, and they would strive to get back to their comrades. If the draught of wind was coming from within it would be of more use than a light, 508. You have tried doing it in the dark or with the aid of a light yourself, and you therefore speak from experience?— Yes. Mr. Findlay: At this stage, your Honours, T should like to have an opportunity of making clear the position taken by the Crown with regard to further evidence which may be tendered by my friend. The position the Crown takes is this: that the evidence must be admissible and it must be relevant, and it was only rrpon those considerations that we consented not to object. We object to any evidence which is not admissible. Now, with regard to the whole position :On the Bth May, when this Commission closed in Dunedin, mv friend Mr. Atkinson stated that, subject to calling Mrs. Meikle and one or two witnesses to be called in Wellington, his case was closed. Ho stated this in answer to your Honours. On the 14th May the Commission sat in Wellington, and he called Redding as a witness. It was to be presumed, therefore, that his case was then closed, subject only to the addresses of counsel upon the evidence coming from England. The next, then, that is heard is that there is an application to call further evidence, of which my friend gives notice. He makes a formal application, the date of which, I think, he can tell me. Mr. Justice Cooper: I have the papers here now. The application waR signed on the 19th October. Mr. Findlay: Well, that is some six months afterwards, and my recollection is that it was with regard to one point only at that stage my friend desired to call further evidence, and that was in reference to the evidence-given by the witness Lambert, and as to the credibility of that witness. Well, the only witness that we have had up to this is Angus Cameron ; and, in fact, my friend has not called any evidence with regard to that point at all, and his latest notification to us is that no evidence whatever of that character is to be produced now. Well, that application is adjourned, and, subject to that application and the evidence from England, it was assumed that the Commission was closed.
26—H.-21.
H.—2l.
202
[a. camebon.
Mr. Justice Edwards: We understood the Crown was going to call Mr. McNab, who was not then in the colony. Mr. Findlay: My friend agrees to the admission of a copy of a letter written by Mr. McNab to Mr. Meikle—l think, in 1896. Mr. Atkinson: Subject to my getting in certain Hansard evidence on the subject, a point which I submitted to my friend. Mr. Findlay: My friend is prepared to admit the copy of the letter written by Mr. McNab. Mr. Atkinson: On that condition. Mr. Findlay: You did not state any condition. Mr. Atkinson: I mentioned it to my friend. Mr. Justice Cooper: I think you will find on reference to the proceedings that there is some reference to Hansard reports. Mr. Findlay: I have no objection as to that. The letter has reference to the £500 which it was suggested Meikle should accept in satisfaction of all claims. But now my friend comes and asks to be allowed to call further witnesses. I think the first intimation we had of the number was that there were to be fourteen. They have in a few days increased to twenty-two. The attitude, then, so far as the Crown was concerned, was embodied in a letter, the original of which is in the hands of my friend. It is stated as follows : — "As regards the attitude of the Commission to your client calling fresh evidence, and your reference to the Attorney-General's statement that the Crown would offer no objection to such fresh evidence, we are instructed by the Attorney-General to say that the Crown will not object to fresh evidence; but it is quite obvious, first, that the whole question of whether fresh evidence may be called is entirely one for the Commission, and not for the Crown; and, secondly, that as the Crown has to pay all the expenses"of your client's witnesses, your client must not abuse this privilegeby seeking to call witnesses whose evidence is irrelevant or clearly inadmissible." That is the attitude we have taken up with regard to it. Now my friend says he did not expect us to concede any privilege with regard to a number of those witnesses mentioned by him, and he threw the responsibility upon the Crown for the expenses. Now, he was asked to justify his position in calling evidence which it was perfectly clear he could have produced before the Court in Dunedin in May, and no explanation has been forthcoming. It is submitted, therefore, he does not apparently propose to use this privilege in the way suggested by the condition of non-objection by the Crown. We therefore take this position now: that we shall object on the ground of inadmissibility to the evidence of any of the witnesses produced, and we shall ask the Court to say whether or not my friend is legally entitled to submit this evidence at this stage. I need hardly refer to the ample opportunity he has had of producing all this evidence before. And at this late stage we are told he proposes to recall Meikle. Mr. Atkinson: I mentioned that in May. Mr. Findla,y: I was not aware of it. There is no mention in the case of his desire to recall Meikle at all. I can find none. It would seem, therefore, that we are never to have any finality about the matter at all. We are to have Meikle called again, probably to go over a great deal of the ground which he has already been taken over. We have abandoned the evidence of Cameron, coming from Home; my friend admits the letter of Mr. McNab; and we submit, unless he can show ample justification for reopening the matter, he has no right to call further evidence other than that which is admissible according to strict legal principles. Now my friend apparently still keeps the door open. He is not content that your Honours should hear evidence to-morrow, and for several days perhaps, but says he may require a commission to take evidence in Invercargill. Mr. Justice Edwards: We understood that the application made in October was abandoned. Mr. Findlay: It has been abandoned and reinstated. Mr. Justice Edwards: If you move a thing and do not go on with it, it is dropped. Mr. Justice Cooper: Mr. Atkinson and Mr. Findlay appeared before us on the 20th October, and nothing has been said since then about it. Mr. Atkinson: Of course, Mr. Justice Edwards and your Honour left before Dr. Findlay came back. When Mr. Justice Cooper was here we saw him once. Mr. Justice Cooper: I was here until the 9th November. Mr. Atkinson: Dr. Findlay and I saw you. Mr. Justice Cooper: That was in December. Mr. Atkinson: We thought, of course, at that time an adjournment was arranged. Mr. Justice Edwards: You have not said anything about it since then. You have had notice that the two Judges who unfortunately form this Commission were, with a view of disposing of the business now before I leave for England, prepared to sit upon a particular day, and you said you were ready, or something to that effect. We received intimation that counsel would be ready. Do you suggest, then, that we should accede to an application which would prevent a report being made, or do you suggest I am to abandon my trip to England ? Mr. Atkinson: I certainly would not suggest the latter course. I would suggest that the application should be disposed of. Mr. Justice Edwards: When you knew we were making this sacrifice of our vacation for the purpose of disposing of the matter before I left for England, why did you not say, " I shall want a commission to Invercargill "? Mr. Atkinson: If I had thought 1 could have got a ruling by telegraph on the point, I should have mentioned it. Mr. Justice Edwards: If you had applied for a commission, it might almost have been returned by this time.
H.—2l.
A. CAMERON.j
203
Mr. Justice Cooper: Even suppose we had the right to grant a commission, it would be impossible to nrake a report. Mr. Atkinson: The commission could be returned within a fortnight. Mr. Findlay: Why could not the witnesses have been brought here 2 Mr. Atkinson: Because there is a limit beyond which witnesses cannot be compelled to attend. The reason for the application was that there was a doubtful point upon which we wanted a ruling without putting the country to the expense of producing witnesses who might be rejected. And, again, some of those witnesses were hostile, and we know they would not come unless they were obliged by law to do so. Mr. Justice Edwards: I cannot see why you could not have gone on with the application between the 20th October and the 12th November, when I went away. Mr. Atkinson: I know the application stood over for Dr. Firrdlay's return, and my recollection is that he did not return until after your Honour had left. Mr. Justice Cooper: He went away on the 17th October, and was away seventeen days. He must, therefore, have been back some days before we left. Mr. Atkinson: I have no recollection as to dates, but your Honours will appreciate the position that nobody realised at that time the reason which ultimately compelled the Commission to sit so early. Mr. Justice Cooper: I notice in your application for a commission you name one of the witnesses you called before us to-day—Angus Cameron. You did not ask him any questions then ( Mr. Atkinson: No, I did not; but perhaps, now that we have him here, we might get your Honour's ruling on the point, and that would settle it. Mr. Justice Edwards: If yoti think a witness has told a story, you can prosecute him afterwards. It is inrpossible to charge Lambert with forgery and perjury without his presence, and i cannot conceive it would be possible for a commission to be granted for such a purpose. Lambert is entitled to be treated fairly. Mr. Atkinson: May I be allowed to explain as a reason for delay that it appeared to me when first considering the point that the evidence was clearly inadmissible; but when I read all the evidence through from cover to cover 1 saw that the rules have been greatly relaxed, so much so that I felt justified in asking that they be still further relaxed? Mr. Justice Edwards: But you cannot ask us to relax rules in favour of your client which would have the effect of doing an injustice to somebody else. Mr. Atkinson: I felt it would be better to leave it to your Honours to decide without argument. Mr. Justice Edwards: There is no objection to your making application, but, for my part, 1 may say at once I could not see my way to grant permission for such a purpose. Mr. Justice Cooper: The application cannot be supported on any legal ground, and, although we have extended very widely the scope of the inquiry, 1 do not think we should cross the line where it involves suggesting a criminal act against a person not represented, and who has no opportunity of replying. Mr. Findlay: I was proceedrng to say that my friend has thrown the responsibility upon the Crown of taking any further evidence at all. He does not attempt to justify the calling of a witness such as the one w-ho is now supposed to be in the box, and who could have been called at the previous trial. The position, then, is that my friend has had ample opportunity to call relevant evidence, and no good purpose can be served by extending this matter from time to time. The number of witnesses has grown now to twenty-two. Mr. Atkinson: Its growth has ceased. Mr. Findlay: It has only stopped at the point of the bayonet, so speak. We said we would not take any more. Our attitude to my friend was, " Call what you are entitled to call, and we will pay." We say, further, that we have abandoned the evidence of Cameron, and there is the admission of the letter from Mr. McNab and the Hansard report; but I am instructed to say we will object, and will ask the Court to rule whether such further evidence as I have referred to is legally admissible or not. Mr. Justice Edwards: From the very first it is quite plain to me that upon no legal principle can Mr. Atkinson be entitled to call the evidence he seeks to call, and, for my part, on that ground, I decline to take the formal step of applying to the Colonial Secretary for his sanction to call further witnesses. At the same time, both sides are informed of what was done. I recommended to the Attorney-General that he should take upon himself the responsibility of bringing these witnesses here. I recommended that for the obvious reason that it might appear that by the application of the salutary rules of law the effect was to do an injustice to a claimant. I say " the salutary rules of law " because they are the rules of law which our experience has shown to be best calculated to elucidate in a reasonable manner. At the same time, I thought in this particular case it was desirable that the Crown should assume the responsibility of bringing these witnesses here. I was not prepared to take the responsibility of doing so myself, because to do so was a distinct departure from all legal principles It was with the intention that the witnesses should be heard that they were brought here, and what we propose to do is to hear them. Mr. Justice Cooper: I think we should hear every one of the twenty-two witnesses Mr. Atkinson has brought forward. Mr. Atkinson: Might I just be allowed to say a word or two? I am not prepared to argue, the decision being in my favour, but I desire to correct the impression I gave to your Honours, and which my friend has still got, that I was in some sense endeavouring to make the task of the Commission interminable by summoning additional witnesses to those whose names were originally submitted. I was instructed to apply for subpoenas for twenty-two witnesses, but I put in an application for twenty. It was entirely through my oversight that two names were omitted, so
H.—2l.
204
[A. CAMERON.
that unfortunately I had to apply for two more. As far as my friend's remark about the bayonetpoint is concerned, he is doing both the Crown and myself an injustice. The Crown was good enough to agree to twenty-two. 1 took it on myself, after his Honour had signed the subpoenas, not to send out three. Three of those witnesses it would be wasting the country's money to call. So that actually there are nineteen. But there is no bayonet-point about it. The Colonial Secretary had authorised it. Mr. Justice Edwards: It is certain that upon our- recommendation the Attorney-General took upon himself the responsibility of authorising the summoning of certain witnesses. When we made that recommendation it was with the intention that the witnesses should be heard, arrd we are prepared to hear them. Mr. Justice Cooper: In your first telegram you had twenty witnesses, 1 think, Mr. Atkinson. Mr. Atkinson: Yes. Mr. Justice Cooper: It is strange that both Mr. Justice Edwards arrd myself read your telegram as asking for only fourteen. That was evidently caused by the mixing-up of the names. We were both under the impression that your original request was for fourteen, but on going through the telegram carefully I find it was for twenty —that is by eliminating what apparently are Christian names and turning them into surnames. That is where the fourteen in my mind came from. I suppose we may take it that the great bulk of the twenty-two witnesses will be finished before to-morrow night? Mr. Atkinson: They will be finished before mid-day to-morrow, your Honour. I may say that I have not even now had an opportunity of seeing them all, but 1 have eliminated the names of two whom I had the opportunity of seeing last night. Mr. Justice Cooper: I think-we can leave it to your discretion as to whether you eliminate more—on the understanding that we are quite prepared to hear them all. Mr, Atkinson: Yes, sir. 509. Mr. Atkinson (to witness).] I was asking you, Mr. Cameron, about, I think, the state of cultivation of these two properties. Do you know anything about the state of the cultivation on Mr. Meikle's property ?—No. 510. Do you know what the quality of his land is, as compared with the pre-emptive right land?— Somewhat the same, but much better. It is very good land. 511. But you cannot say what the crops were at that time—lßß7?- —No. John Arthur examined. 512. Mr. Atkinson.] What is your present occupation?—l am an accountant. 513. In whose employ are you?— Fay and Co.'s. 514. Mr. Justice Edivards.] Where? —At Wellington. 515. What are Fay and Co.? —Wool-merchants. 516. Mr. Atkinson.] Have you had a look at this diary [produced|? Will you turn to the date of 26th October ?—Yes, I have seen it before. 517. I want you to take that magnifying-glass and look at the figures in the margin on the date 26th October: will you tell us how the figures stand, down the column? —302, 222, and 20. 518. And then the rest of them?— 26, 15, and 1. 519. Are those figures in the condition in which they were originally written ?—No. 520. Have you been able, by examination, to say what the figures were?— Yes. 521. Can you tell us what you take them to have been?—3ll. 522. In place of 302?— Yes. 523. Yes?—lll. 524. In place of 222?— Yes. 525. And the next one?— Either 24 or 26. I would not swear to either the 4or the 6. 526. Then with regard to the 15 and the 1 that follow?— They are original, I think. .527. Mr. Justice Edwards.] I suppose you do not know any more about it than we do?— No. Mr. Justice Edwards: There is no question about these figures having been altered. Mr. Atkinson: It was not disputed that they had been altered; but I do not think an ordinary man could tell with his naked eye what had been there. Mr. Justice Cooper: 1 think we discussed the matter in Dunedin. We certainly examined that entry. • Mr. Atkinson: No suggestion was made in Court, your Honour, as to what the figures had been. 528. Mr. Atkinson (to witness).] Then, about the figures in the body of the entry on the same date: alterations have been made there?— Yes. 529. Are they similar? How do the numbers stand now? Just read on, will you, from 302? —I think it was 311. 530. Just read on as it stands? —302. Then 15. 228 is scored out. 531. What were the originals there? —311. 532. Mr. Findlay.] The 228 was 311?—311 out of 302. 533. He is asking you about the 228?—0h, that was 111. 534. Mr. Atkinson.] Is there any other change?— Yes; a change of the 20. It has either been a 1 or a 4. 535. Can you give any opinion as to the interval of time between the originals and the alterations ?—No. 536. Mr. Findlay.] How do you make out that the 222 was 111 ? How do you arrive at that conclusion? —Because I think it was 111 before. It looks like it. 537. Has there not been an 8 there? —I do not think so.
.t. ABTHOB. i
205
H.—?,l.
538. What is that above the 2?— l do not know. 539. Mr. Justice Edwards.] On looking closely at it, Mr. Arthur, I am not at all sure that you are right. It looks more like a 6? —That looks like a2or an 8 there in the body. You will find a 1 down there if you look at the stroke. 540. Mr. Justice Edwards.] How do you get an 8 here? It has been turned into an 8 and then turned back into a 2?— Yes, that is what it looks like. 541. Mr. Findlay.] You cannot say what number it was turned into —whether it was 111 or 222? You cannot say whether it was 228 at some time? —According to my opinion, it was not 228 originally. 542. It may have been before it was made 222?— Yes. 543. First of all it was 111 ?—Yes. 544. Then you think it. was made into 228?—222. 545. Weil, where did the 8 come in?—l do not know. 546. Mr. Justice Cooper.] In making an alteration an accountant would strike a figure out and put the correct one on top, would he not J —Certainly. 547. The person who altered these figures does not appear to have been a very literary man, at any rate? —No. 548. Mr. Findlay.] You say that the 20 has been a 1 or a 4, not 21 or 24?— No. It has been either a4ora6, in my opinion. I think it has been turned into a4or a 0. It may have been a 6. 549. The 20 has been either 24 or 26?— In my opinion. 550. Not a 4 or a 6?— l should not think so. 551. Mr. Justice Edwards.] These carryings-out look to me as # if they were intended that one should not mistake what was in the body? —If you alter the one you must alter the other. 552. Mr. Findlay.] How do you account for your statement that the 20 has been a 1 or a -I Do you mean 21 or 24?— No, it has been 24 or 26, and it has been turned into a 0. 553. This 1 here in the body [indicated]: you did not say that that had been a 4 or a 6 ; you said it had been lor 4?—lt is very questionable. It may have been 21, or 24, or 26. 554. The 20 in the bodj T may have been 21, or 24, or 26?— Yes. 655. Has there not been some further alteration about that middle figure there- of that 111? Has the middle figure as well as the 2 been altered again? —I do not think so. 556. Mr. Atkinson.] Did I understand you to say that there had been two alterations in the figures now standing as 222 in the body of the entry?— No. I think those have been 111, altered to 222. 557. There was some suggestion made to you about 228?— Yes. 558. 1 did not hear. What was said about 228?—1 should say it has been altered again. 559. Mr. Justice Cooper.] it was altered from 111 to 222?— Yes, and then the 2 has been turned into an 8. 560. Mr. Justice Edwards.] I should not think so. It has been carried out as 222. It was evidently quite intended that the two should correspond. 561. Mr. Justice Cooper.] The 8 would not make it tally with the total?—l am not trying to make it tally with anything :1 am only saying what I think it is. I have not even added the figures up. 562. Mr. Atkinson.] You do not suggest that there has been an 8 in the 222 in the margin?— No. Mr. Atkinson : 1 am sorry that your Honour has been a little hard to follow. It seems to me thai my friend has misunderstood. .1//-. Justice Cooper: You will notice that there is a faint appearance of an 8 in the margin. There is a very much more distinct appearance of an Bin the body of the entry. There is a faint appearance of an Bin the margin. You look at it, .l/r. Atkinson: 1 cannot see that here. I can see the 8 quite clearly in the body. Witness: No, your Honour, I should not think it has been an 8 there. ' 563. Mr. Atkinson (to witness).] As to the 222 in the margin, you said that you considered the original figures there were 111. It has been suggested to you by their Honours that there has been also a 118 in the margin: what do you think? —I do not think so. 564. You see a certain projection above the head of the 2?— Yes. 565. But you cannot say? —No, I should not like to say it has not been an 8. I think it has been 111. 566. What is your explanation of that projection? Do you think it is just a part of the 1, or how do you account for it?— The person concerned may have been going to turn it into a 2. It may be the top of the 2. Alexander Simpson examined. 567. Mr. Atkinson.] You are an accountant? —At the National Fire Insurance Company, Wellington. 568. [Diary handed to witness]. You were asked to examine the entries in the diary which 1 have handed to you, under date 26th October? —Yes. 569. Will you just look down the figures in the margin? First there is 302?— Yes. 570. Can you tell from examining the figures what the original figure was, or the original figures were?—3ll. 571. Then take the next one, which is now 222?—111. 572. The next, which is now 20?— I should take it as 24. The next one is 26, unaltered. The next is 15, unaltered. The next is 1, unaltered.
H.-T-21
206
[A. SIMPSON.
573. Just look at the body of the entry there under the same date. Some of the figures are repeated there? —After the word " Sunnyside " there is 302 now. I should say it was 311 before. 574. Then you come to 222?— That appears to me to have been 218. The next one, which was 22 1 should say, has been altered to 20. 575. Can you express any opinion as to the difference in dates and when the corrections were made? —No, I would not like to say when they have been altered, but they most certainly have been altered. Joseph Johnson examined. 576. Mr. Atkinson.] You are at present an overseer employed at the Fairfield Freezing-works, near Ashburton ?—Yes. 577. Did you ever live in the neighbourhood of Meikle's property?— Yes, a good many years ago--578. How long did you live there?—ln the district, fifteen or sixteen years. 579. Did you ever live on Meikle's property?— Before Meikle went there I was on the property. 580. Do you remember the time of his conviction for sheep-stealing?—l do. 581. Where were you then?—At Raeburn. 582. Rae's was on the western side of the Wairikiki?—Yes. 583. What was your employment at that time?— Rabbiting. 584. What was the date?—lBBl. 585. Were you familiar with the land around there? —Yes. 586. When you first knew was there much cultivation? —None whatever. 587. Which was the better soiH —The soil was much the same around about there. 588. Were you ever employed on the Islay Estate?—l was on that estate at that time. Meikle's was part of that estate at that time. 589. How long were you employed on that estate?— About four years. 590. Then, after that you were employed at Mr. Rae's, across the creek, and you were there in 1887?— Yes. 591. How long drd you stay at Rae's? —About eight or nine months. 592. When did you leave! —Christmas, 1887. 593. Did you see Lambert while you were at Mr. Rae's?—Yes, several times. 594. Where was he living?—On the pre-emptive right. 595. Was anybody staying with Lambert in the hut?— Yes, a ploughman named Mac George. 596. Where used you to see MacGeorge?—At the hut. 597. How often? —About two or three times a week. 598. Was Mac George still at Islay when you left Rae's ?—No. 599. When did he leave? —1 cannot say what date, but he left on a Monday—the day of Waters's sale at Wjndham. 600. About what time of the day?—He left in the morning, a little after 8. 601. When had you last seen Mac George before that?—On the Sunday. 602. Where?—At the hut. 603. Was Lambert there then?— No. 604. Did Mac George have any conversation with you as to what his plans were?—He had mentioned to me during the week previous that he was leaving the hut for Waicola, another estate of the company, and on the Sunday morning he said he was going there on the following day. 605. Where did you see Mac George on the Sunday I—He was on his road to Islay Station on Sunday morning. He was on horseback. 606. Do you remember what kind of a horse?—A black draught horse. 607. On the Monday what work were you doing?—l was ploughing close to the edge of the creek on Rae's land. 608. You say you saw Mac George leave?— Yes. 609. How far from you would he be when he passed along the road? —Perhaps 100 yards. 610. How was he travelling?—He had a dray and a team of horses. 611. Do you remember the team? —Yes—two black ones and one bay. The bay was in the shafts and two black leaders. 612. Did you exchange any greeting with him?—l called out to him as he went past, He was too far away to have any conversation. 613. Was the road he was taking in the Mataura direction? —It was the road from the hut to Mataura. 614. Did you know how far he was going that night?—-No. 615. Had "you done any work on the pre-emptive right then? —All the work I had done on the pre-emptive"right was with Rae's team, shifting the hut Mac George lived in. 616. Where had the hut been before?—On the ridge near Gregg's fence. It was shifted into the corner, in a small paddock. 617. How long were you able to work that Monday morning?—" Some time before dinner I had to stop through the rain, but I am not sure what time it would be. 618. What sort of weather was it when Mac George went along?— Fine, or I would not have been ploughing. 619. Did you see Mr. Rae that day?—l saw him in the morning before I went to work. 620. Where was he when you came back? —He was away at Waters's sale. 621. What time did he return? —I am not sure —perhaps 7or 8 o'clock. 622. Was there any conversation with reference to MacGeorge?—He asked me if Mac George had left for Waicola, and I said he had.
J. JOHNSON.]
207
H.— 9l.
623. Did he make any remark?—He said he would have a wet drive. 624. Where is Mr. Rae now?—l think he is dead. 625. Were you able to work on the following day—Tuesday?—Yes, 1 was still ploughing in the same place. 626. For how long during that day?—l was ploughing both morning and afternoon. I could not say whether I was there the whole day or not. 627. Were you familiar with the hut—you had been there pretty often? —Yes. 628. What sort of a hut was it?—lt was a hut with eight ordinary wooden bunks—two lower bunks and two top ones on each side. Two bunks, end to end, ran the whole length of the hut. 629. Were there any other buildings there —any outbuildings or stables?— No. 630. What distance was it from the nearest point where you were ploughing on the Tuesday to the hut?—l suppose, 150 yards at the outside. 631. What direction were you ploughing relatively to the creek? —I was ploughing the ridge, coming up the creek along the side of the creek and going up the other side. 632. So that you were constantly to and fro alongside the creek? —Yes. 633. Did you see Mac George on the Tuesday?— No. 634. Or did you see his horses about?— No. 635. Nor his cart?— No. 636. Did you see him again alxmt Islay? —I do not think I have seen him since at Islay. I cannot reoollect. 637. Where may you have seen him?—At Mataura or Edendale, but nowhere in the neighbourhood of Islay. 638. Did you see Lambert on the Sunday or Monday?— No. But I saw him on the Tuesdayafternoon going towards the hut". I had no conversation with him. I was not close to him. 639. Which road was he going?— Coming from the direction of Mataura. 640. Can you say about what time that would be?— Some time in the afternoon. 641. The fence running along was Gregg's boundary, and stopped on the cross-road, and there was a gate there?—lt stopped at the corner opposite the hut. 642. What was the width of the road? —A chain, I think. 643. Did you ever see any dogs stationed at that gate?— No. 644. Was there anything to stop sheep getting through?— Along the Wairikiki there was no fence, but there was a fence from the hut fencing in a small paddock that the hut stood in. 645. Going north through the pre-emptive right, when did you first come to a fence?— The first ferice that you came to would be the boundary lietween the Wairikiki Estate and Islay. 646. There was no fence between Belmont and the pre-emptive?— No. 647. Can you say whether the Wairikiki was sheep-proof while you were working at Rae's?— 1 would not like to say whether sheep would cross the Wairikiki or not, but there were bridges that they could go across. 648. Did they go across the bridges? —That is more than I could say : but sheep got across the creek to Rae's property, because I had seen them taken away. 649. With regard to the cultivation of the pre-emptive right, was there any English grass on it?— Not at that time. 650. Where was the best feed along there?— There was a patch of turnips on a small ridge alongside the fence, and on the opposite side of the road was tussock, and going further north was stubble. 651. What was the area in turnips?—A small ridge—l suppose, 14 or 15 acres, perhaps, at the outside. 652. What would turnips be fit for in October? —In that district turnips are usually eaten off before October—that is, on a place like Islay, a place where there is only a small patch of turnips and a large number of sheep. 653. Supposing they are not eaten off, what state would the turnips be in?—l should say they would get rotten with the wet, but, perhaps, not so soon as that. • 654. What was the character of the other fields generally? —Very poor. 655. We will take Meikle's crops: what state were they in in October? —Meikle had an early crop of oats and English grass, but I could not say what was the height of the oats. 656. About what time does an early crop of oats show in that part of the country?— Beginning of September. 657. Had Meikle any turnips that year? —I do not know. 658. Taking his farm generally', what was the general nature of the feed? —Better feed than the usual run round that side of the river. He had a lot of English grass, and there was not much of that in other places. 659. What was the feed like along the Wairikiki Creek compared with the feed on the preemptive right?— Right on the river flat there would be a certain amount of rough feed, but up on the ridges there was practically no feed. 660. Do you remember the school reserve? —Yes. 661. What sort of feed was there there?— Rough tussock feed. 662. Had Meikle got any grass?—He had a good bit of English grass sown. 663. Have you any idea, approximately, of the acreage?—No; but he had English grass on the Garry section, just at the back of Meikle's house. 664. How was the feed, generally, on his place oompared with the feed on the pre-emptive right?—lt was a good deal better than the feed on the pre-emptive right. Any of the feed in the district was better than that on the pre-emptive right. 665. Do you consider that Rae's was better?— Yes, and it was a poor place. 666. How would Rae's compare with Meikle's?—lt would not be as good as Meikle's.
[j. JOHNSON.
H.—2l.
208
667. Do you know whether Meikle's sheep ever trespassed on the pre-emptive right?—l could not tell you. 668. Did you ever see the company's sheep on Meikle's? —Yes, I have seen the company's sheep taken away from Meikle's. 669. How often?—lt was a year or two before 1887. 670. I am speaking of about October, 1887? —No, not at that time. 671. Have you ever travelled from the hut on the pre-emptive right to the Mataura?—l cannot say that I ever started from the hut to go to the Mataura, but I have travelled the road. 672. How often? —A number of times. 673. Where would you be starting from, generally, when working for Mr. Rae?—That would Iks about a mile from the hut, and sometimes at Killow's, a mile and a half on the other side. 674. Taking the journey from Killow's to Mataura, how long would it take to do that with a team? —1 carted a l<st of fencing there. I used to leave Killow's after dinner and get to Mataura about 5 o'clock —that is, with an empty dray. 675. How many hours would you allow from the hut to Mataura on a dry day?— Say, three hours and a half. 676. Is there any occasion to travel twenty-five miles going from the hut to Mataura on a dray?— None whatever. 677. Was there any occasion in 1887?— None whatever. I should say the distance is about thirteen or fourteen miles. 678. What is the best way from Meikle's homestead to Islay for a man walking or riding?— I should say the nearest road from Meikle's homestead to Islay would be up to Killow's and through the Islay Gorge. 679. How much longer would it be if you went by the hut to Islay? —A mile and a half. 680. Was Meikle's or the hut nearer to Islay—taking the shortest road to each of them?—l do not think there would be much difference. 681. If you were walking from Meikle's to the Mataura, what way would you go?—I should go down past the hut and through the Raeburn property. 682. Was that way open in 1887?— Yes. 683. Does it represent a shorter way- than the dray-road? —Yes. I do not know whether it was a public road, but we used to go through private property. 684. What distance would that be? —Perhaps twelve miles. 685. Mr. Lambert mentions you would go through Brown's place in taking that road? — There is a road running through Brown's place. 686. The main road?— Yes. 687. What distance is that? —That is the same road 1 speak of. 688. How many express trains were there between Invercargill and Dunedin in those days?— At that time the ordinary express ran through once each way in the day. 689. About what time did you get to Dunedin? —Between 5 and 6 at night, fii)o. Mr. Findlay.] How old are you?— Thirty-nine years of age. 691. You were a lad of about twenty when these circumstances of which you are speaking with such particularity occurred? —Yes. 692. You were employed as a ploughman on this neighbouring property of Mr. Rae's. How long had you !>een there in 1887? —About eight or nine months. 693. 'You were familiar with the district before that?— Thoroughly. 694. You had lived there?— Yes. 695. Did you know the Meikles before you went to Rae's? —Yes. I had met some of them. I was not acquainted with them. 696. What do you mean by that?—l knew them slightly—a bowing acquaintance. 697. Did vmi meet them after you went to Rae's? —Not while at Rae's. 698. Did you know Mr. Meikle when you were at Rae's? —I knew him before I was at Rae's, but I was not on speaking terms with him at that time. • 699. When are you speaking of now?— While I was at llae's. 700. You never'spoke to him at all? —I may have said " Good day," but that is all. 701. Did you speak to him on any occasion that you remember while you were at Rae's?— I cannot swear'l have not spoken to him while I was at Rae's. 702. At any rate, you knew him by sight; and, living quite near, I suppose you saw him often, ami he would see you and would know you were ploughing at Rae's? —Yes. 703. That was twenty years ago?— Yes. 704. When did you leave Rae's?—Between Christmas and New Year, 1887. 705. Of course you remember the year perfectly well? —Y T es. 706. How do you fix the year?—l cannot tell you. I fixed the year through Meikle's trial, knowing by the talk of the district at the time it was 1887. 707. So that you could not have fixed the year had it not been for the talk of the drstrrct about Meikle's trial? —Yes. 708. From memory?—No, not from memory. 709 When did it "first occur to you to consider when it was? —I cannot tell you. 1887 has been impressed on the mind of most of the people of that district ever since it happened. We have heard so much of Meikle's case that we know—at least, I did—the year it was. 710. Of course, you all discussed the case, I suppose?— Yes, I have discussed it with otherpeople. 711. You were interested in it? —None whatever. 712. In a general way you were interested in it as other people were, and watched the reports in the newspapers and talked about it, and so on? —Yes. 713. When did it occur to you to recall these facts about McGeorge? When drd you first go
H.— 2l.
J. JOHNSON.]
209
over in your mind these facts about McGeorge? —I cannot tell you when I first recalled them. Ever since Meikle went in they have been in my mind. 714. You cannot say when you first recalled them and went over the circumstances in your mind: was it only recently? —Oh, no; years ago it has been in my mind. 715. How long have you been away from the district?— Seven years. 716. So that you left the district about 1900?— Yes. 717. You were in the district at the time Lambert was tried? —Yes. 718. I suppose you remember the circumstances of that? —Yes. 719. You remember too the question of this trip of McGeorge's coming up—the main question of the date of McGeorge leaving for Waicola coming up?—At Lambert's trial? No, Ido not. 720. Do you remember it coming up at Meikle's trial? —Yes, I remember such a thing did happen. lam not sure of the date, but lam certain he left on a Monday, and that it was the day of Waters's sale. 721. Can you tell us how you have come to that conclusion? Where was Waters's sale? —Near Wyndham. 722. Were you at it?— No. 723. How do you connect it with that day?—My employer was there, and when he came home from the sale he asked me if McGeorge had left the hut to go to Waicola, and I said he had. 724. He was in the habit of going to other sales, was he not?— Yes. 4 725. And conversed with you, I suppose, when he came home from other sales?— Yes. '726. How do you recall now that it was Waters's sale? —I cannot say he was at Waters's sale, but he told me he had been there, and it was on Waters's sale day, and naturally I came to the conclusion he had been there. 727. You heard the question of the date cropping up in Meikle's trial, did you not?—l cannot say whether it was Meikle's trial or Lambert's trial. 728. You told us a little while ago it was Meikle's trial?—l cannot say which trial. I have heard the question of the 17th. 729. And the Monday? —I do not know which day the 17th was on. I have not looked up a calendar. 730. Where were you'in 1895?—1n Mataura Township. 731. How long had you been there ?—That is more than I can tell you. 732. Had you gone to Mataura from Rae's? —Yes. 733. Did you speak to Mr. Meikle at all during that period, after he came out of prison?— I believe I had seen him after he came out, but I had not been speaking to him until about three years before I left Mataura, I suppose. 734. You had not spoken to him until then ?—I may have, but not that I can recollect. 735. Did you ever talk to him at any time about McGeorge? —I do not think so; not that I remember. 736. Did he ever ask you anything about McGeorge?—Not at that time. 737. At what time did he ask you? —That is more than I can tell you. He asked me if I remembered when McGeorge left the hut, but I could not tell you how long that is ago. 738. It would be when you were in Mataura?—Yes, I think so. 739. You are not sure of that? —It must have been while I was in Mataura. 740. What did you tell him then? —I told him the same as lam telling you now. 741. When did you start work ploughing as a rule? —8 o'clock. 742. You were ploughing this morning you saw McGeorge leaving with his team?— Yes. 743. Did he see you by the way?— Yes. 744. And waved his hand, or something of the kind? —Yes. 745. What time of day was it? —Soon after I started work—soon after 8. 746. Cannot you tell us with more particularity? —No, I cannot. Say, from Bto 8.30. That is as near as I can get to it. 747. Where did he come from that morning? —From the hut that he and Lambert had been staving at on the pre-emptive right. 748. What direction was he going in?—Up the creek on the Mataura road. 749. Was he going in the direction of Islay? —Yes, the road would lead him to Islay Station. 750! But if he went to Islay it would take him longer?—He would have to branch off, of course. 751. Do you know Cameron's, at Mataura Bridge?— Yes. 752. When would McGeorge get there on that morning? —I should say about midday. 753. How many miles do you say it is?— Thirteen or fourteen miles. 754. Is there any other way that is longer?— You can find lots of longer roads. 755. That is taking the shortest road?— Yes; the ordinary main road. 756 If he called at the Islay Station, of course he would not reach Mataura at 12 o'clock?— Certainly not. It would take him to 12 to get to Islay. Then he would have another fourteen miles to "get to Mataura. That would mean the afternoon some time. 757 It is peculiar that McGeorge seems to have mentioned everybody else he saw that day, but he did not mention that he had seen you either on the day before or on the day of his going?— Is there anything peculiar in that. ..,...» i 758 Well he was asked apparently about it with great particularity. I merely want to know whether there is not some possibility of your being mistaken some twenty years ago ?—There is no possibility of my being mistaken. It was a Sunday I went to see him. When a man is ploughing at'a farm Sunday is the only day he has to himself to go and see any one. 759. What is there a possibility of your being mistaken about? Is there a possibility of your being mistaken about anything? —Yes, lots of things.
27— H. 21}
210
[j. JOHNSON.
H.—2l.
760. About any of your evidence? —No. 761. Nothing at all?— No. 762. You are speaking, of course, from your memory of facts of twenty years ago, and there is no possibility of your being mistaken about anything?--! am speaking of what has been impressed on my mind twenty years ago. 763. And although you knew the importance of this question about McGeorge, you never voluntarily went to Meikle and told him anything about it?—l knew nothing about the importance 764. You heard it discussed, and you heard rumours in the district about it all?—I knew of the rumours in the district, but 1 did not know there was anything particular about McGeorge s departure. . , , 765. Did you not know perfectly well that this was the main question in Lambert sease — whether McGeorge left on the 17th or not?—No, I did not know that. 766. How did you come to speak to Meikle about it at all?—I do not think I spoke to Merkle at all until I was asked. 767. How did he come to speak to you? —I cannot tell. 768. You see, you were interested in the Meikle case naturally, and you heard rt drscussed in the district, and you read the papers, and you did not know that Lambert was sentenced because he swore to the 17th?—No, I did not know, and Ido not know that he was sentenced because he swore to the 17th. 769. And yet you remember his trial perfectly well, and read the papers, I suppose /— Yes. 770. Did it occur to you that you knew anything at all about it at that time?—No, not until I was asked. 771. You were interested in" the circumstances of it?— Not necessarily. 772. You mean to tell the Court you were not interested in the circumstances as one who was a neighbour, and knew McGeorge, and knew Lambert, because you were visiting the hut constantly ? I had no particular interest, I took a certain amount of interest in the case, knowrng the drfferent parties, but I was not particularly interested in it. 773. It never occurred to you to think that you knew a fact that came out so strongly in that case? —No. 774. And you did not then consider the question of the date at all: you did not then recall in your mind the question of whether it was Monday you saw McGeorge, or the 17th, or any other day?—l knew it was Monday, but I did not lay any particular stress upon it. 775. How do you recall all these circumstances which were present in your mind then, and yet which it never seems to have occurred to you to mention ?—I tell you it was impressed on my mind at the time. I knew it was on Monday he left, but I did not trouble myself any further about it. , i • ii i 776. It only occurred to you when Meikle asked you about it: was that the time you recalled it?— That was the first I told Mr. Meikle about it. 777. Mr. Justice Edwards.] When did Meikle ask you about it?— After he came out of gaol. 778. Then, it was some years after the occurrence? —One or two. 779. He was sentenced to seven years and served five? —I cannot tell you how long after the trial. It was after he came out of gaol. 780 You had nothing particular to make you remember it was Monday?—l tell you 1 am certain I went there on the Sunday, because it was the only day I had to myself, and on the Monday, or the day of Waters's sale, McGeorge went away, and Mr. Rae coming home asked me if McGeorge had gone. 781. Mr. Findlay.] You can recollect all that, and yet you cannot tell me from memory when it was Meikle asked you about it? —No; I do not know exactly. 782. And yet your mind is so impressed with this matter. Can you tell me whether rt was before Lambert's trial or after that Meikle asked you about it?—lt would be after. 783. How do you know it was after? —I never spoke to Meikle after he came out of gaol until after Lambert's trial. . 784. Will you swear that you did not speak about this case between the time of Lambert s committal by the Magistrate and the time of his trial in the Supreme Court ?—No. 785. Will you swear you did not speak to Mr. Meikle at that time about the facts you have come here to give evidence about to-day?— No. 786. May I put it this way —that it is probable you did speak about these facts at the time?— I may have spoken about them. 787. It is probable you did speak about them at the time? —Yes, very likely 1 -did. 788. And if you spoke about it, you told him what you have told us to-day?—l would tell him the truth, whatever it was. 789. You told him what you told us to-day?— Yes. 790. Can you explain why it was that you were not called as a witness? —I cannot. At that time I did not want to have anything to do with the case, and very likely would say as little as possible to Mr. Meikle. .... „ , • , , 791. Why did you not want to have anything to do wrth the case? —A person does not wrsh to be mixed up with a'case of that kind. I know I did not. 792. But your evidence might have meant clearing Lambert or clearing Meikle?—lt did not occur to me I was wanted. If they wanted me they could have found me. 793. I suppose you did not want to be mixed up in it now? —No. 794. Were you spoken to before this Commission sat in Dunedin by Mr. Meikle? —No. 795. By anybody ?—No.
J. JOHNSON, i
211
H.— 2l.
796. When were you recently spoken to about it?— Since the Commission was in Dunedin Mr. Meikle wrote to me and asked me different questions, and I answered them. 797. On the matter you had told him before? —Yes. 798. Did he ask you if Mac George left on the Monday?— No. 799. What did he ask you?—He asked me different questions. 800. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Give us three or four of them?—He asked me if I remembered Mac George being at the hut, and I answered " Yes." He asked me if I remembered when he left, and I told him I did; and he asked me if 1 knew the ground, and he knew, of course, I did know the ground. 801. Mr. Findlay.] Of course, you do not know that Mac George actually did go to Mataura on that Monday you speak of?—I did not see him go to Mataura. I saw him on the road. He told me on the Sunday he was going to Waicola. He would have to go to Mataura to get there, and when 1 saw him going away on the Monday morning, of course I naturally concluded he was going to Mataura. 802. I suppose, putting Waters's sale aside altogether, it would be very difficult for you to say whether it was Monday or Tuesday you saw him go?—lt might be difficult to say whether it was Tuesday or not. 803. 1 wish you to put aside the question of the sale altogether. You were looking at the fact that he was going away on the Monday, and if afterwards you had not seen him again it would be very difficult at this date for you to say whether it was on a Monday or Tuesday that he left? — It would be difficult if on the Sunday he told me he was going on the Wednesday or the Thursday, but when he was going away on the foflowing day, the day after I was over there, it would not be so difficult to remember. 804. But supposing he had altered his mind afterwards. It was in your mind he was going away on the' Monday; but, supposing he went on the Tuesday, do you mean to say at this date you could tell us it was Tuesday or Monday after he had changed his mind, apart altogether from any sale or talk with Mr. Rae, or anything else? —Putting aside Waters's sale, it might have made a difference. 805. Mr. Justice Edwards.] What made you remember Rae asking these questions?—lt was a very wet night, Mr. Rae was very wet, and after asking if Mac George had gone away he remarked that he would have a very wet drive. 806. Mr. Findlay.] Was Rae interested in Mac George in any way?— Not more than as a neighbour or friend. 807. Do you remember anything else that happened that week?—l cannot say I remember very much, except that I was ploughing the whole week below Meikle's place. 808. Can you recollect how long afterwards it was that Meikle was arrested?—No, I cannot. 809. Can you say that he was arrested within three months of that occurrence?— Yes. I cannot say what day or what week, but I say it was less than three months. 810. Do you recollect the circumstance of his being arrested? —No. 811. Do you recollect hearing about it?— Yes, I recollect hearing on the night he was arrested, when he had been arrested. 812. What night was it? —I cannot say. 813. Mr. Justice Edwards.] It is curious that you cannot remember this when you remember other things so clearly?— Well, the only way in which I can place the day of Mac George leaving was through Waters's sale. Mr. Justice Edwards: But Waters's sale had nothing to do with Mac George leaving. Why should you connect the two things? It is remarkable that you should remember this with such particularity. You must have an uncommonly good memory. Mr. Justice Cooper: It is the combination of the circumstances which would make a man remember such a thing. Mr. Justice Edwards: But if there had been anything remarkable happening to you one could understand it; but where it is a trivial circumstance, and where there is no more combination apparently than there is between any other two events, I cannot understand it. Where all the circumstances are equally trivial there does not seem to me to be any more combination of circumstances than there might be any day. It might be right, of course. 814. Mr. Findlay.] What day is your birthday?— The Ist day of December. 815. Were you at Rae's then?— Yes. 816. What day of the week was that in 1887?— That is more than I can tell you. My birthday does not trouble me very much. I could not tell you the day of the week of my last birthday. 817. Do you remember the day of the week of any other of the sales about then? —No, I cannot say I do, except that there were the ordinary sales at Mataura on Tuesday. 818. What was the day of the week of Gregg's sale?—l was not there. 819. But you were not at Waters's sale either?—l do not think I was in the district. lam not sure. 820. How long were you in the distriot before October of 1887?— Four or five months, I think. 821. Do you remember anything about Gregg's sale?—l remember there was such a sale, but I do not remember when it was. 822. Do you remember whether Gregg's sale was before or after the sale by which you fix this event ?—No. 823. You can fix it by no other event at all?— That is the only thing I can fix the day by. 824. You cannot fix the month of Gregg's sale?— No. 825. Mr. Justice Edwards.] You can fix the date of Waters's sale?—No, I do not know the date.
212
[j. JOHNSON.
EL—2l.
826. Mr. Findlay.] Do you tell us it was difficult for you to say, apart from Waters's sale, whether Mac George had gone on Monday or not? How do you know Waters's sale was on a Monday?—By the two things coming together. 827. But you say that, unassisted by that element, you cannot tell the day of the week on which this event happened. How do you know that was the day of the week?—l have told you the way in which I fix the day, and that is all I know of it, 1 went there on the Sunday, and on the following morning I saw Mac George going away. 828. You told me a few moments ago that if it were not for the element of the sale it would have been difficult for you to say when he did go away, and I put it to you that although he told you he was going on Monday he may not have carried out his intention ?—I know he went on the Monday. 829. Mr. Justice Edwards.] You said, apart from Waters's sale, it would be difficult to say whether he did go on the Monday?—l said it would be difficult to say if it had been any other day but the Monday. 830. Mr. Findlay.] I put it to you that Mac George may have altered his mind. You thought he was going on the Monday, and, unaided by any other event at all, after this lapse of time would you know whether he went on a Tuesday, or Wednesday, or Thursday? Now, I take your answer, and say, how do you, apart from that altogether, fix the date of Waters's sale, or the day of the week of Waters's sale?—l cannot fix the date of Waters's sale. Ido not know what date it was. 831. How do you fix the day of the week?- —Simply because I know Mac George went away on the Monday, and the two things coming together. I was there on the Sunday, and saw Mac George going away on the Monday, and that was the day of Waters's sale. 832. Mr. Justice Cooper.] Can you remember anything that happened on the day of Meikle's arrest? —1 was at Mataura with a team of horses. 833. Do you recollect who told you about it?—A man named Green was the first I heard it from. 834. Mr. Findlay.] That was of no importance to you at that time?— No. 835. The event of Mac George going away was of no importance to you until Meikle saw you, probably some time before Lambert was tried, and spoke about it?— No. 836. Mr. Justice Edwards.] I gather that you first knew it was of importance when Meikle wrote to you a short time ago?— That was when I was first told it was of importance, although r had been asked by different people about the case before that, but not by Meikle. 837. Mr. Findlay.] When did you first know it was of importance?— When Mr. Meikle asked me about it. I could not tell you exactly the date. 838. It was only a few months ago —since Bth May, in Dunedin?—Yes, I should say so. Mr. Justice Edwards: Well, it is very extraordinary that you can carry these very trivial details in your mind for nineteen years and you can produce them now, and yet you cannot give us details of anything else. It may be quite right. The Court adjourned at 4.30 p.m.
Thursdat, 3rd January, 1907. Mr. Atkinson: I ask leave to recall Ebenezer Forsyth. Mr. Justice Edwards: Certainly. Ebenezer Forsyth recalled. 1. Mr. Atkinson.] 1 asked a question yesterday relative to the size of the sheep-yard at Meikle's farm: I ask you now what was the size of the yard—what number would it hold?— Four to five hundred. Of course, you have the sheep-yard in front of your race. By erecting a hurdle from the end of the smithy to this door you could run them into the yard out of this door. 2. Mr. Justice Cooper.] That is the big yard? —Yes. 3. Mr. Atkinson.] Do you know that you answered the question I asked yesterday by saying that it would hold fifty? —I thought you mentioned the cowshed. 4. Mr. Justice Edwards.] If you were trying to put sheep here [indicating the photograph of the place] how many would go into that little yard ? 5. Mr. Findlay. What is the extent of that yard? Can you give any idea from recollection of its extent? —No, but I could put all the sheep on the place there. 6. In that lithographed plan there appeared to be something like posts across from the gate to the other corner ?—No, no posts. 7. There is something. It may be a shadow?—lt may be a shadow. 8. Do you remember how the outside gate opened?— Outwards. 9. It does not open inwards?—lf you look at the bottom plan, where the cowshed is shown, you will find it there. 10. There appears to me to be an enclosure?— Yes. 11. What is the width? —I should say, about 20 ft. 12. When you say you could put four or five hundred sheep in that yard, you mean by packing them tight?— You could pack them without danger of smothering. 13. It would be pretty full then —as full as a railway-truck?-—Yes.
H.—2l.
Hugh Fraser Munro examined. 14. Mr. Atkinson.] Your name is Hugh Munro? —Hugh Fraser Munro. 15. You are a farmer?— Yes. 16. Where do you reside? —Mimihau Valley 17. Were you residing there at the time of Meikle's conviction?— No. 18. Where were you then? —In the western district of Southland. 19. When did you come to reside there? —In the April of 1888. 20. Had you occasion to go on Meikle's property?— Several times. 21. Who was in charge then?— Mrs. Meikle. 22. What business took you on to the farm?—To cross there —to go over by the road. 23. Where was your place then?—l was manager of Venlaw Station. 24. On what side does that stand?— Between Meikle's and the river. 25. You were on the Islay Station occasionally?—l mustered it. 20. What sort of cultivation was there on the pre-emptive right in April?—lt is such a longtin io ago Ido not recollect. I thought it poor. 27. Do you remember the state of Meikle's cultivation?— The land was understocked, but there was plenty of grass there. 28. What was its condition generally? —I have no recollection. 29. How are turnips for sheep in the month of October in Southland?— Unless they are very good farmers there are none at all. 30. How is that? —Because they are eaten off long before. 31. Did you visit Meikle's homestead while managing the station?— Yes, I went there several times. 32. Did you see his barn ?—Yes. •')•'!. And do you remember the entrance from the smithy?— Yes. 34. Do you think it would be possible to work sheep through that door? —No. 35. Mr. Justice FJdwards.] When did you see this place last—the smithy door arrd the yard?— I believe it would be two years since I saw it last. It has been altered a lot. On account of the case coming on I went to see it. 36. When you went to see it two years ago it was not in the same condition?—No, I do not think so. 37. You are speaking now of recollections of 1888?— Yes. 38. Mr. Atkinson.] It was the April after the trial when you first went and saw it?— Yes. 39. And I suppose you knew about the case? —Of course 1 did. 40. Did you look at it pretty closely then? —Yes. II . You considered that sheep could not be driven in there through that door?— 1 thought it was impossible. 42. How many years' experience have you had with sheep ?—From infancy. 43. Do you remember if there was another entrance to the same building?—-Yes, there was, but not too good. 44. Supposing a man had to work sheep in a place like that, how would he go about it?—l could not tell you. Many men have many minds. 45. Do you remember the size of the other entrance compared with the smithy door? —I could not say. 4b\ What would be the ordinary proportion of rams for a flock of twelve hundred ewes? — One to fifty I always used. 47. Is that the ordinary complement?— Yes, for a hilly country. 48. Mr. Findlay.] I suppose when you say that you could not drive sheep through that small door you mean that they would not go in with the man and dog behind them?— That is so. 49. Supposing you had two there and a dog—one inside and the other outside —do you think you could get them through— a small lot, you know?—lf one man got hold of a sheep as a decoy for the others they might be worked. ' 50. Sheep will follow a leader? —Yes. 51. They sometimes even jump over imaginary obstacles? —Yes. 52. In the way that you state you think it would be possible?—ln that way it would be. 53. You told us that you came along to that neighbourhood in the April of 1888?— Yes. 54. At that time Meikle was in gaol? —Yes. 55. Did you see Mrs. Meikle?—l did. 56. And, I suppose, had conversations with her?—l did. 57. And spoke about the case? —1 never spoke about the case. 58. Did you have conversations with any of the family?— Not that I know of. 59. Do you remember McCauley?—He was at Wairikiki. 60. You met him with Arthur Meikle in the shed at Wairikiki?—Yes. 61. What took place then? —Nothing that I know of, but there was some conversation between Meikle and McCauley. 62. What did Arthur Meikle say?-—As far as I can remember, he said, "Well they have got hold of the old man at last " —meaning Mr. Meikle. 63. What else? —Am I compelled to answer that? Mr. Justice Edwards: I think so. We have had all sorts of things like that. You must answer. Witness: He said, " Yes, it is-a good job, or he would have had the whole lot of us in gaol." 64. Mr. Atkinson.] Anything more at the same conversation? —Nothing further. 65. Was Lambert's name mentioned? —Not that I remember. I was sorry for the young fellow. I helped to bury him.
213
H.—2l.
214
|H. F. MUNRO.
66. Will you repeat the last words? —" It is a good job, or he would have had the whole lot of us in gaol." 67. Was there any other name mentioned? —" The old man," he said. 68. Any conversation as to what happened prior to Meikle's conviction? —None whatever. 69. You knew nothing, then, about the preparation of the case?— Nothing at all about it. 70. Did anybody ask you to help to give evidence against Meikle? —Nobody asked rae. 71. Mr. Justice Cooper.] In the ease in 1887? —No, sir. 72. 1 understood you to say that you were not there until 1888?— I did not go there until 1888. . . . .' 73. Mr. Atkinson.] Were you never in the neighbourhood until 1888?— I was in Wairikiki in 1887, and took charge of Venlaw in 1888. 74. Did you see any of the company's men? —Not that I remember. 75. Can you recollect who was manager then?—No; but I can recollect who was manager in 1888. Mr. Christie took charge. 76. Who did you take young Meikle to refer to when he said " They have got hold of the old man "1 —I inquired who it was, and he said, " The old man." 77. Who did you take it to be? —Am I compelled to answer that question? Mr. Justice Edwards: I think so. Witness: He said, " They have got hold of the old man." 78. Mr. Justice Cooper.] He said, " They have got hold of the old man." Who do you mean by " they " ?—The company. 79. Mr. Atkinson.] Can you not recall whether the company's troubles with Meikle were not referred to? —Not that I remember. It is such a long time ago. However, it is impressed upon me that I was angry with the voting man referring to his father in that way. 80. There were three of you at this conversation? —Yes; McCauley was manager of Wairikiki Station, and I was sent to see the shearing finished. 81. What led up to the conversation? —He spoke to McCauley. I did not know him at all. 82. Is there any reason why they should have referred to the company?—No reason whatever. 83. I put it further: Are you quite sure that they were referred to in that last sentence of young Meikle's? —I do not understand you. He may have referred to the company. It is quite likely he did. « 84. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Let us know exactly what you mean. This is what young Meikle said: " They have got hold of the old man at last, It was a good job, or he would have had the whole lot of us in gaol " ?—Those are the very words, sir. 85. It struck you because it was strange for a son to speak so of his father?— That is so. 86. Did you ask him any question about it?— No. 87. Could he not have said, for instance, " They made a good job of it "?—No; that was all he said. 88. I am only playing round the same sentence. 1 want to make it quite certain that you are sure about it. Was not there a reference to the constant quarrel between the company and Meikle? —I could not say. 89. Did you know that there had been trouble between the company and Meikle long before this?—Of course I did. 90. Was it not natural that the young man would know of this? —Of course. 91. Was it not natural that he should speak of the company's share in getting Meikle out?— I should think so. - 92. Now, are you quite sure that that was not the reference he was making?— Well, 1 should like to qualify my statement there by saying that I am sure it was the company he meant. 93. Can"you recall now whether he mentioned the names of any of the company's agents? Do you remember who it was that gave evidence against Meikle? —No. "94. You do not remember any of the witnesses? —I do not. Ido not recollect any of the witnesses with the exception of one- -Mr. Green. ■ 95. You are satisfied now that they did refer to the company? I wish to take you on to the second sentence. The first sentence you take to mean that the company got hold of Meikle at last? —Well, I will qualify my statement to that effect, I believe it was the company he meant. 96. Did you know that young Meikle had been accused, with his father, by the company?— 1 never knew of it. . 97. You do not know, then, that he had been charged too?—No, I never knew anything at all about that. .... „ » T t 98. Are you aware now that he was put on his trial with his father ?— r>o, lam not aware yet, 9!). So that you did not realise any point in " putting the whole lot of us in gaol " ?—No. I was a perfect stranger in the district. 100. May I put it to you in this way: is it not possible that the company was also referred to in the second sentence, or one of its agents? _ ~,..« „ Mr Justice Edwards: You are roallv seeking to substitute the witness for the Court, Mr. Atkinson, The witness can only tell the facts. The inference is not for the witness, but for the Mr. Findlay: I am not objecting to my friend cross-examining the witness, although he has not shown hostility; rather the other way. Mr Justice Edwards: He is straightforward, as far as I can judge. 101. Mr. Atkinson.] I put the last sentence to you again, Mr. Munro: ' It is a good job, or he would have had the whole lot of us in gaol." Mr. Justice Cooper: Those were the words? Witness: Those were the words.
H.— 21.
H. F. MUNBO.
102. Mr. Atkinson.] You say you do not remember anything about what was said of the company's affairs, but some of their men may have been mentioned: could the reference not have been to the chief witness against Meikie? —I do not know. I could not say that. 103. You could not say which?—l could not say who the reference was to. I do not quite understand. 104. Mr. Justice Edwards.] You say that this young man said, " They have got hold of the old man at last, It is a good job, or he would have had the whole lot of us in gaol." You tell us that you took that to refer to Mr. Meikle?—Yes. 105. That was what you understood. Mr. Atkinson wishes you to say that when the young man said, " It is a good job, or he would have had the whole lot of us in gaol," he may have meant, " It is a good job, or Lambert would have had the whole lot of us in gaol " ?—Oh, I see. 106. That is what Mr. Atkinson wishes you to say?—Oh, well, Ido not know. He may have alluded to Lambert. Mr. Justice Edwards (to Mr. Atkinson): It is quite impossible, Mr. Atkinson, if those were the words. 107. Mr. Justice Cooper.] What impression was conveyed to you, Mr. Munro? What did you at the time think he meant ?—I thought it was the company he alluded to. 108. But what was your impression at the time when he said, " It is a good job, or he would have had the whole lot of us in gaol " ? What was your impression the word "he " meant? —That Meikle would have the whole family in gaol. Mr. Justice Cooper (to Mr. Atkinson): That was his impression at the time, Mr. Atkinson. Mr. Atkinson: Yes, but he cannot be certain. 109. Mr. Atkinson (to witness).] Did you mention that conversation to anybody, Mr. Munro? —I am sorry I did, and I do not know to whom, or it would not have been brought up here now. 110. Did you mention it to Mrs. Meikle?—No, I do not think so. 111. You cannot be absolutely certain? Mr. Justice Edwards: If you are going to suggest by-and-by, Mr. Atkinson, that the witness has said something different to somebody else, you must put the exact words that you allege to have been said to somebody else, and ask about the time and place. Mr. Atkinson: Yes, your Honour. 112. Mr. Findlay.] You told my friend Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Munro, that you did not hear Lambert's name mentioned? —I did. 113. You did not hear his name mentioned? —Never. CHRrsTrNA Beange examined. 114. Mr. Atkinson.] You are the wife of Mr. A. Beange, of Wyndham, farmer? —Yes. 115. Do you know Mr. Troup, once manager of Islay?—Yes, I do. 116. Did you ever have any conversation with him with reference to Meikle's case? Mr. Findlay: I object to any evidence of conversations with Troup, on two grounds—first, that the evidence is generally not admissible; and, secondly, that Troup was never asked about any conversations with this lady, at the previous hearing. Mr, Justice Edwards: As to the last ground of objection, Mr. Troup is here, we have been told, so he can be recalled. Well, we have allowed so much that we do not propose to stop this. We are not bound by rules of evidence, and are not going to stop the taking of this evidence. Mr. Findlay: I take it, then, that there is no use in my giving reasons. Mr. Justice Edwards: I thought you had given reasons. Mr. Findlay: I simply stated my objection. Mr. Justice Edwards: We are prepared to hear reasons, of course, if you can show any beyond what is generally a perfectly good reason in a Court of justice. Mr. Findlay: I was going to submit that, apart from the recalling of witnesses so long after the original hearing, the evidence would not be admissible at all. But the position is this :is it fair to any witness, apart altogether from the question of affecting your Honours' recommendation or the main issues ? For it is really a side issue of the case; it is not in itself relevant evidence of first importance as to what this man may have said. He was examined. Statements were made by two witnesses —Mabin and another —as to the conversation with him, and he has denied those in his evidence. The actual question was in my friend's hands, and in his mind, no doubt, when this man was in the box. Mr. Justice Edwards: I suppose he had not the evidence. Mr. Findlay: That is just where the reason comes in for excluding this evidence now, your Honour —after witnesses have been called as to a certain these very witnesses may endeavour themselves to support their statement by suggestion to others. It may even turn out that Mabin, who apparently has interested himself in the case, may have interviewed some of these witnesses. All these possibilities enter into the admission of evidence of this kind. Mr. Justice Edwards: They enter into the whole thing. You might have said, "We stand upon our rules," and have objected to witnesses from Southland. But you did not. You brought the witnesses here. Certainly, in that respect you acted, as I said yesterday, upon the recommendation of both Commissioners —Mr. Justice Cooper and myself. There was some misapprehension as to what I had intended by my telegram, but this was made perfectly plain: that I considered Mr. Atkinson had not shown any reason by legal principles for admitting this evidence at this stage. Therefore I refused to exercise the power given by the statute to the Commissioners of applying to the Colonial Secretary for leave to summon these witnesses, which you know would throw the burden and expense upon the country. But although I refused to summon the witnesses, I did
215
[C. BEANGE.
216
H.—2l.
recommend the Attorney-General to take upon himself the expense of bringing the witnesses. _ That was communicated to Mr. Atkinson at the time or shortly afterwards. I take the full responsibility for my recommendation, of course, which was concurred in by Mr. Justice Cooper. The witnesses were brought, and that being the case we are not at all prepared to say we will not hear them. On the contrary, we will hear them, subject to any fresh objections that might be rarsed. Oi course, it is obvious enough that this class of evidence is open to the objection which is urged when fresh evidence is called upon retrial. It may be suggested—and you are quite at liberty to mention it when addressing the Commission—that it is bolstering up the case which was closed as long ago as the 14th May. Of course, we must feel in the matter towards the whole evidence as we are bound to feel upon'just consideration of what weight may be attached to all those matters, but we are not at all prepared to say we will not hear the evidence. With regard to the particular objection, we think the evidence admissible. If the evidence had been called at the first hearmg, and Troup's attention had been called to it, it would have been admissible, assuming it to be something to show that Troup has made inconsistent statements in his evidence. That berng the case, we shall allow it to proceed, unless you can show us some further cause. Of course, we give you the full opportunity of recalling Troup. Mr Findlay: Of course, my objection only goes this far—that rs, to any matters of tact connected with the actual circumstances in connection with the case. We have never offered any objection, and do not offer any objection, to evidence coming in; but as to the contradiction of witnesses Mr. Justice Cooper: That goes to the credibility of the witness. Mr. Findlay: No doubt, your Honour. _ Mr Justice Edwards: With regard to irrelevant matters, such as suggesting to a witness that he has committed a crime, you are bound by the denial; but with regard to contradictory statements alleged to have been made by the witness as to the subject-matter of the inquiry, the rule is different, as I understand it. . _ Mr Justice Cooper: This evidence would be admissible for the purpose of showing that Iroup is unworthy of credit because he made contradictory statements at different times—that is, assuming that the evidence would have those contradictory statements. ' Mr Findlay: My point, of course, was that he should have been examrned. Mr Justice Cooper: No doubt, technically, you cannot contradict a witness unless you crossexamine a witness and bring to his mind place and circumstance. But we want to get at the trutti of the whole thing. .....,, o , • ,_ m t Mr Justice Edwards: Of course, if you prefer that, Mr. Findlay—that is, that Troup bo recalled now—Mr. Atkinson might cross-examine and bring out all he has got to say about this matter Probably that would be a more correct course. We think, Mr Findlay that, if you desire that, you are entitled to require Mr. Atkinson to cross-examine Troup first about these matters, in order to lay the foundation for this class of evidence. We assume a good deal about what is'going to be said, but we can infer what the motive is. Mr Findlay ■ That is a mere matter of putting my frrend rrght, really, m the matter of hrs rights. 'I do not know that it makes any difference. It is a matter for the Court. lam quite indifferent about it. Mr. Justice Cooper: Is Troup here? Mr Atkinson: Yes. , .. „. ~ Mr. Justice Edwards: Well, if you do not express a desrre the other way, Mr. Frndlay, we can let (t0 witness) .] Did you ever have any conversation with Troup with reference to Meikle's case?—l just heard Troup pass a remark m my house. 118. You had a conversation? Mr Justice Edwards: No; she heard Troup make a remark to her husband. 119 Mr Atkinson.] When was this?—lt was when Troup left the station 120. How long after he left the station ?—On just that day he came down from it, as far as 1 d _ d to? __ He came to my p i aC e as he left the station. 122. What is the name of your place?—Owara Bank. 123 That is near Wyndham? —Yes. . 11/ Then Mr Troup came down there just about the time he left the station ?— Yes 25" And'you heard him pass a remark. What was it he said?-Well, it was to the effect it ♦ lAd bit of paper in his pocket, and he could release Meikle-that just six words from Mm tuid releaL MeTiror let Meikle'out. It was some words to that effect. Those are the W ° rd l26. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Those are the words used?-Those are the words as near as I can ""'rn "'/riSrj Did you make any remark in reply to that?-I did not. S: Was The remark addressed to you?-Well, my husband was m the house at the time. 129 Mr Justice Edwards.] You mean in the room?-Yes; in the kitchen. 30' To whom was Troup speaking?— Well, to my husband arrd myself. i«" n?7vour husband say nothing?—My husband said, when Troup sard he had left the ?hotC supposed he would be pleased now that Meikle was in gaol; and Troup sard 22*25 t^-tlThfha^a"aper i/his pocket and just a few words from him would put Meik i e 32 rig And what did your husband say?-I do not think he said anything. He thought it was TroupV l so
C. BEANGE.]
217
H.—2l
134. Mr. Atkinson.] Did you think Troup was joking?— Well, he has rather peculiar sayings, and I did not know anything about it, for we did not know anything about the case. 135. Was he smiling when he made the remark?—l do not think he would be. 136. Then, did you say your husband made any reply?—No, not at the time. 137. Did you have any further conversation with Mr. Troup? —No, I had not. 138. Mr. Findlay.] Can you say anything about the time? —No, I could not. 139. You could not tell us how long it was after Meikle was convicted? —No, I could not say anything about that. I have no dates whatever. 140. Could you say whether it was five years after Meikle was convicted?— No. 141. Can you say whether it was four years?— No. 142. You were living at a place between Wyndham and where Meikle was living?— Yes. 143. How far from Meikle's place were you living? —I could not say. 144. How long would it take to drive there? —I suppose you could drive there in half an hour. 145. He was a farmer in your neighbourhood?— Yes. 146. And I suppose that amongst others you had heard about the Meikle case?— Yes. 147. It was a case that created a great deal of interest in the district, and talk and gossip?— Yes. 148. And I suppose that you had talked about the Meikle case with other people?—l suppose, a little, or I would not have been here. 149. Perhaps a lot?— No. I have come here to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. 150. You were interested in the case? —No, I was'not. It was a dirty-looking case from first to last. 151. You had an interest in a neighbouring farmer being convicted of sheep-stealing? —No. He was a good way away from us 152. Did you know of the quarrels in the past between Meikle and the company?— Only hearsay. 153. You had known Troup a good while? —Yes. 154. You have known him since?— Yes. 155. What kind of character does he bear?—He is an ordinary man. He is just like other men; but he was not particularly well liked. 156. Do you dislike him? —I do not love him. 157. I have no doubt he is sorry for that. If you loved him perhaps you would be kinder to him?—l do not think he is a ladies' man. 158. Evidently he is not, or he would have managed your story better. You say that you neither like nor dislike him. You say that you were only interested in the Meikle case like other people, and that you talked it over? —Yes. 159. At that time, I suppose, it was said that Meikle had been wrongfully convicted—that he had no right to be in gaol?—I suppose so. 160. You had heard that? —Something to that effect. 161. That his family was suffering, starving, and so on, as the result?—l do not know about that, I was not so near at hand. 162. But it is in your mind that you had heard it circulated that he was wrongly convicted, or that he should not have been in gaol. Did you tell anybody about this statement at the time— about Troup's statement to you?—l saw what appeared in the newspapers. I saw the remark in the newspapers, and I said that if I had been a listener in the Court I should have said that too. 163. Mr. Justice Edwards.] You mean after the proceedings at Dunedin? —Yes. 164. Mr. Findlay.] That was the first you talked over the Meikle case? —Yes. 165. So that in the interval —during all these years —you said nothing about the remark to anybody?—l never thought of doing so. 166. You could not have taken the remark seriously?— No. 167. You could not have taken Troup's statement seriously?—No; we thought it was a bit of what you might call " bravo." That is the way I took it. 168. You did not take it to mean that an innocent man had been put in gaol and that he could get him out if he wanted to? —No. We thought it was rather a peculiar thing. 169. You did not think that this man Troup was such a scoundrel as to keep Meikle in gaol for five years, and that he could get him out?—l could not say. 170. Who suggested to you that Troup had said that he had something that might help Meikle? I want to know if anybody had got into communication with you or your husband about this case? — No; I saw it in the papers. 171. Have you had any communication with a Mr. Mabin about what you have sworn to? — Mr. Meikle sent a letter by Mr. Mabin. 172. Do you know Mr. Mabin? —Yes. 173. Have you seen him within the last six months? —Yes; he lives alongside of us. 174. When did you see him last? —A day or so before I came away. 175. Did you see him after the case in Dunedin? —Yes. 176. When did you see him after he came back from Court?— Not for some time. It may have been three weeks or a month. 177. Did you speak about the Meikle Commission with him then? —Not at that time. 178. Did you know he was a witness? —Not until I saw the newspaper. 179. So that at the time you saw him you knew what he had said in the Meikle case? —Yes, after I had seen the newspapers; but I did not see Mabin until about a month after the Commission had been sitting. 180. You did not discuss the matter with him at the first interview after his return?—No,
28—H, 21.
[C. BEANGE.
H.—2l.
181. Why? —I suppose it did not crop up in the conversation. 182 At a subsequent time did Mabin speak to you about it?— No. 183. What conversation had you with him about it?— None at all, because 1 was very angry when I saw his name was connected with the case. 184. You saw him afterwards, and you said nothing to him at all about the easel—No; 1 had nothing to say about the case. 185. Mr. Atkinson.] What did you take Mr. Troup to mean by that remark I Mr. Findlay: I object to that question. Mr Justice Edwards: We have allowed so much that we will not stop rt, at all events. 186. Mr. Atkinson (to witness).] Will you tell us what you thought of the remark and of Mr. Troup?—l have already stated that, 187. But what you thought the remark to mean?—l did not think anythrng about rt. 1 was taking no interest in the affair at all. 188 You used the expression that you thought it was "a boast' ?—"ies, I thought he was making a brag on leaving the company; that, perhaps, he thought they had used him badly; but I did not bother anything about it. 189 Had you no idea at all as to what he meant?—No, I could not say; but 1 did not think it was for much good, the way he saidWt. At the same time, I did not take any heed of what he said. I was busy with my work at the time, and he was just merely talking. 190. In what tone was he speaking? —Not very pleasant. 191 Did you ask him the meaning of what he said?—l thought nothing about it. 192 I think this is the letter that he received from Mr. Meikle: " Post Office, Wellrngton, 21st December, 1906.—Mr. A. Beange, Farmer, Wyndham.—Deak Sir,—Will you let Mrs. Beange know that I have sent a summons to get your son William and Mrs. Beange to come to Wellrngton and «ive evidence on my case. Mr. Jas. Mabin told me about Mrs. Beange and your son. It Mr. Mabin made a mistake about your son's first name, it will make no difference. I only want what is fair and just. Troup made certain statements that others have sworn to. The case comes on here on the 2nd January, 1907. Leave Wyndham on first train Monday, the 31st December, or sooner. Case will be settled this time, I hope. With best wishes.—Yours truly, J. J. Meikle. WiLnrAM Beange examined. 193. Mr. Atkinson.] You are a farmer, residing at Wyndham?—ln that district. 194. You are a son of the last witness? —Yes. 195. Do you know Mr. Troup?—Yes. „.-,,, , v 196. Did you ever hear him make any statement with reference to Meikle s case I —Yes. 197 Where was it?—On the road-line, just below my father's house. 198. About when was this?—l could not exactly say, but it was about the time he left the Islay * 199. What was it he said?—As far as I can remember, half a dozen words from him would let Meikle out. , . . , T ~ , 200. Do you remember what lecVup to that ?—He was pretty excited, and I could not say. 201. He seemed a bit excited ?—Yes. 202. You cannot remember anything else? —No. 203. Did the conversation proceed any further?—He was wanting to see Mabin badly, tie told me that. 204. Did you hear for what purpose? —No. 205 Then, there was nothing else bearing on the case? —No. 206 Mr Findlay.] How long ago is that?— About eighteen years ago, I thrnk. 207. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Troup got notice to leave the station?—l could not say, but it was about that time. 208. You cannot fix the date?— No. 209 Mr Findlay ] How long after Meikle was convicted ?—I could not say. It was about the time Mr. Christie came to the station. I think it would be about December. I think it was about s ea - ™® m memory, could you say whether it was a year or two after the conviction, or was it three years ?—I could not say. 211 Or was it shortly after?—lt was not very long after, as far as I can remember. 212 You say you had a conversation with him: he came into the house, drd he not?—l do not remember ; but I believe he was in the house. I met him on the road-line. 213 You are quite sure that it was not in the house that you met hrm (—Yes. 214. Have you met him in your mother's house?— Yes; he used to stay there sometrmes. 2151 You used to discuss the Meikle case sometimes ?—Yes . 216. It was a case of some interest: there was a good deal of talk about Merkle?—Yes, I have heard it discussed. ~ , , . , . 217. If this was so shortly afterwards, the crrcumstances would be somewhat fresh m your mind about the Meikle case? —Yes. 218 Can you say for certain whether the statement could not possrbly be made—which you allege—in the house or on the road—that it might have occurred there?—l am certain it was on the road. „ , , ~ . 219. Had you known Meikle?—Not a great deal. He used to pass the door. 220. You knew him to speak to? —Yes. 221. You had been friendly with him? —Yes,
218
H.—2l.
W. BKANGE.
222. You knew his circumstances and his family?— Yes. 223. You knew his farm?— Yes. 224. And you read the papers giving the accounts of his trial? —A good deal of rt. 225. You remember the time when Lambert's trial came on?— Yes, I can remember reading about it in the newspapers. 226. Have you ever heard Mr. Meikle lecture? —Yes; I think the first time he came back. 227. You knew he was beginning a campaign to show his innocence?—l could not say, then. 228. You knew he stated he was innocent?— Yes. 229. I suppose this business had faded from your mind about Troup at that time? —No. I always remembered the half-dozen words. 230. What importance did you attach to them?—l did not attach any importance to it at all. 231. You thought it was a little bit of heat caused by his falling out with the company?— Yes. 232. You thought it was a boast on his part —a bit of brag?—l was not sure. 233. You could not have attached much importance to it or taken it seriously?—No, I did not take it seriously. 234. Otherwise you would have taken some steps to have acquainted Meikle with it when he was lecturing throughout the country about his innocence? —(No answer.) 235. You have known Mr. Troup for some time?— Yes. 236. All these years?— Yes. 237. Do you know anything against him? —No. 238. Do you think he is the kind of man who would swear an innocent man in gaol, and keep him in gaol for five years ?—I cannot say. 239. I ask you for your candid opinion ?—I could not say anything about that. 240. Do you think he is capable of it?—l could not say. 241. You would think very little of a man who would do a thing of that kind? —Yes. 242. I think, as one of their Honour's said, that would be an abominable thing to do—a criminal thing to do for any man? —Yes. 243. Mr. Justice Edwards: No doubt, it would be one of the most serious of crimes. 244. Mr. Findlay (to witness).] You have discussed the Meikle case with a good few people, I have no doubt? —Yes. 245. When did you discuss it with Mabin?—l do not remember. 246. When did you see him since the Commission sat in Dunedin ?—I suppose a fortnight or three weeks ago, at Wyndham. 247. Had you seen him before that?— Yes, several times. 248. You knew he was in Dunedin giving evidence?— Yes. 249. You read the reports in the newspapers?— Yes. 250. Have you discussed the matter with Mabin since? —No. 251. Y T ou did not tell him what you have told the Court now?— No. 252. You did not say anything to him alxrut it? —No. 253. Mr. Atkinson.] Did Mr. Troup appear to be in earnest when he was speaking?— Yes, as far as I can remember. 254. Did you think that he meant what he said, or did you not?—l think that he meant what he said. 255. Mr. Justice Ed/wards.] You told us that you thought it was a boast, on account of some falling out between himself and the company?—He was fairly excited. 256. If you thought he meant what he said you surely would have asked him some further questions?—l did not ask him any further questions. 257. What do you mean? You told us first of all and last of all that you took it to be some sort of boast because he was displeased with the company?— Yes. 258. In what way did you take his remark?—l could not say exactly, but I think he pretty well meant it, all the same. 259. Is it not strange that you did not ask him some further questions about it?—He seemed to be in a little bit of a hurry; and those were the last words he said. 260. Mr. Findlay.] You would have stopped him, surely?—l did not want to be mixed up with the case. Mr. Justice Edivards: Mixed up with a case is one tiring, and allowing an innocent man to languish in gaol is quite another. 261. Mr. Findlay.] You did not say anything to Mabin? —No, not so far as I can remember. I may have. 262. And you said nothing about it at the time that you knew Meikle was lecturing?— No. John Johnston examined. 263. Mr. Atkinson.] You are a farmer living at Mataura Island? —Yes. 264. How long have you been at Mataura Island? —Six years last September. 265. You know Mr. Troup?—Yes. 266. Had you any conversation with him about the Meikle case?— No. 267. Did you ever hear him make any remark about it?— Yes. 268. Where was that?—ln my-house. 269. At?—At Berkshill. 270. Where is that? —It is not where we are now. It is about four miles from where Meikle was living. 271. About what date would this conversation be? —I have not the slightest idea. 272. Was Mr. Troup still at Islay Station, or had he left?—He was still there, but was about to leave. He left about that time.
219
ja.—21.
220
[j. JOHNSTON.
273. What remark did you hear him make?—l heard him remarking that he had documents or some papers by which he could take Mr. Meikle out of gaol if he liked. 274. Do you remember anything else of the conversation? —No. 275. Was anybody else present?— Yes, my wife. 276. Did Mr. Troup say anything else about the affairs of the company?—No, not that 1 recollect. . 277. in what frame of mind did he appear to be?—He did not seem to be satrsfied because the company had dismissed him. . 278. Did you have any dealings with Mr. Meikle in the year of his conviction? —I do not recollect whether 1 did or not. 279. About the time that Meikle was convicted, were you on his property then? —Well, I do not remember whether I was or not. 280. Do you remember whether Mr. Findlay had any dealings with him?—l know the man you mean. Him and I went there and purchased some grass-seed from Mr. Meikle. 281. What quantity? —Really, I cannot tell you. 282. Can you remember, now that Mr. Findlay's name has been mentioned, what year that would be?— Really, I have no idea what year it was. 283. Mr. Findlay.] You have no recollection about when this conversation took place? —No. 284. Was it before Meikle came out of gaol?—I think it was just after he went into gaol that this conversation took place. , 285. Mr. Justice Edwards.] It was about the time that Troup left Islay Statron?—Yes, just about that time. 286. Mr. Findlay.] You knew Meikle, of course?— Yes. 287. And you knew Troup very well? —Yes. 288. You had had ploughing contracts with him at some time? —No; I took a contract to harvest at one time at Sunnyside, but it fell through. A new tenant came in, and I assigned my contract over. 289. You had a bit of a row with Troup at that time? —No. 290. At any rate, you knew him before and afterwards? —Yes. 291. You knew Meikle very well, I suppose? —Yes. 292. He was a neighbour of yours: how far away? —Between four and five miles. 293. I suppose you remember the case creating some interest among the farmers? —Yes. 294. And reading the papers about it all?— Yes. 295. You knew Troup had been a witness, and so on? —Yes. 296. Did you see Meikle after he came out of gaol?—I did. 297. When was that? —I cannot really recollect the time. 298. You heard him lecture, I suppose?—l did. 299. Did you take any interest in the family at all? Did you raise any subscrrptrons for him or his family?—l did. , , ,» . *, 300. You and your wife interested yourselves on their behalf ?- -Yes; on behalt ot Mrs. Meikle and her family, not on Meikle's behalf. 301. Did you take round a subscription list? —I did. 302. You "saw Meikle after he came out of gaol, and you heard him lecture, and knew he protested his innocence?—! cannot remember whether I heard him lecture, but I saw the paper he published. 303. You saw his pamphlet?— Yes. 304. And you knew he was protesting his innocence? —He was talking that way. 305. Where did you hear him speak first?— Well, I really think it was at Wyndham. 306. 1 suppose he came there after he came out of gaol ?—Yes; that was his place. 307. You saw him there, and he talked, I suppose, about his case? —I never had much talk with him about his case. 308. You talked to him?—l talked to him generally. 309. I suppose he talked about his case, at any rate?— Yes; he could not get away from it. Of course, I was not interested in his case. 310. Of course, when Troup spoke to you on this occasion you knew he was having some trouble with the company? —He did not seem to be satisfied with his late employers. 311. He was speaking rather excitedly about it?— Well, that way. As near as I could learn, he did not seem to be satisfied. ~„•»,«, T 312. You did not take his talk about Meikle very seriously ?—i\o. Of course, I was not interested much in the talk, and I did not take much notice of it. 313. You did not, after you had heard Mr. Meikle lecture, tell him about it?—No, I never told him anything about it. 314. Mr. Justice Edwards.] How did he find you out ?—That is more than I can tell. 315. Did you talk to anybody else about it?—l might. No doubt there was some talk going about it, but I cannot recall the talk to give statements. 316. Mr. Findlay.] Did you notice the reports in the papers about the Meikle Commrssion m Dunedin?—Yes; I think I heard something about it. I really cannot tell you one item about it. 317. How far were you living away from Beange's? —Well, at that time Mr. Beange had been a neighbour, but at the present time we are living about twelve or fourteen miles apart. 318. Do you know Mr. Mabin? —Yes. 319. Did you know he was a witness in this ease?— Yes, I heard so. 320. Have you seen anything of him in the last six months?— Yes. 321. When did you have a talk with him? —I saw him several times. 1 saw him a day or two before I came away here.
221
H.—2l.
j. JOHNSTON.
322. Did you have a talk about Meikle I —Well, we had not much talk about Meikle. We did talk about this trip for which I had been summoned. 323. Did you tell him anything about what you had to say, or did he speak to you about what evidence he had given ?—I do not think so. 324. What did he say to you?—l do not remember what he said to me. 325. But something was said about the Meikle case? —That we were going to Wellington over the case —that is all the talk was about. 326. Did you talk to anybody else lately about the Meikle case? —I make no doubt we talked among ourselves lately about the case. I cannot recollect what was said. 327. You said nothing about this conversation with Troup outside yourselves? —I make no doubt we talked among ourselves some time or another. I cannot recollect what time. 328. But there was no talk about it until recently outside? —Not that I recollect. 329. What papers do you get at Mataura Island —the Otayo Timesl —As a rule, we take the Wyndham Herald and the Wyndham Farmer. We get the Otago Witness occasionally. 330. And I suppose the Otago Witness is pretty well read? —Yes, as a rule. 331. Some member of the family reads it all? —As a rule. 332. And no doubt the Meikle Commission reports in the Otago Witness were pretty carefullyread bj- somebody in your house?—l do not remember anything about it. 333. Does your wife read the Witnessl —Yes, as a rule. 334. And you discuss the news with her, I suppose?— Well, sometimes we do, and sometimes do not take any notice of it between ourselves. 335. Do you remember discussing the Meikle case when she read the Witnessl —I remember us talking over the case, but I do not remember anything about it. 336. Mr. Atkinson.] When Troup made the remark was there anything to suggest to you that he did not mean what he said? —He did not suggest anything to me except the words he said. 337. Did you take him to mean what he said? —Of course, I could not understand the man or what he meant by it all. 338. You did not pursue the inquiry any further? —No; I just dropped the thing there. Bella Johnston examined. 339. Mr. Atkinson.] You are the wife of Mr. John Johnston, who has just given evidence?— Yes. 340. Are you acquainted with Mr. Troup?—Yes. 341. Did you ever have any conversation with him in reference to the Meikle case? —Well, not very much. 342. Where was it? —In our own house I heard him speaking. 343. What date? —I cannot tell you. 344. Was Mr. Troup still at Islay Station when this conversation took place?—l think he was about leaving Islay. He was on the station at the time. 345. Was anybody else present? —My husband. 346. What remark did he make? —He said he had a little bit of paper, and he said that one word from him would take Meikle out of gaol. That is all I know about it. 347. Did the conversation proceed any further? —I do not remember anything more about it. 348. Was anything said about the company's affairs? —Well, I cannot remember. 349. Mr. Justice Edwards.] What led to his making this remark?—l do not know. I think that another manager had come in, and he was a wee bit sore at the time. That is what I thought at the tirrre. 350. What was he saying immediately before? —I cannot remember at all, but his leaving any one in gaol when he could take him out I thought very hard. That is how 1 remember the remark. 351. Did you not ask him any questions about it?—l did not. ••152. Nor your husband? —I cannot remember; it is so long ago. 353. It would rather strike one; it did strike you too? —Yes. 354. It is curious you did not ask him anything about it? —I cannot remember what I said. 35p. Mr. Findlay.] You did not ask him any questions about it? —I cannot remember if I did. 356. If you had you would have remembered? —Yes, I might have. 357. You can remember nothing before or after the remark?—l can just remember the remark. It stuck in my memory all the time. 358. Can you remember how long it was, after Meikle was in gaol or after he was out? —It was while he was in gaol. I can remember that. 359. You said there was some suggestion irr your mind that there was a bit of spite on his part about the company: what gave rise to that in your mind?—l just thought it was through that. Ido not know whether he had the papers or not. 360. You did not think he meant it?—l cannot say whether he meant it or not, 361. Mrs. Beange, referring to this remark, said she thought he was bragging merely?—l do not know; I would not say he was. 3G2. Do you recollect if he showed any feeling against the company?—l do not know. I thought if Mr. Troup knew such a thing he should not leave a man in gaol, if he could fetch him out. 363. You were neighbours of Meikle's? —Yes; we were not far away. 364. You and jour husband interested yourselves in a subscription for her? —Yes. 365. When was that?—lt was while Meikle was in gaol.
H.—2l.
222
[B. JOHNSTON.
366. Was that after the conversation with Troup? —I cannot tell you whether it was before or after. 367. Did you ever hear Mr. Meikle speak after lie came out of gaol?— No. 368. You never saw him?—l have seen him, but never heard him speaking when he was lecturing. 369. Did you read any of his publications?— No. 370. You take the Otago Witness? — No. 371. Your husband told us you did? —Not the Witness. We get it now and again, but not regularly. 372. You take the local papers?— Yes: the Wyndham papers. There is not much news in them. 373. Do you or the members of your family read the papers to your husband? —I read them. There are but the two of us. 374. 1 suppose you noticed this Commission sat in Dunedin, and the reports about it?— Yes. 375. Did you read the evidence? —I did not read very much about it, because there was not much in the local papers. You would have to get the Dunedin papers. 376. You saw it in the Witness? — Yes, there was some of it in the Witness. 377. Naturally, you were interested in the Meikles in a way, because you helped them? —Not much interested in them. Not more than anybody else; but I did not like the see the children starving. 378. I suppose you would have done what you could to help Meikle out of gaol?—lf I thought the man was innocent, I would ; but I think if he was guilty he deserved all he got. 379. It did not occur to you to ask any questions from Troup about it?—l did not ask any questions. 380. Did your husband?—l cannot remember. It is so far back, and, really, I never thought that the thing would be brought up again. 381. You know Mr. Troup?—Yes, very well. 382. What sort of reputation does he bear?—l know nothing against him. 383. If, of course, he was keeping an innocent man in gaol, he was doing a terrible thing, and committing a criminal act?— That is what I thought, 384. And you would have been very ready, I suppose, if anybody had suggested it to you lo help to get an innocent man out of gaol?— Yes, I would. 385. But you did not do anything at all?— No. 386. You took no steps to communicate what had been said to Meikle? —No. 387. You did not take it seriously, I suppose?— No. 388. Mr. Atkinson.] Did you take Mr. Troup to mean what he said?—l did not know whether he meant it or not, but I think he would hardly have said it if he could not do it. Robert Kidd further examined. 389. Mr. Atkinson.] Do you know Mr. Troup?—Yes, well. 390. Did you ever have any conversation with him in reference to the Meikle case?— Not much. 391. Can you remember about when it would be?—No, I do not remember exactly. 392. Where did it take place?—ln my blacksmith's shop in Wyndham. 393. Did the Islay Station work come to you?—He came with his own horse. 394. Did you have this conversation before or after Meikle's conviction? —It must have been after, as the conversation was about Meikle. 395. What did Mr. Troup say about Mr. Meikle's conviction? —It is such a long time ago, and it seems a misty thing in my mind to recall. I would not like to come and swear against Troup as to what he said to me. 1 have heard something about him carrying a document in his pocket to convict Meikle, but I would not swear in this Court that he said so to me. He might have said a little to me, but I would not swear about it. 396. Mr. Justice Edwards.] You mean you cannot separate whether you heard this from Troup or from other people: you heard a lot of talk, and you do not know where you got it from?— Yes. 397. Mr. Atkinson.] What was the impression left on you by this conversation? —It did not impress me at all. He may have said all these things, but I would not swear in this Court that he said so. 398. Can you tell us the effect of what he said ?—I would not do it. It is too long back to swear positively what he did say. 399. You cannot recall the general effect of what Mr. Troup said to you? —No. I do not remember much about it. 400. Did you make any inference as to whether or not Meikle was rightly convicted after what he said? —I do not remember that. James Chris'Me recalled and examined. 401. Mr. Atkinson.] You gave evidence yesterday, and you told us in the course of your evidence that you succeeded Mr. Troup as manager of Islay Station?— Yes. 402. Did you have any conversation with him relating to the Meikle case?— Well, I do not know that it was in relation to the Meikle case at all, but he said something to me when he left the station which made me interested to a certain extent in the Meikle case. 403. Where was this? —At the homestead on Islay Station.
H.— 2l.
J. CHRISTIE.
404. What was it he said ? —I do not recollect exactly what led to it, but I know he seemed to feel going away from the station very much, and he threw out some sort of a threat that things might be worse for me and the company if he were not retained. And what I recall more vividly than anything else was his saying, " A word from me would bring Meikle out." 405. Can you recall anything else that took place?—No, except that I happened to say, " If that is so, the least you say about it the better, otherwise you might be in his shoes." 406. Can you recollect anything else?— No. He went away just then. That was all the reference to Meikle. We were talking about sheep matters and other things connected with the station. 407. Mr. Findlay.] You have been absent from the colony for some time?- —That is so. 408. You have been a member of one of the contingents or carbineers, have you not?—l joined the forces in South Africa. 409. And you have been in South Africa for some years?— Yes, for some years. 410. And you are a journalist by profession ? —Yes. 411. Since you left the station-managing you have been a journalist in some places?— Yes, and also before I was a station-manager. 412. When did you give up'journalism, or did it give you up?—On account of my health I left it to take up again what I was brought up to as a boy. 413. Did you go to Islay before or after your bankruptcy? —Many years before. 414. You have been a journalist, you went to Islay, and then you went to take up journalism? —No. 415. You were not a journalist when you went bankrupt?—No; I was farming. 416. What were you doing just before you went to South Africa? —I was doing nothing, just washed up all my affairs after a serious loss and went away there for a change of scene. 417. How long did you stay there? —For four years and nine months, I think, altogether. 418. You were in the employ of the company at Islay when the prosecution was going on?— No. 419. When did you begin at Islay?—l was with the company on Waicola Station. 1 cannot tell you the year, but it was some considerable time before Meikle's prosecution. 420. When did you first go to Islay?—At the end of December, 1888, or the beginning of January, 1889. 421. Over a year after Meikle's case had been heard? —About thirteen months afterwards. 422. You were the cause of Troup's leaving the station?— That is the first I have heard of it. 423. Was there any quarrel between you and Troup?—None whatever. 424. Did you not have some difference with him when he was managing Islay ?—I cannot recall having any difference with him. I was sent up there to take charge of the shearing and to see the sheep put through, and some of his methods did not coincide with some of mine. I do not know that I quarrelled with him, though he may have quarrelled with me. His work was outside the shed and mine was inside. 425. Did he ever quarrel with you?—l do not know that he did. 426. Had he ever occasion to take exception to your conduct?— No. I took exception to his interfering with my work, which was tallying the sheep, seeing to the shearing, and so on. 427. Did he not order you to leave the place, owing to your not agreeing with his methods? —No. I had my instructions from head office, independent of him altogether. I did not look upon him as having anything to do with me. His work was to bring the sheep in ; mine was to have them shorn, make up the wool, class it, and send it away. 428. Was there not a difference between you as to the question whether he should control you at all while you were there?—l cannot recall it, but I would not swear as to that. 429. Did you obstruct him in the work of shearing, and did he ever complain about it and order you to leave the station on that account ? —No. 430. If he swears that he did, will you contradict him?— Yes. 431. Were you aware that he wrote to Cameron asking that you should be removed?—No, I am not aware of it. 432. Are you aware that Hay interested himself on your account, and got Troup shifted, so that you were put into the management?— -\t is the first I have ever heard of it. 433. Did you go to see Cameron about any difference you had had with Troup?—No. 434. Did you ever threaten to fight with Mr. Troup?—Never. 435. Nor he with you?— No. He seemed to me to be a little off his head, and as he was carrying a revolver about with him I would not think of attempting to fight with him. 436. Why did he carry a revolver? —I could not tell you. I know on one occasion he rolled up his sleeves and showed me his muscle. 437. But there was no quarrel—this was done in quite a friendly way?—lt seemed to me he was a man who should be in an asylum. 438. You did not take him very seriously?—No; I thought he was raving—"talking through his hat," as you might say. 439. And you believed he was not serious? —I do not know whether he was serious or not. I thought he was more a subject for a lunatic asylum than a station-manager; but what he said about Meikle afterwards set me thinking. 440. You had nothing to do with Meikle, had you?— No. 441. If he threatened that it would be worse for you and for the company, it would be a suggestion that you had something to do with it?— No. 442. It looks as if you had-been having a bit of a quarrel when you left. Was he raving then?—He was more calm than usual on that occasion. 443. But, still, he was raving?—He seemed to be raving most of the time I was there. 444. You cannot suggest what reason there was for his making a threat against you?— No.
223
H.—n.
[j. CHRISTIE.
445. Mr. Atkinson.] I think you said just now that what Troup said set you thinking? — Well, I had taken no interest in the case whatever, and did not want to take any interest in it, but it afterwards cropped up iv my mind, " Has there been something put up against the man "? Hut I said nothing about it until I mentioned it to you yesterday. You asked me then if Troup had said anything, and that is the first time I mentioned it. I have thought over it because I saw that Mabin and Templeton had said something on the same point. 446. Mr. Findlay.] When did you see that?— When the case was being heard in Dunedin. 447. Mr. Atkinson.] You say his demeanour was quieter at that time? —He was a little calmer. He was going away, and was showing me the garden, and he said, " These two hands did all that." He seemed to me much put out about going away from the station. 448. Why did he leave?—l could not tell you. 449. Did you consider at the time he was speaking that he had anything at all to back what he was saying?—l should not like to express an opinion on that point. 450. You say you had some difference of opinion with regard to his tallying?—lt was with regard to shearing more than anything else. My instructions were to take charge of the shed and see the sheep shorn. His work was entirely outside. 451. It was merely a question of who was boss? —Yes. Robert Troup recalled and examined. 452. Mr. Findlay.] You gave evidence formerly before this Commission?— Yes, in Dunedin. 453. I think you have already said something about the question of whether you have had any documents in your possession or any papers of any kind? —Yes; Mr. Templeton and Mr. Mabin jjave evidence about that, and Mrs. Meikle also. 454. Have you ever had any documents of any kind or letters or papers about Meikle's case? —No; the only paper I had I handed into Court. That was about the £50. 455. You have had no writings of any kind which to your knowledge would have any effect on Meikle's case?—No, none whatever. 456. Have you ever known or do you know now of any fact which would establish Meikle's innocence?—No, I never knew of anything that would establish Meikle's innocence. If I did I would be only too ready to let him have the benefit of it. 457. You have heard Mr. Christie's evidence? —Yes. 458. Do you remember the circumstances of your leaving the station at Islay?—Yes. 459. Do you remember saying to Christie in a threatening manner that it might be worse for him and the company, and that a word from you would bring Meikle out? —I never said such a tiling. I used no threat to Mr. Christie whatever. It was he who made a threat. There' is a letter to prove it. Mr. Macdonald has it. It is a letter in reference to a book I left at Islay. 460. It was something about a book? —Yes. 461. You received a letter from him after you left Islay ?—Yes. 462. Do you recollect John Johnson and his wife? —Yes. 463. You were speaking about a letter which you received from Christie? —Yes. 464. On 25th March, 1889?— Yes. 465. It read, " Would you kindly return the diary for 1888 which was supplied you by the Dunedin office to keep a record of your work here, and which you have either intentionally or inadvertently taken with you? The book is part of the station records, and as such should be upon the premises. Should the book not be forthcoming by return post, or should you not reply to this, the matter will assume a different phase, and you will hear from another quarter "?—Yes. 466. What is the explanation?—l left all the books of the property on the premised when I left the place. I never acknowledged the letter. 467. Did you leave Islay on good terms with Christie? —No. ■468. Is it true that you had to order him off the premises?— Yes. 469. And that ultimately he took your place?— Must I go into that? 470. You heard the evidence of John Johnston and Mrs. Johnston. You know these people?— Yes. 471. Mrs. Johnston swore that you stated to her that you had letters or papers that could let Meikle out of gaol ?—No. 472. Did you ever say anything to that effect? —No. 473. Mrs. Johnston swore that you said you had a little bit of paper, and one word from you could take him out of gaol?—lf she took it up that way she must have picked up the meaning of my words wrongly. 474. At any rate, you have spoken about his case?— Yes; it was oommon talk. 475. As to the Beanges, they swore you had conversations with them, and one says, " Half a dozen words from me would let him out "? Did you ever say these words?— No. 476. If you had, would you have a recollection of it?— Yes. 477. Did you ever make any such statement to Kidd?—No. 478. Mr. Findlay.] I think you said before that you had never attempted to suggest anything in this way, that you had evidence or knowledge of Meikle's innocence? —No. 479. On the principle that you have always maintained?—l believe that Meikle was properly convicted, and still maintain that. . 480. Mr. Atkinson.] What is your present occupation? —Farmer. 481. Do you reside on your own land?— Yes, my own land. 482. Before you went to Islay- Station had you property- of your own?— Not immediately.
224
H.—2l
225
B. TBOUP.
484. Some time before that?—l had a farm in the Wyndham district. 485. Did you go bankrupt?—l did. 486. What dividend did you pay?—l recollect. 487. Have you a brother in Wellington?—l do not know. 488. What is his position?—l do not know. 489. Is he a caretaker? —1 could not say. 490. Did you borrow some of his savings? —No. 491. He took the lease?—lt was in my name. 492. You swore it was a partnership?— Yes. 493. Did he go bankrupt too? —No; he got a dividend along with the creditors. 494. Your brother has been struggling along since?—l do not know. I think I have enough to do to mind myself. 495. The day you left the Islay Station on your trip north to Nelson have you any recollection of doing any business in Dunedin?—l left Islay Station on the 19th. 496. Do you remember doing any business in Dunedin? Did you see Reid on that date?— I do not recollect. 497. With regard to the erection of fencing?—l do not remember. 498. Are you sure you were not more than a day or two in Dunedin then?—l think it was about a day or two. 499. On what day may we take it your business with Reid would have been done, if it had been done at all during that visit?—l do not remember any business being done with Mr. Reid. 500. Could you have done ajiy business with him on the day of your arrival I—l could not tell you that. 501. At what time would the train get in?—l do not remember. I never interest myself much about trains unless I am going by them, and that is seldom. 502. Supposing the train got in there at 5 or 6 o'clock, could you have got any business done outside the company's office that night?—l do not remember about it. 503. You cannot even answer the question generally?— When a question is put regarding a thing that happened twenty years back, a person requires to take his memory away back to it, from question to question. 504. Very well. Do you remember what steamer you went by, going- north?—l rather think it was the " Rotorua "or the " Penguin." Ido not remember which. 505. Did you say that there was no objection over this claim made to return the station diary in 1889?— No 'claim for the diary? 506. Yes? —No; I had no diary belonging to Islay. 507. Did you know what had happened, then, to the station diary?—No, I know nothing about the station diary. 508. Did you keep a diary of your own in addition? —I did. 509. Has that always been your practice?— Mostly. These are memoranda, and some of them refer to Islay. 510. Might I have a look at the Islay entries?— Yes. But it is my own private property. I would understand it, but other people would not. 511. Do you remember the date of Mr. Stuart's arrival on the station?—No, I cannot remember that. 512. What did Stuart come to the station for?—He was employed by Mr. Cameron. 513. Do you know the object of his appointment?—To take charge, as I understand —to take over charge from me. 514. Had it anything to do with the detection of the man who was taking the sheep that had been lost?— Not that I am aware of. 515. Do you remember Stuart making the statement? —In Dunedin? 516. Yes?—l think so. Ido not remember any previous statement. 517. You had no knowledge?— No. Since the Dunedin case the whole thing is a blank to me. 518. Your memory is a blank now, but it was very clear in Dunedin? —Yes; but I do not keep it up unless it is any particular thing. 519. You swore in Dunedin that you kept this diary regularly every day?— Yes. 520. I suppose the arrival of Stuart was an event of such importance as to be recorded? —Well it would depend a good deal. 521. He said in Dunedin that he arrived on the 6th October?— Does the diary say so? 522. The diary says, " 6th October. At Mataura; met Mr. Stuart and Mr. Cameron." D you know whether that was your first?— That is the very thing I cannot remember. 523. On the day you left for Dunedin did you see Mr. Meikle? —I do not remember just now. I might have seen him. 524. Whereabouts was it? I think you said you saw Mac George on that day : how far along? —I forget. 525. Have you not any idea of the place?—No; I do not remember. 526. You cannot fix it even approximately?— No. 527. What was the largest number of sheep ever on the pre-emptive right?—l do not remember that. It is impossible to recall those facts. 528. Did you not make a statement on the subject in Dunedin?—lt is quite impossible to say. I have not seen my evidence since. That is eight months ago. 529. This is on page 131 of the evidence, — "31. What number of sheep had been lost for the year previous to the 19th October?— The book showed a leakage of over one thousand."
29— H. 21.
[c. tboup.
H.—2l
"32. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Out of how many?— There might have been two thousand put on that land." ?—ls that my evidence? 530. Yes ?—Well, I stick to my evidence. 531. There may have been two thousand sheep on the pre-emptive right during that year? — I do not remember. 532. How is it you remembered then?— Because I had the evidence before me. 533. You had what before you?—My evidence. 534. You had not your evidence before you, because you gave it then?—l have not read all my evidence since—eight months ago. 535. You let that statement stand? How many would there be on the station altogether?— Pretty nearly three thousand, or a little over, perhaps, when Mr. Perry was there. 536. I will ask for the sheep returns, your Honours, showing the number of sheep returned for that station. According to the figures I have got, Mr. Troup, your returns for 1887 showed 2,379 sheep as the total for the station, I think? —There were so many sheep sold. 537. Then, for 1888, 2,540, and for 1889, 2,243. Assuming those figures to be something like correct, could you possibly have had two thousand-odd on the pre-emptive right?—l bought seven hundred-odd sheep to put on Islay, and I sold so-many. 538. You are not answering my question. Supposing these figures are correct, could there have been two thousand on the pre-emptive right in 1887?— I could not say. 539. Does it not strike you as obviously absurd? —The numbers of sheep are very difficult to remember after eight months, unless you have got the thing set out before you. 540. I am putting it in a general way, and roughly; I do not expect you to know anything precise: what is the carrying-capacity of the land?—lt is not rich land. 541. Were there any fat sheep of the company's on the leasehold? —As for the term "fat sheep," at times you will kill a sheep that is fairly fat and consider it very good, but when the sheep are fat you would not have that sheep; so that the question of what are fat sheep is determined by the scarcity of fat sheep. 542. The term " fat sheep " is used generally by farmers with a specific meaning, is it not? — Yes; but they do not go from their own sheep for a sheep, supposing they are not fat. 543. Were all the fat sheep on the pre-emptive?— Yes. They would not pass as butcher's fats, but they would be quite sufficient for home use as fats. 544. On which side was that? —Any place. The place was not so poor but that some sheep would thrive. 545. You cannot say whether or not the whole of the fat sheep were on the pre-emptive right at the end of 1887?— No. 546. With regard to these statements you arc supposed to have made, you attribute Mr. Christie's statement about your saying that some words from you would let Meikle out of gaol— you attribute that to spite, do you ?—I do not say that. 547. How do you account for his making that statement? —I did not say it. 548. You suggest that Christie had some ill will against you ?—Yes. I can give the particulars, if you wish. 549. Because he wrote to you on behalf of the company for the return of the diary?— That was after I was away from Islay. I can give the history of tire whole thing if you wish it, 550. I wish to know whether you attribute this statement as to what you said to his spite against you, or how do you account for it?—l must let you understand the position. 551. I do not dispute the fact; I only want a straight answer. How do you account for Christie's statement with regard to your reference to getting Meikle out of gaol?— Christie's father 552. Ido not want to know about Mr. Christie's father or his grandfather. I want to know this: do you attribute it to ill will on Mr. Christie's part?— Yes. 553. With regard to Mr. and Mrs. Johnston, have you got a similar complaint to make?— No. The Johnston's and Beange's have given their evidence, and the evidence they have given to-day makes no difference to me. I have just the same feeling towards them now as I had before they gave their evidence. , 554. There are no fewer than seven witnesses who have given evidence on that point? —Yes; and there is Mrs. Meikle. . 555 I will leave out Mrs. Meikle, because she might be alleged to be a partisan ; and they all agree in a similar story, and you say they are all wrong?—l never had any documents. They have taken it up wrongly.' They have put a wrong meaning on it. 556 About this revolver that you were said to be carrying about?—l did not carry a revolver. I may say I ran a mail sometimes, and at times had £200 or £300 of gold in my pocket, and I carried a' revolver in my pocket then. ( ; 557. Do you remember having some words with the Robinsons at Sunnyside I—Yes. 558. Had you a revolver then? —No. 559. You are a man of peace? —Yes. John James Meikle recalled and examined. 560 Mr Atkinson.] I want to take you briefly through a few points, and I do not want to reopen up old matters. You heard Lambert's statement with regard to some grass-seed which he said ho offered to you?— Yes. 561. Was there any truth in that statement'—None whatever. I threshed out that year altogether about 50 acres, and had it in my barn. 562. He did not offer you any grass-seed at all? —No.
226
H.—2l.
J. J. MEIKLE.]
563. Did you send your boy to get grass-seed?— No. 564. You remember George Davies giving evidence about grass-seed?— Yes. •"')().'). When did you first hear of this statement of Lambert's with regard to grass-seed? —1 never heard of it before the sitting of the Commission in Dunedin. 566. What was the date of Gregg's sale? —It was on a Friday, 23rd September, 1887. I came from Invercargill the day before. 567. Did you attend the sale?— Yes; and Mr. Wilson the auctioneer, now in Wellington, and others were there. 568. What is the total length of the boundary-fences between your land and Islay? —Which boundary? 569. Take the eastern boundary—the leasehold?—lt is a little over two miles. 570. Running up from the corner by the creek along the Mimihau to the school reserve?— I paid for the ohainage of it, and I have a memo, here giving the figures. The stock-yard fence was 7J chains. The fence from the pre-emptive right was 43j- chains—that was my part of it — towards the corner, turning right down to the corner that runs to the Wairikiki. 571. Does that go down to the school reserve ?---It goes down in the direction of the reserve. When you get to the Wairikiki there is some portion of the fencing which the company had to do. 572. What are the total measurements of the fences?— From the gate it is 4| chains, and from the Wairikiki to the Mimihau 40£ chains. 573. You mentioned the date when you went to Dunedin —about the middle, of October?— 1 went to Dunedin on the 19th October, 1887. It was a Wednesday. 574. How many express traijis were there then?— There was only one. If you did not catch the midday train from Mataura you had to stop at Clinton all night. 575. Wlrat time did it leave?— About a quarter past 11, I think. 576. What time did it leave Mataura?—On that occasion I left Gore. I got in there, and went on to Dunedin on Wednesday, the 19th. 577. What time? —1 think I caught the train at 1 o'clock, and got into Dunedin between 5 and 6. 578. What time would it leave Mataura?—About twenty to 1, or thereabouts. •")7!t. What time did it reach Dunedin?—Between 5 and 6, I think. 580. Did you see Mr. Troup on the train that day?—l did not. 1 was told on the Saturday previous that he had gone to Dunedin. 581. Where did you hear that he had left for Dunedin? —At Johnston's. I went there about a bull. 582. Where does Johnston live?— Beyond the Islay Station from my place. 583. You did not see Troup in the train that day?— No. 584. 1 want to call your attention to a statement that Troup made before the Commissioners in Dunedin, l>age 159, question 641 : "After Meikle came out of gaol did he speak to you about this very question? —Yes, he met me at. Wyndham, took both my hands in his, and said he was glad to get this information from his wife, that it had comforted him greatly to leave the place without any mortgage on it,"?—Me shake hands with him! I never spoke to the man but about twice in my life, and I would not allow him inside the gate. The first time I spoke to him was at a Road Board meeting, when some one present took off his coat to thrash him. My wife could not mortgage the property. 585. You were cross-examined about the birthday of Archibald Meikle: was it in 1883? — Yes. 586. In what year was your sou born?—23rd August, 1883. I can tell you that from memory. 587. What is his name? —Archibald Meikle. 588. You have already mentioned that you sent in a petition from gaol after you were convicted?—l did. 589. What was the date'of that? —March, 1888. Mr. O'Brien was then gaoler at Lyttelton. 1 have here copies of that petition. 590.-Was there any reference in it to Lambert's treatment of the skins? —Yes. 591. That petition contains these words: "W. S. Lambert denied dn the Lower Court that he was to get .£5O, but admitted in the Supreme Court that he was to get £50. Your petitioner strongly believes that Lambert put the sheep-skins in the buildings." 592. Did you hear Lambert's statement as to the oombing-out of the brand on the sheep that your son was said to have killed?—l never heard of it in my life. 593. Was any reference made to that point in the previous proceedings?—lt never was made before. 594. Had you heard of it at all previous to the Commission sitting in Dunedin? —No, never. 595. Yon heard Mr. Munro giving his evidence this morning?—l did. 596. Your boy Arthur is dead?— Yes, and I am sorry he is on that account. 597. Did you hear of the interview in question? —Yes; it was up in Wairikiki. 598. Who'did you get the information from?—My wife told me when I came home that Arthur had had words with McCauley. 599. When was that?—ln 1892, when I came out of gaol. 600. Was it McCauley the shepherd you were accused of assaulting?— That was the father, but Arthur spoke to the son. 601. Just tell us as shortly as possible what occurred ?—My wife said that Arthur told him, " You did a good job in getting the old man out of the road, or else we would all have been in gaol. If you could not have got him you would have put in all the family." That is all that passed. 602. Can you swear when you heard that? —I heard it when I came home.
227
228
[J. J. MEIKLE.
H.—2l.
603. What terms was your son on with McCauley?—They were bad friends. 604. There has been a photograph taken of the buildings. Is that the photograph of your buildings [produced]? —That is correct. No fence had been removed even to the I7th Octoberlast. 605. When was that photograph taken?—ln 1892. 606. Were the buildings and houses there shown in the same position as they were in the year 1887?— Just the same. 607. Mr. Findlay.] 1 want you to repeat again what you told us about McCauley and your soll 'I —They had had a few words, my wife told me. Young McCauley spoke to Arthur about his father being in gaol for stealing sheep, and Arthur replied and said, " Well, you made a good job about getting the old man away, and it is a good job he is, otherwise you would put the whole lot of us in." Arthur was very annoyed that this should have been thrown up at him. He was a delicate lad, and he came home crying to his mother about it. 608. And said all that to his mother? —Yes. 609. Have you ever stated anything in regard to that conversation at any hearing of the •Court or at this Commission? —Never, because it was never put to me before. 610. Have you ever stated it in any of your lectures?—No; I have left the dead boy out of my troubles. 611. You have not repeated that conversation? —I have not. 612. What did Mr. McCauley say to that?—l do not know what he said. 613. It was not reported what McCauley said? —No. 613 a. Did you know that tjiis witness Munro was there? —No. Munro told me this morning he was there, but 1 told him not to be afraid to speak out, 614. Did the boy say anything to his mother about Munro being there? —No; Munro's name was never mentioned. 615. What were the words about? —He passed a nasty remark to Arthur that I was in gaol, ami that it was a good job, because 1 chased McCauley off when he was taking six of my sheep on one occasion. 616. it is strange that Mr. Munro does not suggest that there was a quarrel of any kind? — Munro was not there. 617. lam speaking of the affeged interview between Munro, your son, and McCauley. Now you have no reason to suspect Munro of having any ill-feeling against you? —Nothing, unless he has been the worse of drink and misunderstood it. He is very often tipsy. 618. You do not suspect his intention to tell the truth?—l do not expect him to deviate, but he may have got it into his head when half drunk and them tutoring him. 619. Who tutoring him?—McCauley drumming it into his head occasionally. 620. You suggest that?— Look how the witnesses have been tutored, coming here and making statements never made before. 621. Tutored by whom?— Tutored themselves. It is easy for a man to conspire against another. 622. They are all in this conspiracy?— They have been in it. 623. So you say Mr. Munro has been tutored amongst the rest?—l say McCauley has drummed it into his ear. 624. You say he is not a witness of truth?—No, I will not, because he may firmly believe he is telling the truth, and not have any other intention. 625. Did you tell Mr. Atkinson about, the quarrel and about your son's statements when Munro was giving his evidence? —I told him about it. 1 could not tell him all about it before you. 626. Why did you not ask for time to tell your counsel what you have told the Court now?— Do you not think I have occupied the Court quite long enough. 627. You noticed that your counsel asked Munro nothing about any row or quarrel, and there was no suggestion in his cross-examination of Munro that there was any quarrel: Why did you not tell him to ask about that?—He said there was no need. 628. Why did you not ask Mr. Atkinson to speak to you at once? —I did so, and he said there was no need for it. I have faith in my counsel. 629. Did you tell him that it was the result of a quarrel?—l told him it was the result of a quarrel. 630. And yet, you see, he did not ask a question?— What was the good of asking a question? Munro could not tell him about the quarrel. 631. You suggest now that something was said between your son and McCauley before he Cll me?—The boy and McCauley had several altercations when I was in gaol. 632. Do you suggest this was not the occasion on which there was an altercation? —I am not quite positive. They had a dispute. 633. Did you not, tell Mr. Atkinson about it, because this was not the occasion?—l told Mr. Atkinson there had been a dispute, and about Arthur having a few words with them. 63"!. Ami vet no question was asked about that. Did you tell him of the alleged conversation by McCauley?—How did I know what McCauley said? 635. Mr. Atkinson did not ask Munro whether McCauley said you were in gaol or used any insulting words? —I was not there, and could not say what he said. 636. And you never went over this conversation before?— No. 637. I suppose it has not been fabricated since the evidence Munro gave?—l have nothing to fabricate. 638. How do you know you went to Dunedin on a particular date?— Well, I never shall forget the 17th. There have been seven 17ths in my trouble. I was accused of stealing on the 17th; I was found guilty on the 17th October; I lectured that day five years after on the 17th at Wyndham;
j. J. MEIKLE.]
229
H.—2l.
Lambert got sentenced on the 17th. The 17th October was a Monday, and on Tuesday, the 18th, 1 was going to Dunedin, but, unfortunately, Arthur was ill the night before, and I never expected to see him alive, and 1 went down the next morning to see if I could get to the bridge—there was only one bridge in the district then. I was going to send Harvey for the doctor. 639. You say that is how you fix on the 19th? —Yes. 640. What did you go to Dunedin for? —For two things. Mr. Troup had sent a most inflammable letter to the Land Board about the road. That is the first time I met Troup to speak to in my life. 641. You have no record anywhere of the fact that you went to Dunedin on the 19th?—Yes. 642. Where is the record?—l have the best record—in my mind. 643. You say you can recollect it was the 19th October?—l went down on the Wednesday, and 1 saw Mrs. Meikle and the Commissioner of Crown Lands on the Friday. 644. There was nothing in your son's illness to enable you to fix the date, because he had been ill before?— Yes; but on this particular occasion he was so ill, I had never seen him so bad. 645. But he was up for tea on the 17th? —Yes, because I lifted him up. He was so giddy in bed. 646. Yon say in your petition from Lyttelton Gaol, " 1 believe the skins were put there byLambert." You did not believe anything about it: you were quite sure? —1 told them, from his actions, 1 firmly believed it, and 1 have not altered my mind one iota. 1 was quite positive once 1 heard the man give his evidence. 647. Why were you confident after he gave his evidence? —The lies he told to obtain ,£SO. 648. As soon as you heard the skins were there you were confident he had done it?— Afterwards 1 was quite positive. 649. Why were you not positive before?—l knew it lay between Stuart and him. 650. You were confident either Stuart or Lambert had put them there?— After he had given his evidence I was confident Lambert was the man. 651. You had never any doubt it was Stuart or Lamßert?—l had a doubt as to which it was until 1 heard Lambert's evidence. 652. Will you answer my question? Were you confident before you heard Lambert's evidence that it was either Stuart or Lambert who hail put the skins there? —I was confident it lay between them. 653. And after you heard Lambert's evidence you were positive he put them there? —Yes. 654. In your petition you speak of your. " belief "? —You read it from end to end. It will speak for itself. 655. Of course, you cannot say when the train arrived?—No; but 1 believe as nearly as possible it was between 5 and 6. 1 used to do a good deal of travelling with horses, and knew pretty well how the trains ran. 656. Might it not have been before s?—l do not think il was before 5. The time-table will show you whether I am speaking the truth or not. 657. I have asked my friend to produce a fetter of 18th June addressed to you by Mr. McNab. Have you that letter of 18th June?— No. I have a number of other letters, but I could not find the one of the 18th. 658. Mr. McNab says to you: "Invercargill, 18th June, 1898.—Mr. J. J. Meikle.—Dear Sir, — lie petition. Your letter of the 17th instant came duly to hand, and with it the petition there referred to. I return the petition for signature. It is not signed. Under what circumstances was the money accepted hisl year? 1 understood it was in full settlement. I expect that I shall have to ask Kelly to present it, on account of my promise given to the Premier, to get him to put down something, that if he placed the £500 on the estimates I would not worry him anymore. He placed that sum on the estimates. If Seddon wont release me from my promise, I can easily arrange for another to present the petition.—(Signed) Robert McNab." Mr. McNab has recently appended the following memorandum to the sheet: 'The circumstances connected with the writing of the letter are as follows: At the end of 1896 I had been defeated for Parliament, and during the whole of 1897 was absent in the Mother Country and travelling round the world. The first six months of 1898 1 was residing in Invercargill. About the beginning of June, 1898, I was re-elected a member of the House, and one of the first matters that came up before me was Meikle's petition, with which I had been familiar during the previous Parliament, You will see in the letter, a copy of which is enclosed, 1 stated my then recollection of the conversation with the Premier, that he decided to place £500 mi the estimates of 1896. My present recollection of our conversation in the Cabinet-room bears out the memorandum which was penned within eighteen months of the conversation itself. 1 have no doubt in my mind regarding its accuracy.—Robert McNab "?—I have nothing to do with his promise. 659. Did you receive that letter? —Yes. 660. And Mr. McNab was in charge of your petition?—No, nothing of the sort —pardon me. He was up there with the other members when, on 10th September, 1896, one of the members moved to take a pound off the estimates as a censure on the Government for not carrying out the recommendation of the Committee. Mr. Kelly was in charge of the petition, and Mr. Mills. 661. That letter was returning the petition which you asked him to present?—lt was not signed pardon me. The other was returned because it was out of order, and this one was sent up to see if it was in order. 662 Regarding the big petition that went in, did you get all the signatures for that personally—the petition which went to the House after that?—l do not know what petition you refer to. 663. I mean the petition which went to the House after you received the £500? —There were lots of petitions. My children sent up a petition, and so did I.
H.—2l.
230
[j. J. MEIKLE.
664. Did you get the signatures for your own petition?—l got some of them, and other people got others. Mr. Justice Edwards: Are we to take it that this letter is admitted as evidence? Mr. Atkinson: We admit that Mr. Meikle received a letter of 18th June, of which this is a copy; but the paragraph at the bottom of the sheet has nothing to do with the letter. I do not admit anything further than that this is a copy of the letter. Mr. Justice Edwards: I think the statement there is a great deal too bald. I want to know a great deal more about it than that, It seems to me it will be necessary to call Mr. McNab. Mr. Justice Cooper: Considering the very detailed opening of Dr. Findlay as to what Mr. McNab was prepared to say, we expected something more than this. Mr. Justice Edwards: That is, Dr. Findlay could only anticipate what Mr. McNab would say. Mr. Findlay: Of course, he had not seen him. Mr. McNab will be here on Monday. Mr. Justice Edwards .- The convenience of the Judges has not been consulted it appears. Mr. Findlay: I have been keeping in touch with Mr. McNab. Mr. Justice Edwards: This document is very unsatisfactory to me. It will be necessary to call Mr. McNab on Monday. 665. Mr. Atkinson (to witness).] Dr. Findlay undertook to produce the information ami summons against a person named Beaver in 1881, but it seems he has been unable to get them. The point at issue was as to whether the charge related to getting money on false pretences ?— I think it was about the different charges against myself. There was one I know nothing about, in Dunedin. I got this from the police. I laid a charge against Annie Beaver, a servant girl, in 1881. 1 have the Dunedin Star of_ the 27th April, 1881, containing the particulars. 1 will read it: ''False pretences.—Annie Beaver was charged with obtaining on April 22nd, by false preteuces, from John Meikle and his wife, Jane Meikle, the sum of £6, with the intent of defrauding them of the same. Mr. Brent appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. McDermott for the defendant. It was intimated that the charge was withdrawn, and the defendant was accordingly discharged." 666. Have you a printed copy of Mr. Justice Ward's notes?—l have the Government printed copy here. 667. Where was the copy produced ?—-Before the Committee in 1895. I could not get the notes of evidence. I have the printed Government copy here, and you will see wdiere I have marked it. Mr. Atkinson : My recollection is that Dr. Findlay is unable to get the original of these notes. At the beginning of Meikle's pamphlet, where there is a copy, there is the substitution of the word " any " for " annual." Mr. Jus/ire Cooper: In copies we had at the time we corrected that. Mr. Atkinson: As here it makes no sense. Mr. Justice Cooper; What line is it?—At the top of page 20, the ninth line-. Mr. Atkinson: This document here has got an imprint, obviously the Government imprint, headed " Ninety-five, New Zealand, case of J. J. Meikle." Mr. Alk/iisou .- As it stands in the book it has no meaning. Mr. Justice Edwards: Ido not quite understand what the meaning of this is. Dr. Findlay made the correction. Do you admit it is right? Mr. Atkinson: Ido not. 1 was not strenuous on the point. I was assuming that if we did nut gef the originals we should get a prior copy. Mr. Justice Edtvards: Ido not think it is evidence at all. I think you must get the notes. Mr. Atkinson: All Dr. Findlay was able to give me was his typewritten copy. Mr. Findlay: We have got the original depositions here. That might help us. Mr. Justice Edwards: That proves nothing. Mr. Justice Cooper: 1 suppose these notes in Mr. Meikle's book were printed from that copy. It shows that as far back as that it was only a copy of the Judge's statement. Mr. Atkinson : It shows that the Government Printer printed it in 1895. Mr. Justice Cooper: I think it is sufficient to take a note that the word " ouly " appears in the Government print of 1895. 668. Mr. Atkinson, (to witness).] What was the number of sheep named in the original informations against you?— The first was fifty-nine. Mr. Justice Edwards: 1 beg to remind you, Mr. Atkinson, that we have had the whole of this before, and that it does not, arise out of Dr. Findlay's cross-examination in Dunedin at the time, and the most important deposition was not there. The documents must speak for themselves. Witness: I have got the documents from Invercargill. Mr. Justice Edwards: This one you are referring, to puts the number down at fifty-nine. Stuart swore that when he was examined before Judge Ward. 669. Mr. Atkinson (to witness).] That is over twenty of the original information?— Yes. 670. Then, the second information? —Was filed on the sth November, charging me with stealing twenty-seven sheep between the 24th August and the 26th October, 1887. Mr. Atkinson: There are two documents I desire to put in, your Honours. One is the letter of Mr. Forsyth, which I mentioned to the Commission in Dunedin, but which I did not put in at the time. Mr. Forsyth left the question of the year in some uncertainty, and he was to look up his oheque-book when he got home. He sent me the letter which I read to the Commission. It was actually on page 94 that I mentioned it, at the end of Mr. Winters's evidence. I put it in now. [Document handed in.] Then, your Honours, there was a statement Mrs. Meikle made in her evidence in regard to consulting Mr. Stout, of which Mr. Stout denied the correctness by telegram. Dr. Findlay asked me whether I would need to have Mr. Stout recalled, but I thought I could dispense with that. I have a declaration from Mrs. Meikle on the subject.
•J. J. MEIKLE.j
231
H.—2l.
Mr. Findlay: We have no opportunity of testing its accuracy. Mr. Justice Edwards: You must call Mrs. Meikle. We cannot take the declaration. Some suggestion was made that she consulted some one else. You must prove it. If you want to prove it satisfactorily you must prove it by the evidence of the person whom she now says she consulted. Mr. Atkinson: She cannot find the person, your Honour. One of them is dead, and two of them have retired from practice, and she cannot find their addresses. .!//-. Justice Edwards: The woman swore that she had arranged with somebody to advance her £100, and that was not Mr. Stout. It is not a bit of good saying that she consulted somebody who is dead or cannot be found. She is here, 1 suppose. Mr. Atkinson: No, she is not in Wellington. Mr. Justice Cooper: There was a telegram read when we sat last in Wellington from Mr. Stout, which you admitted to be true. Mr. Atkinson: Yes. Mr. Justice Cooper: If that telegram is put in it is sufficient. Mr. Atkinson: It was read but not put in. I was to confer with Dr. Findlay as to the form of the admission which I was to make; that was all. And I thought my friend would be glad to have it. Mr. Findlay: I thought the matter was closed. Mr. Atkinson: I thought this was the simplest way of settling it, and I have not conferred with Dr. Findlay. Mr. Justice Edwards: it is not simply that the woman has made a statement which is admitted to be untrue; now she wants to get out of the result of that by saying she consulted somebody else. Well, it is certain that such a matter justifies rigid cross-examination. Mr. Findlay: In her evidence she said it was Sir Robert Stout's brother—William Stout. — whom she consulted. Mr. Justice Edwards: Yes. Mr. Atkinson: 1 will endeavour to arrange it, your Honour. Mr. Justice Edwards: I will say at once that unless Mr. Atkinson admits the bald fact which is stated, that she did not consult Mr. Stout, Mr. Stout must be brought here. Mr. Atkinson: We will leave it at that. Mr. Justice Edwards: Otherwise the statement stands uncontradicted. Mr. Findlay: I had better ask my friend now whether he does admit as a fact that that statement is wrong, and that it was not Mr. Stout whom Mrs. Meikle consulted. Mr. Atkinson: I am not going to admit it in that unqualified way. Mr. Justice Cooper: It would be much more satisfactory for you to get Mr. Stout here. Mr. Justice Edwards: Unless the bald fact is admitted that she did not consult Mr. Stout, then Mr. Stout must be brought here. As you said that Mrs. Meikle did not consult Mr. Stout, I myself do not see why you should not admit the bald fact. Mr. Atkinson: Well, your Honour, I will admit it. Mr. Justice Edwards: Where is Mr. Stout now? Mr. Findlay: He is out of town, as far as I know. Mr. Justice Edwards: I do not quite uhderstand, Mr. Atkinson, what you will gain by bringing Mr. Stout here. Mr. Atkinson: Ido not think anything will be gained. I would much rather arrange it. Mr. Justice Edwards: I shall not act upon any assumption of the truth of the statement that Mrs. Meikle consulted anybody unless there is very much better evidence given than a declaration that she consulted somebody. Mr. Justice Cooper: She gave particulars of her alleged consultation with Mr. Stout. Mr. Justice Edwards: It was much more than a consultation. It was an arrangement to advance £100 on the very unsatisfactory security of a letter. Mr. Atkinson: It was not on the security of the letter. Mr. Justice Edwards: Well, what was it then? Mr. Atkinson: "He said he would get it for me if I could get the letters." The letters were not good security for £100, or even half a crown. Mr. Justice Edwards: At all events, it was something more than a consultation. I can understand that a woman might go into a lawyer's office and ask him the meaning of a contract, for instance, and that twenty years afterwards she might say that she went to Bell and Co.'s office, and it might turn out to have been Findlay and Co.'s. But there is no room for any mistake of that sort here. This was a very extraordinary sort of arrangement. It was a loan for the purpose of obtaining a letter. Well, that is no ordinary part of a lawyer's business, and it is difficult to see how anybody could make a mistake about, it, particularly as the woman has insisted on the fact that a halo of respectability was cast round it by the fact that it was a brother of the Chief Justice. What I want to know is this : What do you expect to gain, Mr. Atkinson ? You have admitted that this woman did not consult Mr. Stout, and that Mr. Stout did not agree to advance her £100. I am not at all sure that that is not enough. What good end will be attained by bringing Mr. Stout here to swear to that fact ? Mr. Atkinson: I do not wish to bring Mr. Stout here. Mr. Justice Edwards: I quite understand that you do not; but you wish, in addition to making the bald admission which you have already made, to add to that something else, which I have already intimated to you is' not evidence, and upon which I at once tell you I shall not act, as far as lam concerned. lam speaking for myself alone, of course. Mr. Justice Cooper: We shall require to have it corroborated. Mr. Justice Edwards: We shall certainly want the woman here to submit, to cross-examination.
H.— 21.
232
[j. .1. MEIKLE.
Mr. Atkinson: My friend can arrange to produce her here. Mr. Findlay: We were relying upon my friend's admission. Mr. Atkinson: There was no admission put in, but I make a conditional admission. Mr. Justice Edwards: There can be no conditional admission, because the reporter has got it down. You cannot make it a condition of admitting an undisputed fact that somebody else admits something which there is every possible reason to doubt. Mr. Findlay: If Mr. Stout comes here he can do no more than deny the fact. Mr. Atkinson: If Mrs. Meikle comes here she can state what she knows about it and give an explanation, and my friend can cross-examine her. Mr. Justice Edwards: But you should have brought Mrs. Meikle here if you wanted that. Mr. Atkinson: I did not think I would. I thought from my conversation with Dr. Findlay that we were going to arrange it. Mr. Findlay: Did he say anything about a declaration? Mr. Atkinson: No. Mr. Findlay: Well, how could you get a declaration ? Mr. Justice Edwards: Producing Mr. Stout would not answer your purpose, Mr. Atkinson. You would want Mrs. Meikle afterwards. Mr. Atkinson: Yes, your Honour. Mr. Justice Edwards: You certainly are not going to put the country to the expense of bringMr. Stout, and then to ask to bring Mrs. Meikle. Mr. Atkinson: No. If one witness were produced I could satisfy my friend that Mrs. Meikle would give what he wanted. Mr. Findlay: We have no opportunity of testing her credibility about what is in that declaration. She is wrong already, and we want to find out whether it was so. Mr. Justice Cooper: The receipts that Mr. Meikle signed were read by him, and they are already in print, Are we to take those receipts as printed to be correct copies? They were handed to the reporters for the purpose of hearing your address, Mr. Atkinson. Mr. Atkinson: I have not read them, "but I have no doubt that they are correct. They had previously appeared in Hansard. Mr. Findlay: I admit that they are correct. Mr. Justice Cooper: These receipts are to be treated as having been put in? Mr. Atkinson: Yes. Mr. Justice Edwards yesterday suggested that Hansard had practically been treated as evidence. I will give your Honours a reference to the page in my address to the Commission. The date is 16th November, 1897, page 2—the only paragraph on the first column. I desire also to put in the sheep returns, and with my friend's assistance I think we can get them before Monday. Mr. Justice Cooper: They are gazetted. Mr. Atkinson: I do not think there are full particulars given in the Gazettes. Mr. Findlay: It is possible they cannot be obtained at this stage. I have here the whole of the original papers supplied to me by the Justice Department. Mr. Justice Edwards: We propose to enter this minute upon the proceedings, and to treat it accordingly: "Mr. Atkinson admitted that Mrs. Meikle had not consulted or made any such arrangement with Mr. William Stout, as stated in the evidence given before the Commission in Dunedin, but desired to add to this admission a statement made by statutory declaration of Mrs. Meikle that she had consulted three other solicitors, two of whom she alleged to have retired from practice and to be of unknown addresses, and the third of whom she alleged to be dead. The Court directed Mr. Atkinson's admission to be noted, and ruled that that admission could not be treated as being depended upon the acceptance of Mrs. Meikle's statutory declaration as evidence of the fact herein alleged. The Court further ruled that any evidence given by Mrs. Meikle as to such alleged facts must be upon oath before the Commissioners, and subject to cross-examination; and further, that in the circumstances to justify attaching any weight to such evidence it was necessary that it. should be corroborated to the satisfaction of the Commissioners." Mr. Atkinson: Then, your Honours, if I can find any corroboration I will ask to have it produced here. The Court adjourned till 10.30 a.m. Monday.
Monoay, 7th January, 1907. .1//-. Justice Edwards: Well, Mr. Macdonald, are you going to cull Mr. McNab? Mr. Macdonald: If your Honour pleases, I have had an opportunity of seeing Mr. McNab, and I find I shall not be able to carry the matter further than what appears by his letter; but, as your Honour expressed the wish on Thursday last that he should attend, I asked him to attend, and he is here now, and, if your Honours or'if my friend desire, he will be put in the box. Personally, I do not think it is necessary to take up the time of the Court by calling him. Mr. Justice Edwards: Let us see that letter. The position appears to be altogether vague. Mr. Atkinson did not admit anything but that the letter had been written. He did not admit the particular statements in it, Mr. Macdonald: I understood that was the case. Mr. Justice Edwards: No. All Mr. Atkinson admitted was that the letter had been written by Mr. McNab to Meikle and received by him. Mr. Justice Cooper: Mr. Atkinson said he wanted to look at it again to see whether he would admit the circumstances were true.
H.—2l.
Mr. Findlay: Might I state my understanding of the position? My friend Mr. Atkinson admitted the letter and its contents, but not the other matter in this letter. Mr. Atkinson: I think my friend has stated the position correctly, and lam quite prepared to admit that is the position. It is the postscript I knew nothing about. I admit the letter. Mr. Macdonald: If your Honours please, we are satisfied with that admission, and it is for the Court to say whether it is necessary to call Mr. McNab. I will read the letter. [The letter was then read.] Your Honour sees, Mr. McNab persuaded Mr. Seddon to place £500 on the estimates, and he said if Mr. Seddon did that he (Mr. McNab) would not worry Mr. Seddon any longer over a grant of money, and he understood that was to be in final settlement. Mr. Justice Edwards: There is something more written on that letter. Mr. Macdonald: There is a memorandum at the foot which Mr. Atkinson refuses to admit. Mr. Justice Edwards: Let us see the memorandum [letter handed in]. Are we to take it from this that it was understood by Mr. Seddon, Premier, and by Mr. McNab that this payment was in full settlement? Mr. Macdonald: So far as Meikle was concerned, we understood that he did understand it was in full settlement. Mr. Justice Cooper: That is as far as you can carry it on the evidence before vs —that he signed the receipt. Mr. Macdonald: That is so. I believe Mr. McNab had no direct authority from Mr. Meikle, but all he did was to assure Mr. Seddon that if £500 was put on the estimates he (Mr. McNab) would not trouble Mr. Seddon any more. There was nothing said whether he accepted it or not. Mr. Atkinson: I am perfectly satisfied with that statement. Mr. Justice Edwards: It is very difficult for us to make head or tail of it. Mr. Macdonald: When Dr." Findlay made his opening in Dunedin he had not had an opportunity of seeing Mr. McNab, who was absent from the colony, and he had received information which led him to suppose that Mr. McNab had agreed to accept that amount in final settlement on behalf of Meikle. Those were the instructions which Dr. Findlay received for his opening statement. Mr. Justice Edwards: What are we to understand now? Mr. Macdonald: I do not know that I would have troubled the Court had it not been for Dr. Findlay's opening statement. I would not have called Mr. McNab at all. The simple fact is this: Mr. McNab was spoken to by some of his constituents, I suppose, and he asked Mr. Seddon to put a sum on the estimates. Mr. Seddon said he would put a sum on the estimates, and Mr. McNab said if the Premier put that sum on the estimates he (Mr. McNab) would not trouble the Government any more on the subject. Of course, the inference Mr. Seddon naturally drew from that was that that sum was accepted in final settlement, and as a matter of fact it was accepted in final settlement. Those are the simple circumstances which led up to the £500 being placed on the estimates and the £500 being paid to Meikle. Mr. Justice Edwards: This £500 would never have been put on the estimates but for that promise: is that what we are to understand ? Mr. Macdonald: That is so. Mr. Justice Edwards: Do you agree with that, Mr. Atkinson? Mr. Atkinson: No, your Honour. My friend stated the position correctly. The sole reason for calling Mr. McNab was to support the statement by Dr. Findlay in his opening address contained on page 130 of the printed report, as follows: "He [Meikle] persisted in further demands, and on the recommendation of a Parliamentary Committee the Premier interviewed those who purported to be helping Meikle —among them particularly Mr. McNab—and he informed Mr. McNab that he wanted to have done with this interminable Meikle business, and he said that if Meikle would accept £500 in full and final settlement of all possible claim he had or thought he had fiis Government would put that sum on the estimates. Now, so Mr. Seddon informs me, Mr. McNab went away and saw Meikle, so Mr. McNab says, and he came back and assured Mr. Seddon that Mr. Meikle would honestly accept the sum of £500 and give quittance not on paper only, but a genuine bond —a morally binding quittance to trouble this colony no further. It was only upon that assurance that Mr. Seddon placed upon the estimates and paid over to Meikle the sum of £500." Mr. Macdonald has stated quite frankly that Dr. Findlay had not had an opportunity of seeing Mr. McNab at the time. Mr. Justice Edwards: He had an opportunity of seeing Mr. Seddon, and it is a great pity Mr. Seddon was not called. Mr. Atkinson: It was, unfortunately. As a matter of fact, Mr. Meikle was not in Wellington during that session, so there could have been no conference between Mr. McNab and himself, and Mr. McNab fully realises it. It was personal feeling on his part, He would not press the claim further if the money was put on. The money was put on the estimates, and fourteen months later a receipt was signed. Previous to that, according to my instructions, which Mr. McNab appears to confirm, there was no compromise held out of a final quittance- in consideration of £500, so far as my client was concerned. Mr. Justice Edwards: He took fourteen months to consider it. Mr. Atkinson: Yes, your Honour. Mr. Justice Edwards: Mr. Macdonald, we cannot conduct your case for you. If you are satisfied we have nothing more to say about it. Mr. Macdonald: I am compelled to be satisfied. Ido not think it is necessary to call Mr. McNab. Mr. Justice Edwards: Then, before you put the letter in, should you not take off the bottom memorandum? Mr. Macdonald: It is understood the bottom is not to be treated as evidence.
30— H. 21.
233
H. —21.
Mr. Justice Edwards: We are to strike that out and make a note of it? Mr. Macdonald: Yes, if your Honour pleases. The letter was then put in as follows: — "Office of Minister of Lands, Wellington, 26th December, 1906. '' Gentlemen ,— '' Be the Meikle Petition. " The following is a letter sent by myself to Mr. Meikle under date June 18th, 1898: — " 'Invercargill, June 18th, 1898.—Mr. J. J. Meikle. —Dear Sir, — Re Petition: Your letter of the 17th instant came duly to hand, and with it the petition therein referred to. I return the petition for signature. It is not signed. Under what circumstances was the money accepted last year ? I understood it was in full settlement. I expect that I shall have to ask Kelly to present it on account of my promise given to the Premier to get him to put down something that if he placed the £500 on the estimates I personally would not worry him any more. He placed that sum on the estimates. If Mr. Seddon won't release me from my promise I can easily arrange for another to present the petition.—Yours faithfully, Robert McNab.' "Messrs. Findlay, Dalziell, and Co., solicitors, Wellington." Mr. Justice Edwards: The note I have made is, " Mr. Atkinson admits the writing and receipt of the letter of 18th June, 1898, above set out, and the truth of the statements therein contained." The other matter set out in the letter of the 26th December, 1906, is not to be taken as evidence, and is struck out. Mr. Atkinson: There are two documents I would ask to be allowed to put in. On looking through the papers in the possession of the Secretary on Friday afternoon I found an exhibit which Mr. Westacott put in in the trial of 1895. It was actually in the custody of the Commission without their knowing it, being contained in the envelope of exhibits sent up by the Registrar at Invercargill. It is the meat account for certain months, including October, 1887, rendered by Mr. Westacott's firm to Meikle. The second exhibit is a letter from the District Traffic Manager of New Zealand Railways, Invercargill, in reference to the time-table of the trains in October, 1887. The letter reads as follows: — " Srn, — " District Traffic Manager's Office, Invercargill, Ist January, 1907. " In reply to your letter of 24th December (addressed to Stationmaster, Mataura), I have to inform you that, as far as can now be learned, the through passenger-train from Invercargill to Dunedin in October, 1887, left Invercargill 10.25 a.m., Mataura 12.13 p.m., and arrived Dunedin 7.15 p.m. " Mr. J. J. Meikle, Post Office, Wellington." Mr. Justice Edwards: Do you agree with that, Mr. Macdonald? Mr. Macdonald: No, your Honour. The letter is not at all conclusive. It is not absolute, nor does it give all the trains. Mr. Justice Cooper: I think we should have the time-table. Mr. Justice Edwards: The words "as far as can now be learned" have not a convincing sound. Mr. Macdonald: I should have thought a time-table would have been obtainable at one of the stations. Mr. Justice Edwards: I should have thought so; but you can put the document in for what it is worth. Mr. Atkinson: I will do so, your Honour, and will endeavour to supplement it later. Mr. Macdonald: May it please your Honours, —Before beginning my summing-up I should just like to take this opportunity of expressing my grateful sense of the Commissioners' courteous consideration in adjourning this case from Thursday evening last until this morning to enable me to recover to a certain extent from my recent illness so as to discharge the duties which devolve upon me. Now, I propose in summing up to the Commissioners the facts of this case to do so under three different heads, and I will reduce those heads to three propositions. The first proposition is that Mr. Meikle was convicted of sheep-stealing in 1887 upon sufficient and satisfactory evidence, whether or not Lambert's evidence was accepted as credible; secondly, that Lambert was convicted of perjury in 1895 upon evidence which was false; thirdly, that Meikle has wholly failed to establish his innocence before this Commission. I attach a great deal of importance, as I am sure your Honours will, to the evidence which was adduced before the Assize Court, Invercargill, in December, 1887, at the trial of Meikle. The witnesses all spoke from events which had happened very recently. The defendant was represented by able counsel, who stated that every scrap of evidence which could be got had been called before the Court. The evidence which the witnesses gave was fresh in their minds, and it will be for the Commissioners to decide, after having heard a number of those witnesses and a number of witnesses who have since been called, to say how far the evidence which has now been adduced agrees with the testimony of the witnesses who were called before the Court in December, 1887. In cases of variation or in cases of conflict I shall submit to the Court that the evidence which was given by the witnesses in 1887 is the proper test of truth, and should prevail. The defendant was indicted for stealing twenty-eight sheep—"twenty-seven sheep and one ram," I believe, were the terms of the indictment—and I will now deal with the case for the Crown as presented to the Court, assuming Lambert's evidence as credible. Treating Lambert as a credible witness, the evidence for the Crown was to this effect: that in consequence of losses which the prosecuting company had sustained, they employed William Lambert, a private detective, to make observations and see whether he could trace the offenders who had been guilty of stealing their sheep. He was employed upon these terms: A stated salary of £1 a week and keep, and a bonus of £50 if he brought the offence home to the offender. Shortly after his engagement his suspicions were aroused, and he turned his attention to Meikle, an adjoining neighbour of the company's, ingratiated himself with him, and ultimately got on such terms with him and his
234
H.— 21.
farrrily that he was able to go upon the place from time to time without any suspicion. It appears that upon the night which Lambert said was the 17th October he went to Meikle's first, and then went to Gregg's. He left Meikle's at about 9 o'clock, and Gregg's between 9 and 10. On his way home to his hut he met Arthur Meikle with a mob of sheep, apparently coming from the company's turnip-field, accompanied by a dog, and spoke to him. He observed that Arthur Meikle was taking the sheep away in the direction of his own homestead. He then turned back and afterwards followed behind him, took a cut across the paddocks, and met him at the sheep-yards. Then the sheep were driven into a barn or blacksmith's shop by a narrow door. The accused there joined his sop with a lantern, and, having found a fat one, turned the rest out. Arthur Meikle killed the fat sheep. Lambert saw the brand on some of the sheep which were driven in. He did not see the brand on the particular sheep which was killed, although he saw the earmark. The sheep that was killed was dressed, and the accused J. J. Meikle ordered the fire-brand and the ear-mark to be cut off. This was done, when Meikle remarked that he could defy the company or anybody else. Lambert says that after that he went to Harvey, and then home. He saw the accused J. J. Meikle carrying the dead sheep home. This was, according to Lambert, on the 17th October. Lambert then gave information to his principal, Stuart, and Stuart hesitated whether to lay an information straightaway or not. He says he got the information from Lambert, and was considering the question of whether he ought to wait until Meikle began shearing, as Lambert had been asked to shear. However, he laid an information against Meikle for the number of sheep that were missing—namely, fifty-four, including the twenty-eight taken by Arthur Meikle —and on the 2nd November the police executed a search warrant, and two skins bearing the company's brand were found in the smithy, or barn, with Meikle's skins. Arthur Meikle, who was with Harvey, one of the witnesses in the case, on being asked for an explanation as to how he accounted for the skins, replied that he could not say, unless they were brought in by mistake from the company's fence. That was stated by Arthur Meikle in the presence of Harvey, who made no remark. Mr. Atkinson: Where is that mentioned? Mr. Macdonald: Both in the evidence of Stuart and of Fouhy —Leece and Harvey's crossexamination. These are circumstances sworn to at the time. I am referring to the evidence before the Supreme Court, Invercargill. Mr. Atkinson: There is no such statement there. Mr. Macdonald: You will find it on pages 21 and 22, and the bottom of page 25 and onwards. Harvey said he suspected Lambert, and had received instructions to lock up the place and to count the skins, and had counted them the previous morning. Arthur Meikle's statement was not contradicted, although made in the presence of Harvey. The police also found twenty-four wethers and one ram in an English-grass paddock of Meikle's, by themselves. Arthur Meikle's mode of accounting for them was that they had strayed through the eastern fence—that is, the fence at the company's leasehold. This would imply that all the other fences were good. The sheep and skins were taken away. On the following day two more of the company's sheep were found on Meikle's land, some distance away on rough country. These were the two sheep Troup had notice of from Meikle. Then, there was evidence as to cultivation. The evidence given by a thoroughly independent witness—Mr. Fleming—was that there was nothing to tempt sheep from the preemptive right, which was in turnips. Adjoining that was a paddock of tussock, then Meikle's ploughed land, and then his English-grass paddock. The sheep found on Meikle's land on the first day were nearly all fat; and the evidence with regard to the fence was that it was in good condition. Fleming was called upon to examine the fences, and he found them in good order. So that, according to the case for the Crown, Lambert saw twenty-seven sheep and a ram being taken from the company's place, that they bore the company's brand, that they were taken by Arthur Meikle, that one was killed by him and carried in by the accused, who had told his son to destroy the identity of the skin, and a fortnight afterwards two sheep-skins were found bearing the company's brand, and twenty-four sheep and a ram. I desire to point out that the two skins found in the smithy Mr. Atkinson: Are you still giving the evidence of 1887? Mr. Macdonald: The evidence at that trial of the identity of the skins. I will read the evidence, — " After sheep dressed he returned. Told his son to cut fire-brand and ear-mark off, and to cut them up into small pieces. That was done, Ear-mark was two notches, either back or front, That was the company's ear-mark. I did not see brand on sheep that was killed. Skin was put on some bags. Head was hung up on wall. Prisoner said he would defy company or any one else." Of course, there was other evidence about the mode in which the brand was deleted. The point I want to emphasize here is that the skin of the sheep which Lambert saw killed was not one of those found at the time of the raid on the 2nd November. The two skins found then are admitted to be the company's skins, branded with the company's brand. That is common ground, because the evidence for the defence proceeds upon that hypothesis. Then, there were twenty-four wethers and one ram found on Meikle's place. If your Honours will look at Stuart's evidence in the Supreme Court you will find that they found two more sheep on the rough ground on the following day. The others were found in an English-grass paddock of Meikle's. The point I want to make is this: that these twenty-four wethers and one ram found in the grass paddock were the residue of the sheep Lambert saw being driven into Meikle's yards about the 17th October. These twentyfive were part of the twenty-eight, which Lambert saw. One was killed in his presence, leaving twenty-seven; and two more we say were killed, the skins of which were found in the barn. There were two sheep found on the rough ground on the 3rd November. These were not with the other five-and-twenty; so that to that extent the story is quite consistent with Lambert's evidence. I wish to emphasize the fact that neither of the skins found was that of the sheep killed in the smithy
235
H.—2l.
in Lambert's presence. That practically was the case for the Crown. There was abundant evidence to call upon the accused to account for the possession of the skins; no notice had been given to the company of the presence of the sheep on Meikle's ground. Troup admits having received notice that two sheep were there, and, as I say, they were the two found on the 3rd November on the rough ground. The Crown was content to go on with the case against the accused without any reference to these two. No other notice had been given by Meikle to the company of the presence of any of their sheep on his land, though Arthur Meikle knew that the sheep were on the place. The evidence for the defence, in seeking to account for the skins, was simply that the skins had been placed there by Lambert; arrd, in seeking to account for the sheep, that the fences were in such a bad condition that the company's sheep could have wandered on to Meikle's land. Arthur Meikle said they must have come in by the fence on the eastern side. If you look at the map attached to Meikle's book you will find that this one adjoined the leasehold, and that no sheep could have come in by that way from the pre-emptive right. That is a statement made by Arthur Meikle, who knew the ground and the fences well. The evidence, however, for the defence on that occasion was to the effect that there were no other parts nearer than the pre-emptive right through which the sheep could have wandered. And then, with regard to the sheep-skins, the evidence was that Lambert was the person who put them on the place. Now, your Honours, I would particularly direct your attention to the evidence of Harvey and Arthur Meikle with regard to the statements which they imputed to Lambert—that he had been authorised by the company to place these sheep on the place. Harvey says, — " Often seen him (Lambert) at Meikle's since September, until just a few days before Arthurarrested. He would be there every other night; sometimes two nights running. Heard him at end of September in Meikle's small kitchen, before Mrs. Meikle, Jane Geary, and myself, Arthur, and Mr. Meikle, say that company had either offered or promised him £50 if he could get Meikle arrested. ' They want me to put things on to your property to get you into trouble.' He said he couldn't do it, and it was better to tell him what they were going to do. He said they were to put sheep-skins on the property; everything to get him into trouble, so that he wouldn't get to Wellington about this petition. He used to be talking about this affair every time he was over." And so on. He also states, — " I remember day constable came with warrant. I was called down. Believe it was 2nd November. Saw Lambert at place night before they came. When it was pretty dark he came to stable. He said, ' I want you to give me a hand to grind a knife,' Grindstone was kept in smithy. I told him to get Arthur. I heard grindstone going. Cannot say if Lambert had been down between 17th October and Ist November. We had conversation on Ist November. Have not had much to do with sheep." And so on. That is the main part of Harvey's evidence with regard to this statement which he said he heard Lambert make with regard to putting the skins on the place. Then, Arthur Meikle says this: — " I know W. Lambert. Saw him first at father's; forget month; forget how long it is ago. That was about a month before I was arrested —4th November. He spoke of Cameron and Troup. Said he was to get £50 to arrest father, to put sheep and skins on property. He said he wouldn't do it. He said a man named Stuart had come to do it; a cleverer buck than him. I heard Lambert state about having met me driving sheep 17th October. It's not true. I remember 17th October, because I was ill. I remember date right enough. Father was at home. It was a wet day. Day of Waters's sale at Wyndham. Father was going to sale; didn't. I was bad with cold. Went to bed at 4 p.m., before tea." And so on. " Harvey made mistake if he said I had tea in kitchen that night. Am subject to colds. Went to bed a month before. Cannot remember date of September. Was ill Sunday after; riot so bad. Remember 17th October; not other days. Fences are not in good order. Father keeps his fences in order. There is corner at Mimihau not in order. It never needed to be mended " —that is a corner near the Mimihau, which is connected with the pre-emptive right by a road along the creek— "Fences are not in good order. Father keeps his fences in order. There is corner at Mincham not in order. It never needed to be mended —no stock to go out; some came in." Of course, that is a very suggestive remark, no doubt, that all the foot-marks pointed inwards and none outwards. It raises the retort contained in the Horatian phrase, " Vestigia nulla retrorsum." " Not confidential with Lambert. He visited about once a week from time he went to Islay Station to end. He was away one time a week. First time he called he mentioned about the £50 to be paid for trapping father. Had no suspicion of him. Thought no need of taking precautions." Then there was the evidence of another witness —namely, Mrs. Shiels, that— "Lambert said to Meikle in kitchen, middle September, before Mrs. Meikle, Arthur Meikle, James Meikle, and myself, that Cameron and Troup were to give him £50 to put sheep and skins on Meikle's property to get him convicted before going to Wellington. Heard him say so several times after. I heard him say he'd get £50 for being a good boy." Then she was cross-examined, and it was found that her statements did not agree with the statements she had made in the lower Court. Then, Davis also made a similar statement—that Lambert had told him "he was to get £50 to trap him; that they had been blaming Meikle for taking away sheep," and Davis therefore asked him, " Which way do you intend to do it?" "He said, 'That's what I wanted to see you about.' He said something about putting skins or sheep on the place." And so on. Then there was evidence in regard to the sheep, showing that they could trespass on the place, and that was the way in which the presence of the skins was accounted for and the presence of the sheep was also accounted for. Now, your Honours, the evidence of the
236
H.—2l.
witnesses for the defence was of an exceedingly unsatisfactory character. They were utterly inconsistent with Meikle's letter of the 14th November, asking Lambert to shear, and with the interview of the Bth November, and also were utterly inconsistent with the statements of Arthur Meikle in the presence of Harvey, who apparently acquiesced in them. They were contradictory; they did not agree with the statements they had made in the lower Court, and there was an air of extreme improbability about their statement regarding Lambert —the man who was employed by the company to watch the proceedings on Meikle's farm to see whether he could find out if Meikle was the culprit—that he should expose his hand to such an extent as to tell them what he was going to do, and tell them a story which on the very face of it was, as the jury were told, absurd. The result was that the jury disbelieved this statement and believed the evidence for the Crown, and found the accused guilty. Now, that was upon the evidence, assuming that Lambert's evidence was to be admitted as true. Whether or not the jury did accept Lambert's evidence lam not in a position to say. It was quite competent for them, however —in fact, I think it was their duty, even though they did not believe Lambert —to find the accused guilty if the evidence for the defence accounting for the presence of the skins and the presence of the sheep was unsatisfactory. Now, if the evidence of Lambert was excluded, your Honours, we have this state of things : that the sheep-skins were found on the accused's property in one of the places where he kept his ordinary skins, for he kept them, apparently, either in the stable or in the smithy. The sheep were on the place. They had never given notice to the company that they had them. Arthur Meikle, when the search warrant was executed, admitted he knew they were on the place; and whether or not the sheep did stray upon the ground, the fact that two of these skins belonging to the company were found was evidence from which the jury might come to the conclusion that there was felonious appropriation even of the sheep that were there. But certainly it was evidence of felonious appropriation of the two sheep which had been killed and whose skins were found upon the place. With the facts, therefore, that the skins were found upon the place with the company's brand upon them; that twenty-five sheep of the company's were found upon the place; that their presence was known to Arthur Meikle; that no notice had been given to the company of them, and he knew it, there was a strong primd facie case for the Crown calling upon the accused to give some account of how he came by those skins and how he got into possession of those sheep. The evidence which he adduced, as I have already pointed out to the Court, was that Lambert put the skins upon the place, and that the sheep strayed. Whether or not that was the case, the jury disbelieved the evidence that Lambert put the skins upon the place, and found the prisoner guilty; and I submit, your Honours, very strongly, that, even eliminating Lambert's evidence, there was ample evidence from which not only were the jury justified, but, if they did not believe the evidence for the accused, it was their duty, to find the prisoner guilty of having stolen these sheep. The first proposition, therefore, your Honours, which I submit to the Court is that, even though Lambert's evidence was not admitted as credible, there was ample evidence upon which the jury were not only justified, but, if they refused to accept the statement of the witnesses for the defence, that Lambert had put these skins upon the place, they were bound to find the prisoner guilty of having stolen the sheep. They did not believe the evidence of the defence, and found Meikle guilty. Now, your Honours, I come to the next proposition, that Lambert was wrongfully convicted of perjury in 1895—that is, that he was convicted upon evidence which was false. Meikle was sentenced to seven years' penal servitude. He served five years of that period, and when he came out he set himself to work to prosecute Lambert. He states that his object was to bring Lambert to justice for the perjury which he had committed on his (Meikle's) trial, because the jury would never have found him guilty without Lambert's evidence. I submit, myself, that it is unjust to Mr. Meikle's intelligence and 'cuteness—the intelligence and 'cuteness which he has displayed very remarkably throughout the whole of his career during the last eighteen years —for it to be supposed that he thought any such thing. There is no doubt whatever that the prosecution for perjury of a man who was an important witness for the Crown would be to a certain extent a ground for him, if he succeeded in his prosecution, to make an application of some kind with regard to his innocence. But in this case I submit that, from what we have seen of Mr. Meikle —what the Court knows from its own observation of Meikle —the inference is that he was inspired in the first place by an intense, bitter, and deep hatred against Lambert, and he prosecuted him not only for the purpose of seeking to show that he was innocent, but for the purpose of hounding Lambert down and getting him punished for what he (Meikle) said was his perjury. Unfortunately, owing to Lambert's carelessness, Meikle acquired a handle. He acquired some ground upon which to take proceedings, and that was Lambert's statement with regard to the date. As your Honours know, Lambert stated in the lower Court that it was about the 17th October. In the Supreme Court he stated it was the 17th October. In his examination in the Court below he said he had fixed the date by his going to Gregg's for matches, and by McGeorge's going away, and he believed that those two events had happened on the 17th October, in consequence of Gregg telling him before the Supreme Court case came on that it was the 17th October, and with a degree of rashness which, unfortunately, he was then guilty of, but which he ought not to have been guilty of, he accepted that statement and swore in the Supreme Court to the 17th as being the precise date. Now, if Meikle had prosecuted Lambert on precisely the same materials that he had in the Supreme Court when he (Meikle) was convicted, he would have stood no chance whatever, but in the meantime he had had time to look over the whole situation ; and if, as I submit to the Court, the evidence which was adduced on behalf of Meikle before the Supreme Court on Meikle's trial with regard to the statements imputed to Lambert—if these statements were false and that evidence was concocted by Meikle, as the jury found, then it would not be difficult for Meikle to proceed further and concoct further evidence to try to sheet home to Lambert the accusation which he had made against him on the previous occasion, that he had put these skins upon his (Meikle's) ground ; and that was exactly what Meikle did. He prosecuted Lambert in 1894, and had him committed for trial. The grand jury threw out the bill. In March, 3895, he brought him again before the Magistrate, and
237
H.—2l
238
the information was dismissed. In May, 1895, he brought him again before the Magistrate. Lambert was committed for trial, and after four days' trial was found guilty. Now, Ido not propose, your Honours, to go through the whole of the evidence at that trial, but I wish particularly to direct your Honours' attention to that part of the evidence relating to what took place on the night of the Ist November —the night before the police raid on the 2nd November. I wish your Honours to bear in mind that Arthur Meikle and Harvey were witnesses for the accused J. J. Meikle at his trial in Invercargill. The defence that was set up by Mr. McGregor, and pressed with all the strength he was capable of, was that Lambert put these skins upon the ground. He supported that case upon the evidence partly of Harvey, partly of Arthur Meikle, partly of Mrs. Shiels, and partly of Davis. Neither Meikle himself nor his wife could give evidence on that occasion. Their evidence was inadmissible at the time Meikle was tried, so that neither Meikle nor his wife could give evidence in support of the defence. But what happens in 1895? Meikle brings Lambert before the Supreme Court, and a great part of the evidence is devoted to establishing the fact that Lambert swore that it was on the 17th October that the sheep were taken by Arthur Meikle. Now, this is Meikle's evidence: — " In Lambert's evidence at Wyndham he said, ' I remember the 17th October, when I was at Gregg's. 1 took a note of it.' On that date he said, further, Arthur Meikle made no attempt to conceal his movements with regard to the sheep. He fixed the 17th October as being the day McGeorge left the hut for good. McGeorge was a servant of the company. He said that at Wyndham here in 1887 arrd also in August, 1894. Plan produced shows the land." And so on. Then Meikle says, — "It is not true that on the 17th October, 1887, my son brought to my house twenty-seven of the company's sheep as described by Lambert. My son neither on that night nor on any other night drove sheep to my place. No sheep have ever been driven to my place since I was there. It never happened—what Lambert said. The whole story was completely untrue. There was a sale at Wyndham on the 17th October, that year, of Mr. Waters' stock by Mac Gibbon. The morning was fine. It began to rain about half-past 10. All afternoon and all that night it was very heavy. It was the worst night I had seen in New Zealand." Then he gives evidence to contradict that it was that night. Then comes evidence to which I wish to direct your Honours' attention. After giving further evidence, this is what Meikle says, — "After he came to the company's place in September he lived in hut. He might be several times at the house, and often at the hut. He came about the middle of September, 1887, to the house. He rapped at the back door. I went to the door myself. He said he had something to sayto me. I told him to come inside and say what he had to say. He said, ' Look here, Mr. Meikle, 1 have to get £50 to get you off your place. Cameron and Troup will stand at my back.' Cameron was manager for company, and Troup was head shepherd. He said he was to put sheep or sheepskins on the land, so as to get me into trouble and off the place. He said, ' I'll let you know the night it's to be done, Mr. Meikle. I won't do it.' I again saw him on the 22nd September, the night before Gregg's sale. I was in Invercargill on the 22nd. I was riding through the paddock. I knew my wife was very ill. I had wired to Dr. Cox." And so on. The evidence continues, — "He said, ' Look here, Mr. Meikle, you're to go first, Killop next, and Jack Reid next,' The three of us had to go, for they couldn't work their land without ours. He said Killop sold two of the company's sheep in Wyndham. He told me five or six times he was to get this £50. One side of my property, though the best, is still unfenced. At that time there was no cultivation on the company's land. Lambert came to my house on the afternoon of the 18th October. He asked me if Arthur was any better. He said Harvey told him that Arthur nearly pegged out last night. He told me he was in Humphries' Hotel, Mataura, and had a good booze last night. He said Archie Mac Gibbon owed him some money, and he had to wait until he came from the sale last night to get it out of him. I made a complaint on the 3rd October, 1887, to Detective Ede at Invercargill in consequence of what Lambert had told me. I think it was Monday. After Lambert made the statement I told Harvey to have the buildings thoroughly locked at night " —let me pause to repeat this—"l made a complaint on the 3rd October, 1887, to Detective Ede at Invercargill in consequence of what Lambert had told me." Now, that evidence was tendered before the Supreme Court at Meikle's trial, and was rejected, and my learned friend Mr. Atkinson made some capital out of the rejection. Mr. Atkinson: No. Mr. Macdonald: I think so, in my friend's opening. It was rejected for the simple reason that Meikle was simply making evidence, and it was not evidence that was admissible for him. His evidence continued, — " I went round myself to see that they were locked. I made it a rule to do so. They were kept locked. I was away on the 2nd November when police came with search-warrant. On the night of the Ist November —I think a Tuesday—Lambert came to my house. I had just come from Dunedin the week previous. I had been there for a few days. I heard him call out to Harvey if he could get the key of the smithy to sharpen his knife. It was the key of the back door he wanted. Every place was locked up that night except the stable, where he put his horse, Harvey said he had been sowing seed and had sore feet. Harvey said he was to go to Arthur and get him to help him. I went over to the smithy. It might be ten minutes or a quarter to 10. My son was turning round stone and Lambert was sharpening his knife. I didn't notice any bag there then. I asked him what time of night it was to get a knife sharpened. He said, ' I'm going to kill sheep at the station to-morrow, and am leaving to-night,' When T got out by the side door, at the end of the buildings, I saw a bag standing up like a flour bushel-bag at the corner of the piles. It was a bulky-looking sack standing up. It would hold two sheep-skins, as I saw it, comfortably. I said to him, 'What was in that bag?' He said it was his blankets; he was going away to the station
239
H.—2l
that night. He came over to the house after he had sharpened his knife, and clock struck ten. He said, ' I'm going now, and will be back next week, and separate company's sheep from mine.' It was a common thing for the company's sheep to be on my land. On night of Ist November Lambert was on perfectly friendly terms with me. The door was left open that night. Arthur couldn't find the key. That place was left open. The other places were all locked when the police came. I didn't put the two skins or either of them there." And so on. No evidence of that description at all was tendered at the trial of Meikle. Harvey and Arthur Meikle were both there, but not a question was asked them about this bag or about what took place on that night, and Arthur Meikle went the length of saying the " first time he called he mentioned about the £50 to be paid for trapping father. Had no suspicion of him. Thought no need of taking precautions." I submit it is perfectly plain that this evidence was manufactured by the accused after he found that the evidence he tendered before was insufficient to satisfy the jury of his story that Lambert put the skins upon the place. Then Mrs. Meikle also gave evidence. At the time of Lambert's trial Arthur Meikle was dead. Mrs J. Meikle was called and said, — " I heard him tell my husband, in the presence of a servant-girl (now Mrs. Shiels) and my son Arthur (who is dead), that Cameron and Troup were to give him £50 to put sheep or sheep-skins on to my husband's land in order to get him arrested and get him into trouble. Mrs. Howe heard this. I was not present when she heard it. He made no secret of it. He seemed to make a boast of it. He said he wouldn't do it, and he would let my husband know when it was to be done. Another night he said, ' They think I'm too slow over the job, and they've got another joker to take my place.' He gammoned to be my husband's friend. The night before the police came he said, ' Depend on me, it won'tjbe done to-night. I'll let you know the night it will be done.' I heard him say that night he wanted to get a knife sharpened. The place where the knife would be sharpened was the smithy. I know my husband went to the police. I know the places were kept locked up until the prisoner came to get his knife sharpened. The key must have been mislaid. That was the only night the place was ever left open." In cross-examination she said, — " I think it was the beginning of September Lambert came first. I heard him saying it after I had been confined —after I got up. He told me two would come —one dressed in white clothes and one in black. Lambert was to come with the one in white. The one in light clothes was supposed to lay the skins in the buildings. Harvey kept the keys of the buildings. There was a bunch of keys tied together. There were several old skins of ours, I think, hanging in the smithy over the beam. Arthur never had a team. He was a very delicate lad ever since he was eight years of age. lam certain he wasn't out of his bedroom on the 17th. On the 18th he had to leave the table —not on the 17th. I knew Gregg." And so on. Then there was the evidence of Mrs. Howe, who was the nurse, and then there was the evidence of Harvey, and this is what Harvey says,— " I remember Lambert coming about the place. He was coming about the place some weeks before the police came. He stated on more than one occasion that the company had offered him £50 to put either sheep or sheep-skins, or anything else that would get Meikle into trouble, on his land, and that Troup and Cameron were to stand at his back and see him through. He generallyreferred to the matter every time he came there. I can't say he used the same words every time. He said he wouldn't do it. I believe he said something about letting Meikle know, but it is so long ago I couldn't be certain. In consequence of what Lambert said 1 kept.charge of the keys, under instructions from Meikle. I went through the skins every morning. I had the doors always locked. I remember police coming there with a search-warrant. They sent for me. I never missed a single day from the time Meikle told me about Lambert in examining the skins in the smithy. I was not aware Meikle had reported the matter to Detective Ede. On the day before the police came with the search-warrant I am positive there were no skins in the smithy except Meikle's own I had examined them that day in the morning before breakfast. The smithy was locked all that day. I used to carry the keys in my pocket. I can't recollect what I was doing the day before the police came. I was at work. I recollect now well what I was doing. I was sowing turnips Lambert came to me that night. I should think it would be between 9 and 10 some time He asked rue rf I would give him a hand to sharpen a knife. The grindstone was in the smithy Lambert knew the grindstone was kept in there. I had my clothes half off and was going to bed I told him my feet were sore. I told him to go and get Arthur; perhaps he would give him a hand to turn the grindstone. I didn't see him go. I heard grindstone going. I had taken the keys into the house. _ I always took the keys into the house and left them on the mantelpiece at night 1 hey were tied together with a piece of wick-end—the barn and smithy key together don t know of any other keys. I never saw him bring any bag. My hut is about a chain from Meikle s house It is between two and three chains from the smithy. I don't recollect seeing him again that night. It couldn't have been long when I heard him in the smithy-ten minutes or a quarter of an hour That would make it about half-past 9. I left the keys, so far as I recollect just before I went to my hut The smithy was locked in the morning and remained locked all day lam posrtrve there were no skins there except Meikle's skins. The police came some time early in the forenoon-I think between 10 and 11. Detective Ede was one of them there. I didn't open my mouth at.the time so far as I recollect. All the doors were shut except the side door into the smithy Police took skins down off the beam in the smithy. No strangeskins there. I can say positively these two skins were not there the day before. After they had examined the coach house I drew Ede's attention to the condition of the doors. Arthur was always a weakly lad " And so on. In cross-examination he says,— : " When the police came the buildings were all locked except the smithy door. I had the keys of the barn and the smrthy I hadn't keys of stable and coach-house. 7 f had no instructions about coach-house or stable. I had to look out for barn and smithy. It was in them skto were to
240
H.— 21.
be put Sheep were killed sometimes in smithy, sometimes in stable. I have seen sheep-skins in stable There were sheep-skins as often in the barn. I cannot say now positively how many skins there were in the smithy. I was in the habit of turning them over every morning. I thrnk they were laid on the rafters folded. I cannot be positive. The two skins were amongst the ones on the rafters The police took skins down from the rafter. The two skins were among the others, about half-way down, not lying as if they had been thrown there. I remember brand on one of them was red—a very distinct brand. Skins when dried were generally taken over from barn. I drd not see any sheep killed before the 17th October." _ And so on. Now, that evidence, your Honours, was perfectly available at the time ot Meikle s trial All this detail about the bag, all this detail about Lambert's suspicious conduct, could have been proved by Harvey and Arthur Meikle at Meikle's trial. There was not one reference to it. It was not only a part of Meikle's case, but also a very important part of it. _ The case with which he had to meet the charge was that the skins were put on the place. But this evidence was not then adduced. It was within the breast of Meikle, it was within the breast of Harvey, it was within the breast of Arthur Meikle. Meikle could not himself have given evidence, but he could have made a statement by permission of the Judge, and possibly that statement would have been received. But he did not attempt to give that evidence, and when asked by my learned friend Dr. Findlay to account for the fact that all this evidence was not given at his trial in Invercargill he stated that Mr. Macgregor had informed him that no jury could possibly convict, and that there was no occasion to bother about it. And yet Mr. Macgregor stated he adduced all the evidence he could possibly lay his hands on, and yet this evidence, which was within the minds of Harvey and Arthur Meikle, and in regard to which Meikle could have made a statement, was not given. The only inference I can ask your Honours to draw from it is that that evidence was concocted —that it was evidence that Meikle, after he came out of gaol, found he would have to tender in support of a case against Lambert. At this stage the Court adjourned until 2 p.m. on account of an indisposition on the part of Mr. Macdonald. Mr. Macdonald: When your Honours kindly adjourned I was addressing the Court on the evidence produced at the trial of Lambert for perjury, and I was pointing out to the Court that there was then evidence produced before the Court which could have been produced at the trial of Meikle. It was the evidence of Harvey and of Arthur Meikle, and a statement which Meikle himself could have made. I rely not only upon the fact that that evidence could have been adduced before the Court on the occasion of the trial of Meikle, although it was very important and, in fact, absolutely material in support of his case that it should have been so produced, but I rely also upon the fact that the evidence —at all events, Harvey's evidence —is inconsistent. The evidence _of Harvey produced before the Court at the trial of Lambert was inconsistent with the evidence which he gave at the trial of Meikle. I will not unnecessarily take up the time of the Court and waste my own strength, but will just refer your Honours to the evidence which Harvey gave at Meikle's trial. He says (page 25 of the pamphlet),—<- " Ever since Lambert told me they were to put skins on run I began to tally sheep-skins. Did not keep tally; just counted. Lambert said company would probably get Stuart to do it. There were only twelve when I examined them the day before. Took them down and counted them to see that no one had put skins there. I said nothing to police when the two company's skins were found, though I was present. Said nothing in the Court below. Said nothing to Arthur, who said skins must have been taken off fence by mistake—that was the only way to account for them. . Took some skins and examined them every morning. I knew there were sheep of company's in our paddock. Some I put there myself. I told Lambert of them. (In deposition: I must have counted skins four or five times.)"— This would refer to the lower Court.—" I got skins off fence two or three days before. Had conversation with Lambert day before arrest. Lambert asked if Meikle had been telling about £50. I said I thought not, This was before I went to smithy." In conducting Meikle's case no counsel in his senses could possibly have omitted it had it been real and true. And I desire also to mention this: Not only is Harvey's evidence at Lambert's trial inconsistent with his former testimony, but the whole story is utterly inconsistent with what was proved at the trial of Merkle with regard to his relations with Lambert. Now, the police raid took place on the 2nd November, and Meikle, after the raid took place, wrote a letter to Lambert. Meikle's testimony before the Court at Lambert's trial was that he believed at the time of the police raid, or the night before, that it was either Lambert or Stuart who had put the skins on his property. Notwithstanding that belief, as he says, he wrote a letter to Lambert twelve days after the police raid. It is dated the 14th November, 1887: — " Dear Sir, —I want my sheep shorn. Can you come and shear them? Tell Arthur whether you are coming or not. I hope you will be straight in this matter about the company and myself. You have nothing to fear, and listen to no report. Constable Leece, lam afraid, will be in serious trouble over this matter and the company. I should like you to come and shear, as you promised. —J. J. Meikle." Now, then, the evidence which Lambert gives at Meikle's trial is this—after the arrest, but before the police evidence was taken—that is, before the examination of witnesses before the Police Magistrate (page 20) : — . " After arrest prisoner came to me at North Star Hotel, two McDonalds with him—Alick and Malcolm, I think —on Bth November." — Now, I have no hesitation in saying that these two McDonalds were confederates and friends of Meikle's.—" Prisoner asked if I would have a drink, and shouted. Then I went outside. Prisoner followed me, and said if I kept my mouth shut about this matter he would summon company for £5,000, and would share it between four of us. I don't know much about fences." Now, your Honours, if there were a scintilla of truth in Meikle's statement, that he believed on the night of the Ist November, and before that, the skins were put on his property by either
H.—2l.
Lambert or Stuart, is it at all reconcilable with his statement that he should have written this letter of the 14th November, 1887? That shows that Meikle still regards Lambert as his friend, and he actually invites him to come and shear his sheep, a number of which he was going to get from the company. Is it possible to conceive that on the 14th November, twelve days after the police raid takes place, and after they had found the skins on his place, which he believed had been put there by Lambert or Stuart, that such a letter could have been written? I submit it is utterly irreconcilable. The statement which Meikle made before your Honours in Dunedin, that it was an invitation to Lambert to come to the station and confess, is absolutely and utterly preposterous. To suppose he wrote that letter to Lambert in order that he might induce Lambert to confess that he put the skins on the place is so utterly childish and absurd as to be entirely unworthy of credence. Then there is the evidence of Lambert to the effect that on the Bth November, a few days before the receipt of the letter, Meikle asked him to keep his mouth shut in order that he might summon the company for £5,000, which amount was to be shared between four of them. If this evidence is true, it is perfectly consistent with the story Lambert gave ; but the evidence which Meikle himself gives and which the McDonalds give is of a different character altogether. But I submit, your Honours, that, on looking even at that evidence, there is inherent in the story given by McDonald, who, as I said before, I have no hesitation in regarding as a confederate and friend of Meikle's — the evidence given by McDonald as to what took place between Meikle and Lambert on that occasion contains within it some evidence of the truth of Lambert's statement. It is this (page 27): — " Saw Lambert afterwards in Hewitt's Hotel, on the Bth November. Brother and Meikle with me. Meikle shouted." Further it goes on, — "Meikle and Lambert came put together into the passage. Brother was outside. Meikle said 'Be truthful, Lambert, and tell the truth on both sides.' Lambert said, 'Yes; I'm waiting to get £10 blood-money from Stuart.' " Now, your Honours, I must make this observation : At that time Meikle did not know Lambert was to be a witness against him. He did not know Lambert had anything to do with the matter, except from his own consciousness that he (Meikle) saw Lambert on the night of the 17th or 18th October, and knew that Lambert was aware of what had taken place that night. Your Honours will see that there was nothing disclosed to show that Lambert had anything to do with this matter except as to what came under Meikle's own knowledge. He knew that Meikle had been present when the sheep were taken, when one was killed by Arthur and the identity of the skin destroyed. So that McDonald's evidence, untrue though it be, contains a germ which goes to show that Meikle had in his mind that Lambert was present on that occasion, because at that time his examination before the Magistrate had not taken place, nor did it before the 18th November, and he did not know whether Lambert would be a witness against him or not. What he was wanting to do was to induce Lambert to break down the company's case in order that he (Meikle) might recover damages against the company. It was only when Lambert was produced against him, and had told the truth about the night the sheep were stolen —it was only then that he broke out and invented the whole story about Lambert putting the sheep-skins in the barn. That, I submit, is the most reasonable view. Mr. Justice Cooper: Why should he have told Ede before this that the skins and the sheep were" to be put there. Mr. Macdonald: Because he was making evidence. He knew that Lambert, was to get £50 to get the person who was taking the sheep arrested. He knew that could be the only possible way of convicting him—if they found skins or sheep—and then he told Ede that the company were going to do that. Fortunately, that evidence was not admitted at Meikle's trial. However, it is before the Commission now. I submit very strongly that it was a case of Meikle making evidence for himself in anticipation, possibly in the hope, of making something in the end. He is a very cunning man — a m an of no little experience, a man of no little intelligence, and a man of no little 'cuteness. Mr. Justice Cooper: Ede's statement is in the deposition before the committal for trial. We have the depositions here. Mr. Macdonald: Ede corroborates Meikle that Meikle went to the police. He was laying ground-bait. That is the Crown's theory. Mr. Justice Cooper: That he contemplated this and laid ground-bait in anticipation? Mr. Macdonald: Yes. At all events it is incomprehensible that this evidence that was adduced at Lambert's trial about the details of seeing Lambert and Lambert producing that bag could be true. It was most preposterous. According to Meikle's theory Lambert contemplated putting skins there in order that the police might raid the place next day and find them, when he could have put the skins elsewhere. And a most extraordinary thing is that according to Harvey's evidence the very precautions which Meikle said he had previously taken were not taken that morning. Mr. Justice Cooper: That argument does not seem to have satisfied the jury of twelve in Invercargill in 1895. Mr. Macdonald: I must say that for the first time in Meikle's career he has been thoroughly and exhaustively cross-examined as to all the facts belonging to this case, and the colony is indebted to Dr. Findlay for that. The jury at Lambert's trial heard further the evidence of McGeorge, which, as Dr. Findlay remarks, bears the imprint, the stamp, of John James Meikle. The evidence brought forward had the added advantage of Mr. Solomon's advocacy, and resulted in Lambert being convicted. I submit that even then no conviction could have been got except for the supplementary evidence regarding the skins, the supplementary evidence as to what took place and his (Meikle's), Harvey's, and McGeorge's evidence. These twelve jurymen accepted Meikle's story and these witnesses' under the influence of the inflammatory address delivered by Mr. Solomon.
31— H. 21.
241
H. —21.
Mr. Justice Cooper: A Judge as a rule does not permit inflammatory addresses on the part of 6 V Edwards: There was also that matter of the £50. That would tell very strongly against him. , , . , n , Mr Macdonald: It was that fact and Meikle's, MoGeorge's, and Harvey s evidence. Only for that he would not have been convicted. With regard to Mr. Justice Cooper's remark about inflammatory speeches— . Mr. Justice Cooper: We have no evidence before us that Mr. Solomon made an inflammatory speech. I know lie always makes a very powerful address. Mr. Atkinson: We had a very inflammatory address in Dunedin. Mr Justice Cooper: We had one from you, too, Mr. Atkinson. Mr. Justice lidwind*: They can be as inflammatory as they like here as far as influencing us is concerned. . ~ Mr. Macdonald: Here only solid reasoning, solid facts, presented in as clear and lucid a manner as possible, can influence your Honours. I submit that this evidence produced by Harvey, by Meikle himself, by Mrs. Meikle, and by McGeorge secured the conviction of Lambert, and the evidence of a man named Ryder, which was absolutely untrustworthy. If the evidence of these witnesses is untrue in the main, then the case falls to the ground, and I do submit that it was absolutely untrustworthy, and that the person responsible for its presentation to the Court was no other than John James Meikle. Mr. Justice Cooper: Lambert was tried at Invercargill? Mr. Macdonald: Yes, your Honour. I was not present, but I was subpoenaed, but not called. The next step that Meikle took.after the conviction of Lambert was upon the strength of that conviction. My friend will correct me if 1 am wrong. Meikle approached Parliament and the Government with representations that lie had obtained the conviction for perjury against the chief witness against himself and without whose evidence he would not have been convicted. I hope your Honours will come to the conclusion that that is not the case —that Lambert's evidence might have been omitted and the Crown still have got a conviction. In fact, if Lambert had not been introduced as a witness into the case the chances are we should not have had this cock-and-bull story of Lambert's putting the skins into the smithy. The conviction would have followed even though Lambert was not a witness. However, by dint of perseverance and of dogged obstinacy, which almost commands admiration, he obtained two sums of £294 16s. Id. for costs of his prosecution of Lambert, and £500 in satisfaction of all claims against the colony. Notwithstanding that he knocks at the door of Parliament for more money. That demand, I submit, is clear evidence of bad faith. And finally, when in answer to Dr. Findlay he said he would not accept the decision of this Commission after it had been appointed with his concurrence, if not at his request, after the details to be referred to the Commission were fixed with the concurrence of his solicitor —after all these things had been done to meet his views, he says he will not accept its decision. If that is not evidence of bad faith, what evidence can possibly be needed? The only inference to be drawn from that is this : that nothing will satisfy Meikle except his own version and his own estimate of what he has lost. He only is the man who is to say whether he is guilty or not. He only is the man who is to say how much he is to get from the colony ; and he only is the man who is to override the opinion of everybody else. The thing is so utterly preposterous that I will not further dwell upon it. Now, your Honours, I come to the final proposition, which T shall submit very strongly to the Commission. That is this: that Meikle has failed to establish his innocence. The conviction against him stands. The conviction against him properly stands ; and your Honours have held that the onus lies upon him, in approaching the Commission, to establish his own innocence, to enable them to set aside that verdict, an-d he has undertaken to do so. Has he done so? I submit in the clearest possible manner that he has not done so. He has not produced evidence calculated to displace the inferences —the proper and satisfactory inferences —to be drawn from the evidence produced at his trial in 1887. We have first of all—and that is the most important part of the case which my friend has brought before this Court —we have first of all the statements with regard to Lambert —the statements about the bag and about what took place on the Ist November. I will ask your Honours to accept what I have already said on that question in reference to the evidence which Meikle produced at the trial of Lambert. The remarks which I addressed to your Honours on the subject of that evidence apply with equal force to his evidence before the Commission in Dunedin ; and I would also add this, that the case as now presented to the Court by Mr. Meikle consists, first of all, as I have already said, of the evidence of himself, the evidence of Harvey, which we have admitted, and the evidence of Mrs. Meikle with regard to the bag which Lambert was alleged to have taken on the night of the Ist November. Then we have the evidence of the impossibility of the sheep having been stolen on the 17th October, 1887. Then we have evidence of the impossibility of putting sheep through the barn-door. Then we have evidence of bad fences and cultivation. First of all, just to refer shortly to Meikle's own evidence and the statements by Mrs. Meikle. His own evidence was supported to a certain extent as to Lambert's statements by McDonald, by Templeton, by Mabin, and by Mrs. Meikle. McGeorge, who gave evidence on Meikle's trial with regard to the sheep-skins, receded from the position he then took up. His evidence was so absurd that he.re was a man in charge of a hut, with whom he was living, who was asking him—a drover —for two sheep-skins for a mat, when the sheep-skins were there. He was equally a servant of the company—possibly more in charge of the sheepskins than McGeorge was. Why should he not have helped himself? That appears to have weighed upon McGeorge's mind after he gave evidence on the former occasion, and he said he did not give the skins to Lambert. I will refer to McGeorge's evidence. It is at the bottom of page 81 of the printed proceedings. My friend Dr. Findlay said, — " You told Mr. Atkinson, as was quite natural, that you could not remember everything that happened in 1887 at this length of time afterwards? —That is so.
242
243
H.—2l
" You told Mr. Atkinson that you did uot get any skins for Lambert —that they were at the back of the hut, and he could help himself?—As far as 1 remember, that is correct. " He could get them just as easily as you could, of course.' —Every bit; they were there. '' Then 1 take it that your perfectly frank answer is this: That, as far as you remember, you did not get two skins for Lambert. The skins were at the back of the hut, and he could get them as easily as you could? —Yes, that is true enough." So that it does not appear even that it was necessary for Lambert to ask for them, although in his examination-in-ohief at Mr. Atkinson's Lands witness said something about Lambert asking for them. If he could have got them himself —and McGeorge admits that—without any reference to McGeorge, why should he ask for them? That appears to be a question which McGeorge did not answer. I would here like to make this observation : that throughout the whole of this case, from beginning to end, the evidence on behalf of Meikle is intended to show that Lambert was as big an idiot as was ever born into the world—a man absolutely without a grain of sense, making admissions all round as to what he was to do; depositing, in Meikle'B presence, a bag with two sheepskins in before the police raided the place and found the sheep-skins; and then making these admissions and asking this man for the skins. The thing is absolutely absurd. However, this man recedes from his statement, and 1 submit to your Honours that his evidence before the Court goes by the board, 'and that we are left now confronted with simply the evidence of McDonald, and Templeton on this question. 1 will uot enter very fully into that, because I have no doubt your Honours will remember the examination and cross-examination of McDonald, Mabin, and Templelou before your Honours in May,last, and 1 can only say that, judging by the result, the evidence of those men cannot possibly be accepted in any particular matter as evidence of truth. Mr. McDonald contradicted himself. Mr. Mabin was very far from satisfactory, and so was Mr. Templeton. I will not take up the time of the Court by labouring their evidence. 1 will simply refer your Honours to that evidence, and ask your Honours to consider whether, in your Honours' judgment) you can attach the slightest amount of credence to what these men say with regard to Lambert's statement. Then, with regard to Mrs. Meikle's statements, I regret to say it is quite probable that she is under the influence of her husband. Her evidence with regard to Lambert was of the same absurd character as that given by Mr. Meikle himself. The story about the angel of light and the angel of darkness; about persons coming on to the run, one of them depositing sheepskins, and all that, is so utterly absurd that we may well ask, with Mr. Justice Edwards, whether the witness took the Commissioners for children. But Mrs. Meikle's evidence is open to another very serious objection. She detailed clearly and with circumstance a conversation that she had with Troup, and stated that Troup informed her that he had papers in his pocket —applying his hand to his breast-pocket—which would get Meikle out of gaol, and she asked him to let her have that for £100. He would not, according to her statement. And in the course of her statement she said that she had seen Mr. William A. Stout (brother of Sir Robert Stout, the Chief Justice), who was practising at Wyndham at that time, 1 believe, and that he had agreed to lend her £100 to enable her to get this letter. Well, that turns out —and is now admitted by my friend Mr. Atkinson—to be untrue. Well, your Honours, 1 can only say this, that it is very difficult to say that that was a mistake. It was while Meikle was in gaol, and it was a circumstance that must be in the woman's mind. She could not have mistaken the name of the person whom she saw, and she stated with circumstance that it was Mr. William Stout, of Wyndham, Sir Robert Stout's brother. 1 put that very strongly as evidence of the absolute inaccuracy of the woman's statement. Moreover—l am sorry to have to say this of Mrs. Meikle, but the woman's evidence was of an exceedingly unsatisfactory character —she repeated her husband's story, and it was perfectly plain that the fertile imagination and the ingenuity of Mr. Meikle were there. Now,'with regard to Mr. Meikle's own evidence. I submit to your Honours that Meikle broke down completely on crossexamination. Not only did he give evasive answers to my friend Dr. Fiudlay's questions; not only did he give evasive answers and tell a most incredible story, but when he was examined upon an episode which was intended to test his credibility and to give evidence as to his character, he deliberately perjured himself. 1 will not dwell at length upon that episode; it is sufficient to say this: that after denying vehemently, after throwing down a challenge to any one to bring the least thing against his character, when his challenge was accepted, and he was brought face to face witli the woman whose house he was in, and in whose house he was carrying on improper moral relations with a certain girl, and denying it again and again, until at length he saw there was in Dr. Findlav's hands evidence which might have caused it to end very seriously for him if he persisted in his denial, and after a solemn warning from the Court, he backed down. The cross-examination ■.';i;. of enormous value not only in exposing Meikle's hypocritical professions, but in testing his credibility, and showing the utter untruthfulness of the man. The cross-examination is before your Honours, and I have no doubt that now I have reminded your Honours of it your Honours will recollect it. The evidence upon that point alone is sufficient to break down the whole of his testimony, and I leave that part of the case with the utmost confidence in your Honours' hands. The next item brought forward in support of his innocence was the impossibility of putting sheep through the barn-door. Well, a great mass of evidence has been adduced upon that point. All I can say is this: that question was not seriously debated at the trial of Meikle in 1887. There was a reference made to it, but there was no attempt to seriously debate it. But now Meikle, as the result of pondering and brooding over the matter, has challenged the accuracy of that statement, and brought forward witnesses to say it is impossible. AVell, I will restrict my reference to the evidence of one man alone. That is Mr. Fleming, who is utterly disinterested in this case. He has nothing to do with either party —either with the company, or Meikle, or the Government. He is a man of great experience, and, as I think your Honours found him, a man of intelligence, and I venture to say of truthfulness. He stated that it was the commonest thing possible; that he did it every year —by the simple expedient of putting a light inside the room into which the
H.—2l
244
sheep were to be driven through a narrow entrance 2 ft. wide, it was perfectly easy to get them there. I will not take up the time of the Court by going through the evidence that has been given by Mr. Meikle's witnesses. A good many witnesses say, "It is impossible," "It is highly improbable," " It might be done " ; but we have heard the evidence of a man who does it constantly every year on his own place, and I submit, your Honours, that in the face of that testimony it is a piece of hardihood for Mr. Meikle to maintain his position in regard to the impossibility of getting the sheep through the barn-door. Now, the next point on which an enormous mass of evidence has been given is the bad fences and state of cultivation. That evidence has been repeated during the sitting of the Commission in Wellington last week, and was gone into in Dunedin at great length. There was some evidence before the Court on both sides in 1887, and the balance of the testimony, I submit, was clearly in favour of the view that there was nothing on Mr. Meikle's land to tempt sheep off the turnips, for the paddock next the turnips was tussock. Tussock was not tempting food for sheep after turnips, and even if they got on the tussock they would not go on Mr. Meikle's land. Well, your Honours, I will dismiss this branch of the case with very few observations. The first is this: The witnesses who were called before the Supreme Court in 1887 were witnesses who were asked to go and see the state of the cultivation at the time. Mr. Atkinson: Who were they in 1887 who went to see? Mr. Macdonald: Fleming went to see the fences, and Troup and Stuart, Mr. Atkinson: They were the company's men. I thought you said independent men. Mr. Macdonald: They were the company's men, but you do not suggest they would perjure themselves, and there were one or two others who were called for the defence. However, these men spoke from their knowledge at the time. The events had happened two months before, and their evidence was fresh in their minds, and they knew exactly what they had seen. Now, in this case the whole country-side has been scoured for persons who may have gone through Meikle's land some eighteen years ago —not for the purpose of examining the state of cultivation, but simply passing casually through. I would ask your Honours is it possible (although these witnesses may be actuated by the utmost honesty) to place any reliance on the accuracy of their evidence under such circumstances i It is suggested to them, of course. Meikle would say, " You remember going through my place, and you remember the state of cultivation," and so on, and they say " Yes." The thing is so palpable that 1 do not think it is necessary for me to labour that point any longer. But whether it is so or not, whether Mr. Meikle's land did offer temptation to sheep to go on or not, how does Mr. Meikle account for these skins? How does he account for keeping these sheep without giving notice to the company? The very utmost tendency of that evidence, the very utmost thing it could possibly prove, was that Meikle's land offered temptation to sheep to go on it. We have the fact that the tussock-land adjoins the turnips, and even if they did so stray what right had Meikle to keep these sheep"? Mr. Meikle had no more right to keep stray sheep than he had to take sheep off the company's land, and he had certainly no right to kill any of them. So for that reason I think an immense amount of time has been unnecessarily consumed. Now we have a lot of evidence in regard to statements made by Troup. Not only are statements attributed to Lambert, but now we have statements made by Mr. Troup, and all the statements were made since Meikle's trial. These statements are that Troup has in his possession a number of documents, or he has in his possession evidence which would have the effect of refeasing Meikle. Now, apart from the a priori improbability of such a statement being made by Troup, how is it to be accounted for that a number of persons, some of them honest, some probably not, in making these statements, have come forward and tendered their evidence? Well, I think the experience of the Commission in regard to Mr. Meikle will solve the difficulty. There is no doubt whatever that at the. hearing and immediately after the hearing of the case against Meikle in 1887 the existence of a conspiracy between Cameron and Troup and Stuart and Lambert was freely charged. That was talked about in the country. It was talked about by Meikle before his trial and talked about by his wife and family afterwards. When Meikle came out of gaof five years afterwards the very first thing he did was to take the stump and lecture on this subject before everybody. The lecturing took place time anil again in the Southland district, so that people in the Southland and Wyndham districts would hear this story of a conspiracy between Troup, Cameron, Stuart, and Lambert ad nauseam. That being the case, it was instilled in their minds that the fact was proved. If the fact was true, then one of the conspirators whom they met —Troup—must have evidence in his possession. That is the process of reasoning that went on, and it came to pass that persons who heard from Meikle or his friends that this conspiracy existed came to believe that they were told by Troup himself that he had these documents in his possession. That appears to me to be the process by which that slander against Troup came to pass, because it is perfectly obvious it was a most idiotic thing to do. All through imputations were made against Troup of the most extraordinary character —of a character that would make Mr. Troup a very foolish kind of conspirator and would make him guilty of a very abominable and uiabolical crime. To suggest after all these years that he carried about in his pocket wherever he went evidence in the shape of letters which would prove that Meikle is innocent is so utterly preposterous as not to be worthy of credence. But when you come to find that the fountain and origin of this statement is Mr. Meikle, as I submit he is, then the whole difficulty vanishes. Mr. Meikle, after he heard Lambert's evidence, impressed the fact upon his own mind that there was this conspiracy, and the story of this conspiracy was circulated about the country. One witness called last week, Mr. Kidd, showed clearly how the story arose. He was not able to separate the things he heard from Troup himself and the things he heard from other people. He had heard the story about Troup having in his possession the means of acquitting Meikle, but he was unable to attribute it to any particular person—he was unable to separate I hat which he heard from Troup from that which he heard from other people, and that appears to be the origin of the whole of this trouble. And, moreover, your Honours, I cannot help saying this : that your Honours have had an object-lesson in the w r ay in which Mr. Meikle treats witnesses by his treatment of the witness Fleming at the beginning of the hearing of this Commission. Here
H.—2l.
was a man without the slightest feeling against Meikle. He had nothing to do with him; he had nothing to do with the Government; he had nothing to do with the company. Yet he was attacked in the street and told that because he had come up to Dunedin to give his evidence on purely expert questions of farming that Meikle and his family would hound him and certain others whose names were mentioned throughout the whole of his life. That fact cannot have been the only instance, your Honours, of that sort of thing having happened, and I put it to your Honours that in the getting-up of evidence for the Crown we have had to encounter that difficulty. It is very easy for persons to come and give evidence for Mr. Meikle under the influence of Mr. Meikle's persuasiveness or under the influence of his terrorising. I put it to the Court strongly that the whole of this evidence with regard to the statements against Troup are utterly false and derive their origin from Mr. Meikle's fertile imagination. One piece of evidence that came up last week 1 here take occasion to refer to, and that is the evidence of Mr. Munro, who was a witness called by Mr. Meikle. He gave an account of a conversation he had with Arthur Meikle shortly after Meikle's conviction. He gave his evidence with great reluctance. He appealed to the Court whether he was bound to answer the question, and he was compelled to answer, and that evidence was practically an admission of the whofe tiling. " They have got hold of the old man at last. Well, it is a good job, or he would have had the whole of us in gaol." Well, first of all, there is the statement that Meikle had been convicted and had been got hold of. Then there is the addition of his satisfaction with that result: that it was a good job. And the reason of his satisfaction was that he would have had the whole lot of them in gaol if that had not been the case. Well, I. submit that that evidence was obtained underpressure from a witness for Meikle himself, and as such is entitled to great weight, for it practically gives away the whole show. Mr. Meikle's explanation, 1 need hardly submit to your Honours, is of an utterly unsatisfactory kind. His interpretation that it was the company who would have had the whole lot of them in gaol is absurd. The man himself, in reply to Mr. Justice Cooper, stated that at the time he meant Meikle. And then the statement "Itis a good job " had nothing to do with Lambert. The statement, " You have got hold of the old man at last, and it is a good job, or he would have had the whole lot of us m gaol," speaks for itself, and the suggestion by Meikle that it was the company or Lambert who is referred to is one entirely without the slightest shadow of foundation. Mr. Justice Cooper: The witness's impression was that he meant the company had got hold of the old man. Mr. Macdonald: Yes, that the company had got hold of Mr. J. J. Meikle. That is the only true sense in which the words can be read. Mr. Justice Cooper: And the witness stated that in using the words "he would have had the whole lot of us in gaol " " he " referred to Meikle. Mr. Macdonald: Exactly. Of course, my friend Mr. Findlay has just now pointed out that Munro did not know that the young man was charged with his father. What happened? A nolle prosequi was entered. When the case on the two men was arraigned 1 asked accused's counsel whether he would sever his challenges to the jury, arrd he said he would. I then asked that Arthur Meikle be allowed to stand down, and we tried J. J. Meikle alone. On Meikle's conviction Arthur Meikle was let off, and a nolle prosequi was entered. Mr. Justice Edwards: Arthur Meikle was called as a witness for his father. Mr. Macdonald: Yes, that was before the nolle prosequi was entered. I did not enter the nolle prosequi until after the conviction of his father. There is one other point now upon which 1 wish to address the Court—namely, the question of the day. The question of the day, 1 need hardly mention to your Honours, is entirely unimportant so far as the commission of the crime is concerned. If a crime is proved to have been committed about a certain time it is quite immaterial as to what was the exact day, although a definite data must be stated in the indictment. But in this case a great deaf turns upon this point: Lambert stuck to his belief that it was the 17th October —firstly, on the ground that McGeorge left the hut on that date, and, next, that he was at Gregg's on that night —and it was owing to the positiveness of Gregg that Lambert foolishly changed the statement he had made and swore positively to that date. But Ido not wish to dwell at any length on that evidence. Mr. Johnston was called last week, and spoke to it for the first time for eighteen years. But his evidence must be viewed, I think, with very great caution. We have, however, before the Court documentary evidence which goes to show conclusively what really happened on the 18th, and the whole difficulty disappears. There is evidence on the part of witnesses for Meikle to show that McGeorge was down at Mataura drinking at the hotel and having dinner there with one Fraser. The day was said to lie wet. Meikle himself in his evidence says it commenced to rain at half-past 10 in the morning, and that it was a very wet afternoon and evening. McGeorge had orders to go to Waicola Station, a considerable distance off—two or three days' journey—and it is stated that he left for that journey on this wet day. Now, a diary has come to light almost inadvertently and under peculiar circumstances. Troup, as your Honours are aware, in view of the imputations which were being cast on Cameron, his former employer, went to Mrs. Cameron, in Dunedin, and asked her if she had any documentary evidence which would tend to clear Mr. Cameron of the imputations which had been cast upon him by Mr. Neil Sutherland. She said she did not know, but possibly there might be some papers. She had a look, and foutid this diary. Troup came back, and I asked him to let me see it, and, sure enough, on the 18th October it is shown that McGeorge had left the hut for the station, that he had stayed at the station that night, and that he left the station on the 19th. So that the day McGeorge left the hut was the 18th October, and not the 17th. Now, I put this point very strongly to your Honours. What renders that exceedingly probable is this : it was absurd for a man to take a long journey on his way to another district —a journey which would cover two or three days —on a wet day. It was quite unnecessary for him to take the journey when the weather was so wet. It would be a matter of great discomfort to him, and quite unnecessary and inconvenient. Mr. Troup says, as a matter of common knowledge, that on days like that they did not go on, and therefore it would not have
245
H.—2l.
been at all necessary, nor was it incumbent upon McGeorge, to leave the hut on the 17th—the wet day we have heard described. How, then, are we to account for McGeorge's presence at Mataura if the evidence of some of the witnesses is true.' 'Die way 1 think it could be accounted for is this: McGeorge was in the hut doing nothing. He saw it was going to be wet. He took one of the teamhorses and rode down to Mataura, spent the day at the hotel, and met some of his friends there. He saw Fraser there, and, 1 suppose, saw Johnston on his way down. Johnston has transmogrified a ridden horse into a team, which at that distance of time would not be at all improbable—that is, assuming he did go to Mataura on that date. Have your Honours the diary there? [Diary produced.] There is nothing on 18th to show that McGeorge left the hut, but on 19th it says, " William McGeorge left Islay for Waicola. Troup went away North." And so on. Now, Troup has stated it was McGeorge's duty to leave the hut the evening before, and go to the station with skins ana whatever else it was necessary should go from the hut, and he would spend the Tuesday night there and leave on Wednesday morning. He swore positively that he saw McGeorge going away before him on that morning. That is corroborated by the entry in the diary. That entry is made by Troup himself; and there can be no possible doubt that the diary is what it purports to be. He swears entries were made in it from day to day, and that he took the diary down with him and made an entry in Dunedin, and so on. Now, I take my stand upon the diary, and 1 submit with very great confidence to the Court that this diary must be taken as sufficient evidence of the fact it is intended to prove, and that fact is that McGeorge left the hut on the 18th and left the station on the morning of the 19th. But by a singular coincidence, in consequence of the diary being examined, we found another entry which goes to corroborate very strongly the evidence of Lambert. That is an entry of 26th October :—- -" Went over to pre-emptive right. Put up yards, arrd drafting the fat sheep to go to Sunnyside. 302 (sorted to go over); 15 rams; 222 sheep to go on to Belmont; 20 killing sheep to be brought to station. Total taken off P.R. (number of sheep), 302, 222, 20, 26 (Meikle's), rams 15, do. 1 (Meikle's). Total, 586." Now, the fact that there were twenty-six sheep and one ram on Meikle's property is there entered. Mr. Justice Cooper: There does not appear to be any dispute about that. They were found there. .I//-. Macdonald: Hut this is the point 1 want to get at: Mr. Atkinson sought to show that the company did not know anything about the number of the sheep until the police raid. This entry in the diary shows that Stuart and Sinclair Trotter must have known. This entry was made by Trotter. Stuart or Trotter swore to having got the information from Lambert and entered it. Mr. Atkinson: Trotter did not swear that. Mr. Macdonald: I think you will find he does. Mr. Justice Cooper: The entry was made by Trotter. What he said was, " 1 must have got that twenty-six from Stuart or Lambert." Mr. Atkinson: When he was questioned. Mr. Justice Cooper: "314. You got these " —twenty-six (Meikle's) —"either from Lambert or Stuart—you could have got them from no other source?— No." Mr. Macdonald: It was Lambert's duty to report to Stuart, and he told Trotter to enter them in the diary. I think Stuart also speaks of it. Mr. Justice Cooper: Question 216. Mr. Macdonald: Question 160 (page 148) reads, — " Did Lambert tell you what number of sheep had been driven in this way to Meikle's land? —Yes. He said that they had counted some twenty-eight of one kind and another and killed one." Mr. Justict Cooper: Then there is question 174. Mr. Macdonald: "When reported that fifty-four were stolen you added those twenty-six rains to the twenty-eight that Lambert had reported to you about? —Yes." When they mustered and found these twenty-six rams missing they concluded they had gone the same way as the twentyseven sheep; he therefore included them in the explanation. They were got hold of later and at some other neighbour's place. So that is clear corroboration of Lambert's story—af all events, thai lie told Stuart that before the police raid of the 2nd November. If he told Stuart that and Stuart told Trotter, who entered it in the diary, was Lambert inventing the story? When they went on to the run they found the number of sheep missing, minus two, and I submit that they were the two whose skins were found in the barn. They found on Meikle's run twenty-four sheep and one ram, and that corresponds exactly with this. Mr. Atkinson has called evidence in regard to corrections. There is no correction with regard to Meikle's number or the ram, and it is a question as to when the alterations were made. 1 submit the alteration must have been made before the following day, because on the following day there is this entry: — " Went to Sunnyside with fat sheep, 302 fat wethers, 15 rams. Paid Is. for lunch. Joe Burgess gave hand along bad road." Then Trot br swears that that entry was made at the time, a fact for which there is a slight corroboration by the reference to the payment of Is. for lunch. My friend Mr. Findlay has pointed out what I should have stated before with regard to Mr. Justice Cooper's remark about Meikle speaking to the police. This evidence given on the cross-examination of the accused in the Lower Court was, — " I saw you at Invercargill on the 3rd or 4th of last month. We had a conversation. You told me you expected there would be a spree, and that I would have a job. You said you had been informed that sheep and sheep-skins were to be put on your land by the company. You told me that two men were to get £50 each as soon as you were arrested." That is the statement made by Meikle to the police, and one which is not borne out even by the evidence called by Meikle himself—by his own witnesses. Now, Ido not propose to occupy the time
246
H.—2l.
of the Court any longer. I will simply now, in closing, make one or two observations. I submit very strongly that the verdict of guilty which was entered against Meikle in 1887—properly entered against him, upon proper, sufficient, and satisfactory evidence—ought to stand. He has obtained by means of false evidence the conviction of Lambert, I submit that that was obtained not merely to clear himself because he wished to show he was innocent—because that would not clear him—but as part of a bitter, dire animosity which he conceived against the man who had failed him as a fellow-conspirator. It was a vendetta against Lambert, and it served another purpose —that he might use that conviction to obtain money from the Government; and now, as the result of his repeated applications to the Crown and to Parliament for assistance and to have his name struck off the criminal records of the colony, this Commission has been appointed. This Commission has, with an amount of courtesy and patience which is probably unequalled in the history of juris prudence, heard the evidence which he has brought before it, a great part of which, I submit, is utterly irrelevant and not of any assistance to the Commission. The Commission, however, with that strong sense of justice and fair play which has invariably distinguished the history of our Bench, heard that evidence. This Commission, I submit with the utmost confidence, must come to the conclusion that Meikle has not established his innocence of the charge of which I say he was properly found guilty in 1887. Nay, more; although it may not be necessary for the Commission to report on that, 1 think that the evidence which has come to light has not only not proved his innocence, but has strengthened, if strengthening were necessary, the evidence given in the Court in 1887. What is the alternative? I will not use any language of my own, but 1 will accept the words of his own counsel at the opening proceedings of this Commission in Dunedin, — " On the one hand, Mr. John James Meikle, whose conviction forms the subject of this inquiry, is not only a sheep-stealer, but* something and a good many things a good deal worse. He is a perjurer; besides he is a suborner of perjury ; and also he is an impostor, who through a long course of years has disturbed the public peace. He has invaded the law-courts at every possible opportunity. He has besieged Parliament, and he has worried successive Ministries in season and out of season. He is the man who in the year 1895 by perjury and subornation of perjury—his own perjury- in that case being punishable by a life-sentence—obtained the conviction of the chief witness against him at his own trial. And he is the man who is prepared to-day to repeat that perjury before your Honours, and he will bring all the witnesses, or all who are alive, whose assistance he had on the previous occasion before your Honours again to support him." One word only will I say-. That is the alternative which Meikle must accept as the result of this Commission. One word only will I add to that accurate description of him given by his own counsel —that in addition to that he is an adulterer. Mr. Justice Edwards: Do you wish to add anything, Mr. Findlay? Mr. Findlay: No, your Honour. Mr. Macdonald: I desire to state, your Honour, that there is a Commission pending—l do not know that it is finally abandoned—and I wish to know, if it is returned before you give in your report, will you look at the evidence? Mr. Justice Edwards: Yes, of course. The merest intimation only was made that it ought to be here sorrre time ago. Mr. Macdonald: Ido not ask you to delay the report on that account, but, if it is returned in time, to peruse it. Mr. Justice Edwards: Certainly. Mr. Atkinson: I am going to ask to strike it out because of want of due diligence. The Commission adjourned at 3.30 p.m.
Tuesday, Bth January, 1907. Mr. Macdonald: Before my friend Mr. Atkinson proceeds with his address, I should like to inform the Court that the evidence of Cameron has arrived. Ido not know whether your Honours have received the original or not, but Mr. Fiudlay has received a copy of the evidence. Mr. Justice Edwards: I have not heard anything about it—as to its coming to hand. What was the direction of the Commission about its return? Have you got a copy of the Commission? Mr. Findlay: There is one amongst the papers. Perhaps my friend would remember. I cannot speak exactly as to what the terms were. Mr. Justice Edwards: Of course, it is desirable that we should see the evidence. Has Mr. Atkinson seen it? Mr. Atkinson: No. Mr. Justice Edivards: I will see if we can get it. Mr. Atkinson: If it is not inconvenient, your Honours, I might see the copy of the returned Commission in the lunch hour, and see my friends about it then. I have word that the evidence was taken, but I have not had the means of furnishing myself with a transcript, Mr. Justice Edwards: No. Of course, you must see it before you conclude your address. We might adjourn for half an hour, or perhaps the course that you suggest would be more convenient. Whichever you like. Mr. Atkinson: I have to make up my mind, your Honour, as to whether I shall consent to its going in. If it is merely a rebuttal of the evidence given in Dunedin, I shall not dream of putting any obstacle in the way of its going in. Mr. Justice Edwards: Mr. Findlay can give you a copy now, at this moment, Mr. Findlay: Yes, your Honour. Mr. Justice Cooper: You certainly ought to see it before you address the Court, Mr. Atkinson. Mr. Justice Edwards: When did it come to hand, Mr. Findlay?
247
H.—2l
Mr. Macdonald: Last night—by the mail last night. Mr. Justice Cooper: What mail was it? Mr. Atkinson: An Australian mail, your Honour. The date of my letter was 28th November. Mr. Macdonald: The letter accompanying is dated the 28th November. Mr. Justice Edwards: There is no doubt, I suppose, that this is an authentic copy? Mr. Macdonald: I think there is no doubt. It comes from the solicitors who acted as agents for Findlay, DalzierT, and Co. I have no doubt it is an authentic copy. Mr. Justice Edwards: Well, we can adjourn now till 11 o'clock, Mr. Atkinson, if you like, and thus give you an opportunity of considering this evidence and seeing if you want to raise an objection. Mr. Atkinson: On lookrng into it, your Honour, I can see that there is more in it than I thought when I started. Mr. Justice Edwards: Well, shall we do that? Mr. Atkinson: Yes, if your Honours please. Mr. Justice Edwards: Very well. The Court then adjourned till 11 o'clock. On resuming,— Mr. Justice Edwards: Have you read the evidence, Mr. Atkinson? Mr. Atkinson: I have run through it, but, of course, I have not had an opportunity of checking it. Personally, lam satisfied it is a correct copy. Mr. Justice Edwards: Shall we have it read at this stage? Mr. Macdonald: I suggest this should be done. This evidence was read by the Secretary, as follows: — " William Robert Cameron, having been sworn, examined by Mr. Godlee on behalf of the Crown. " You are a merchant and importer?— Yes. " And you carry on business where? —At 16 West Sniithfiefd and 61 and 62 Broad Street. " In 1887 you were manager to the New Zealand Mortgage and Investment Company (Limited)? —I was. " You held this office from 1884 to 1889?— Yes. " Before that time you were an estate-manager? —Yes, that is so. " In 1887 where were you residing?—ln Dunedin. "And you had charge, I think, of the company's business there—you were manager?— Together with the local board. "Were you familiar with the Islay property?— Yes, I was. " You had known it before 1887?— Yes. " Had you ever resided there? —No. " You had stopped at the station?—l had stopped a night or two on visits of inspection. That was all. " I am taking you now to the latter part of 1887. Had you had any reports from the local station-manager as to losses of sheep? —I had at various times, especially at that time. " Did any returns you had show that there were serious losses? —Yes, they did. " The ordinary returns?— The ordinary half-yearly returns showed serious losses. " I think it is common ground Mr. Troup was the Islay Station manager up to October, 1887? —Yes, he was. " Why did he go away at that time? —He went to Nelson to take over a property which the company were foreclosing upon, or, rather, to take over some stock which the company were foreclosing upon. " Was he there temporarily or permanently? —Temporarily. '• Did he come back to Islay afterwards? —Yes, he came back about a month afterwards. " Who took charge after he left?— Mr. Stuart. " Was he a servant of the company? —No; he was a farmer. " The reason for putting him there was what?—So that he might take charge of the station during Troup's absence. " Did you give Troup any special instructions as to what he was to do as regards the losses of the sheep?— Not any special instructions. He had general instructions that he was to find out who was taking them. " Had these losses of sheep been a thing which had just begun, or had it been going on for some time before? —It had been going on for years. " Did you have any special report from Troup which led up to the employment of Lambert? — Yes; we had a letter from him to say that he saw footprints of the sheep in the snow as though they had been driven under a fence leading into Meikle's, and he had every reason to believe that the sheep had been going in that direction. " Following on that you, I think, saw Constable Leece? —Yes; I went down to Mataura and saw Constable Leece with Troup. He was the local constable. " You saw him with Troup?—Yes. " And you also saw Detective Ede?—Yes, I did. "So far as you can recollect it (it is many years ago) what took place at your interview with Constable Leece?—Well, so far as I remember, Constable Leece said that it was an utter impossibility for him to catch the man who was taking the sheep ; he had had complaints of it long enough, and the only thing to do was to employ a private detective to do nothing else but to find out who it was. That is in effect what the conversation was. " That was the conversation with Constable Leece or Detective Ede ?—With Constable Leece, and the conversation with Detective Ede was very much to the same effect,
248
H.— 21.
" Did you at that time discuss who should be employed? —I think so. I think Constable Leece recommended a man —the man who was ultimately sent there, whose name was Lambert. " Did you know him at that time? —No, I did not know him; I had never seen him then. " Did you see him at that time? —No. " Then, I think, you went back to Dunedin? —Yes, I went back to Dunedin. " What did you next hear about Lambert's employment? —We had a letter in Dunedin to say that Troup and Leece had arranged to employ Lambert at a wage, and Constable Leece recommended a bonus to him. " Was that recommended to you personally or by letter? —By letter. " I want to make this quite clear. You did not see Lambert at that time?—No, I did not. " You did not know him before? —No. " Am I right in saying that he was recommended to you by Constable Leece? —Entirely. "Do you know if Troup knew him?—l do not think so. Ido not think Troup had seen him at that time. " Then, the actual employment of Lambert was by whom, so far as you know?—By Leece and Troup. " Not by you, at any rate? —Not by me. " How many times had you seen Lambert before the trial?—l saw him once in Mataura. That is a little township near. " How did you come to meet Lambert?—l met him at Mataura with Troup passing through. "Do you know the date of that at all?—I am not sure. It was some time during the month of September or October of 1887. " Did Lambert give you any report as to what was going on?— Yes, he did. " I ought to have asked a question as regards the terms of employment, which you say was so-much a week and an additional bonus. Were those terms approved by the local board?-—They were. " I think he had, besides, food for himself and mutton for his wife and family?— Yes. " For what was the bonus or extra fee to be given to him? —For securing a conviction. " A conviction of anybody or any specific person?-—Anybody. "Had you any personal feelings about Mr. Meikle? —None whatever; none at all. On the contrary, I wanted to be good friends with the man. " When you first took charge—when you were first made general manager —did you see Meikle yourself?—l did. When I came to Islay I sent for Meikle and told him that I wanted to be friends with him, no matter what my predecessor was (they had had rows and lawsuits), and if he liked we would bury the hatchet. Meikle was quite agreeable apparently, but I am afraid there was a fearful row that morning. Before he went away he laid claim to some sheep that were in the yard on the ground that those sheep had not got the company's brand on. They were sheep that had just been bought in. Meikle wanted to take them forcibly, and I was sent for. I was at the house. I asked him on what ground these sheep were claimed by him. He said the brands were not the same as the company's brands. After I had explained to him that those sheep had just been bought in, and that they were in the yard for the purpose of being branded, that did not seem to satisfy the man. He wanted to claim them on the ground that he had sheep with similar brands in his own place. I said, 'If you have they have been taken there '; and so T left hifft. He threatened to sue us, and I said, ' Sue away.' "Is that the only difference you had with Meikle?—That is the only difference. I said to Meikle, ' You are not going to get the sheep.' " Going back to your interview with Lambert, did you discuss with Lambert the terms of his employment?—No, I did not discuss with Lambert the terms of his employment or what he was to get in any way. Lambert was employed by Troup, I believe. lam not sure whether the arrangement was made with Leece first and confirmed, or whether it was made by Troup. " There is one other thing. I think what was known as the grass-seed incident was mentioned to you at that time ?—Yes. "That was part of Lambert's policy, to get into Meikle's confidence?— Lambert told me it was impossible to catch the man unless he bluffed him into getting his confidence, and Lambert reported every night at the station what had been going on—what Meikle had told him, and so on. " I must put to you this question in detail. Did you at any time instruct Troup, Stuart, or Lambert to put sheep or skins on to Meikle's property?— The question is absurd. I never gave any such instructions, although I never doubted that every skin at Meikle's place came from where they should not come from. " Did Lambert ever suggest to you that he would put sheep or skins on Meikle's property?— No, never. " Was it ever discussed at your interview with Lambert, or between yourself and Troup?—No, never at any time. " Now, it is suggested in various places that the company wanted to buy Meikle's land. Is there any foundation for that?— None at all; the company was not buying any land. The company was selling. The company was in voluntary liquidation; they had no power to buy an acre, and, as a matter of fact, Meikle's land was of no use to the company at all. It was far away from the estate, and would only add to capital account. "You say the company wanted to sell the land. Were they meaning to continue the station there as things were going then ?—No; they were only holding the land until they could sell it. If the sheep-stealing did not stop they were going to sell all the stock that was on it and let the land go to waste. "Then, you did not think the land was very valuable?—At that time it was not worth the rates that were being paid for it. It was a question of what the loss was at the end of every year.
32— H. 21.
249
H.—2l
250
"It is suggested that the company wanted to have Killoh's and Jack Reid's land? —That is quite wrong. "As regards Jack Reid, what became of him? —He is still on his land. He is still in the same place. " As regards Killoh?—He sold it a few years ago—six years ago. " There is a suggestion that Stuart was sent down as a sort of assistant to Lambert. Is there any foundation for that?— None whatever. Stuart went down to look after the station and stock. He really took up Troup's place. " Who was Perry?—He was the foreman manager before Troup. " Do you remember meeting Mr. Meikle on the railway platform at Dunedin any time before the conviction?—l do not remember ever meeting Meikle, excepting once at Islay Station, to have a talk to. " Did you tell Meikle that you would hunt him out of his station?—No, not that I know of —not, that I remember. " Would not you recollect it?— Yes, I should think 1 would. "I had better put this question generally. Did that take place anywhere?— Nowhere, that I remember. " I think it means Dunedin Station, but I am not quite sure?—lt, is a very long time ago. " Now, what happened to Meikle's land?—Meikle's land was offered through the Registrar by the mortgagees, and bought in by them many, many years ago. "Was that soon after the conviction, or when Meikle was in prison, or when?—l think some of it was about the time when he went into prison. " Then, what did the mortgagees do with it?— The mortgagees held it for years. " How many years: do you know?— Probably ten years, or more. "What happened next?—l think my brother bought it about six or seven years ago from the mortgagees. " Had your brother anything to do with the company?— Nothing to do with the company. He was never in any way in the company's employment, or otherwise with them, or had anything to do with them. " Had you any interest in the purchase?— None at all. " Had the company any interest in Islay Station at the time that your brother bought?— No. " What became of it?- -If was sold out very shortly after Meikle went to prison. " Did you write any private letters to Troup about this matter, so far as you know?—No, as far as I know, I never wrote any. " Did you ever write any letter to Troup which would have justified getting Meikle out of prison? [Question objected to, and determination referred to the Commission.] —No, I never did. "So far as you know, was there any agreement to pay Constable Leece anything?—No, no agreement at all. There is not a word of truth in it, "Was it ever suggested?—lt was never suggested at all, that I know of. Constable Leece got a present of £5 from the Department some years afterwards for his work. That was the only thing he ever got in his life. That went through his Inspector—or through the Commissioner, rather. " Did you write a letter to Leece offering him anything?— No. "From Cameron's Hotel in Mataura, or anywhere else? —No, I wrote no such letter. Leece, I considered—l think I ought to explain this—was a man above being bribed at any time. "Now about Mr. Neil Sutherland: you know Mr. Neil Sutherland?— Yes, I happen to know that gentleman. " You have known him a good many years?— Yes, I have. " I think he says he was a tenant of yours?—He was not. He was no tenant of mine. He put some stuff in my store at one time, but he never paid for it. He has not yet paid for the storage. " Mr. Sutherland and you had some differences, T think?—We had. " And have you been friends for the last twenty years?— Very bad friends. "For twenty years?— Nearly twenty years; fifteen to twenty years—say, fifteen years. "What is Mr. Sutherland's occupation?—He is a professional blackmailer, I should say. He was a school-teacher at one time. "Coming to Mr. Sutherland's conversation, you did have some conversation with Mr. Sutherland?— Yes. "He told you something that appeared in a newspaper?— Yes, he told me that the Mataura Ensign had an article bearing on the Meikle trial question, slating me somewhat heavily. " Did you tell Mr. Sutherland that Mr. Meikle had some land down by the side of the property that you managed for the company, and that you could not prove him to be a sheep-stealer, but you were perfectly convinced that Mr. Meikle was the author of the sheep-stealing business?—l believe I did. "Did you say that Meikle's land cut up the company's land?— No. As a matter of fact, it did not. "Did you say to Mr. Sutherland that the company wanted to buy the land from Meikle, but Meikle would not sell?—I did not, " Did you say they were determined to get him out of there, because they were satisfied that he was a sheep-stealer?—l do not think so. Probably I said T would like to see him in prison, but 1 have no remembrance of it. "Did you tell Mr. Sutherland that you had had a talk with Judge Ward in the train, and Judge Ward considered he was guilty? [Question objected to, Mr. Henderson suggesting that the witness should be asked the general purport of the conversation only.]—l did not. Judge Ward was not likely to discuss Mr. Meikle in the train with me or anybody else, I should think. "Did you say that the company had employed a certain person to lay a trap for Meikle? [Objection continued.] —No, T am sure I did not,
H.—2l.
" Did you say you had instructed some one to place sheep-skins in Mr. Meikle's place? [Objection continued.] —I did not. That is absolutely untrue. "And did Mr. Sutherland ask you whether those instructions were in writing or verbal? [Objection continued.] —Mr. Sutherland's story is a shameless lie, and in this instance told with such ingenuity with a view to deceive the Commission and the Judges who were taking the evidence. " Did you, in answer to a question, tell him that you were careful not to give instructions in writing, but you gave them verbally? [Objection continued.]— That is also untrue. It is pure invention. "When did you cease to be connected with the company?— The company handed over the management of its whole affairs to a man who took it over on commission—who got his remuneration by commission on sales of property. The local board and the local staff and the local management were all done away with at the same time. "Was there any quarrel between you and the company?—No; on the contrary, the company and myself were very good friends. Its properties were not selling quickly enough, and the company could not afford to pay the staff to do that, " c w > T will ** y° u a general question. So far as you recollect, what did take place between you and Sutherland with reference to this matter, either at the time he mentioned to you there was something in the newspaper or at any other time?—l do uot remember the precise words, but we simply had a short conversation about the newspaper article. Mr. Sutherland, who was rather a crank on newspaper articles at the time, suggested to me that I should go for the newspaper, and I sard the matter was not worth consideration. I said if there was anything in it at all Mr T M Macdonald would have called my attention to it. That was the whole sum and substance of the matter. We never discussed the matter again, to mv knowledge. " Just one other question I did not make it quite clear before. Where did the suggestion of the bonus bemg paid to Lambert come from? Did it come from you?-It came from Constable J^eece. " That . bonus Jf to be paid on a conviction ?—On a conviction ; but, as a matter of fact, it had been pard monthly or weekly to Lambert's wife by Troup. " But not on a conviction of any specific person ? No. mnJlt m Tt [0n " lade T in the that Judge Ward was financially indebted to the company. Is it a fact that Judge Ward was at this time financially indebted to the company? [Question objected to,]-It rs a fact that he did not owe the company a penny. Judge Ward and other gentlemen-a syndrcate-rn New Zealand had bought a large tract of land from the company, £ d wsx ffiiLssr 7 a s,m ' * take back the iand ' which they did in satisfacti ° n lt " This was prior to this?— Prior to this, yes. "Cross-examined by Mr. Henderson on behalf of Mr. John James Meikle. You say you were manager to the company in 1884, and left in 1889?— Yes And that you left on account of the reconstruction, as I understand it, of the staff ?—No Why did you leave?—l left on account of the management being handed over to a eentleman who was parcl on commission. His remuneration was a commission on the salCof the propeTes notice/ PUt t0 y ° U y ° U W6re dischar §' ed without notice ?-No, I was uot discharged without " f Did you have any notice?— The local board had notice. ," What notice?—We had notice that this arrangement was to take place What length of notice did you have?—l think we had three months. lam not quite clear - |; What business have you carried on since ?-I have been in business on my own account since. You have been promoting companies and managing various companies, have you not?—l tiave been trading in produce. ' Ido w ♦iX.IS*? y ° U f'f y ° U haVe bee " P™ motin g various companies in Dunedin and Otago J— I do not think I promoted any company in Dunedin except my own three'yelrs at ago mPany ™ that? ~ W ' R ' Cameron (Limited), immediately before I came over here, "You have either promoted or managed various other companies, have you not?—No I have did'not promoJeTt & *** ' ™ interested in ~ a dail 7 «>m P any-but that was all. I " Was that the Co-operative Dairy Companv?—Yes. -I do D ° remember itS general meetin ? at ' the Grand Hotel - Dunedin, about eight years ago? "And the shareholders complained of you there, did they not?— They complained very badly about the returns. ' v •> L " lul ./ " They complained about you personally ?—No, Ido not think so. Possibly they did rtw. f,W A o * T - Say the} " db T de 1 fr T a » ded? -No, they did not. There was a commission at tne trme. A commission was formed, and I was exonerated altogether # a \r\j' An ll ng ab ° Ut the sharelMlder «- T he shareholders complained that they had been detrauded I —No, there is not a word of truth in that.. years'' dairy °° mpany Carry on busi ness?—l am not sure; three or four or five " Just tell me exactly what your position was in regard to the dairy company. You reconstructed it, you say f—My position was that we made advances to them.
251
252
H.—2l
'' Who are ' we ' ?—My firm. '' Had you any partners ?—No. " Then, you had made advances to them? —Yes, I had made advances to them, and the company owed me at the time of its reconstruction something like £3,000. " And you reconstructed the company. What position did you hold in the Co-operative Dairy Company after it had been reconstructed? —I was its chairman. •' Chairman of directors? —Yes. '' There was a considerable cash deficiency as the result of your management ?—No, there was not —not that 1 am aware of. "About £7,000, or thereabouts?—l think all the creditors were pretty well paid up, except the farmers and except myself. " Do you remember Mr. Justice Williams had to do with the case? —Yes. " And" did he reject your sworn statement with regard to the loss of the £7,000? —Not that 1 am aware of. " 1 put it to you that he did; will you swear he did not?—l am not aware of it; Ido not remember it. " You do not recollect?—l do not. '' Did not he say he preferred to accept Mr. Stocks's statement to your own ?—What Mr. Stocks ? " A Mr. Stocks who gave evidence in the case before Mr. Justice Williams? —I do not remember any case of any importance. There was no case that I know of. " In the winding-up of this company that came before the Court on report?—lt was probably a matter of audit. •' Can you tell me what the creditors did get?—l do not know. I know the bank got 20s. in the pound. They were the only secured creditors. "So far as you know, the other creditors got nothing? —I cannot tell you. I got nothing myself. I was the largest creditor and the largest sufferer. '' I may take it the other creditors got nothing ?—I take it so too. The company, as a matter of fact, was insolvent before 1 joined it at all. "Now, 1 want to ask you a question about W. R. Cameron and Co. (Limited). This was another of your companies: you formed W. R. Cameron and Co. (Limited)? —Yes. " You promoted that? —It was promoted when I came home here. I did not manage it. "It is defunct now?—l think it is in liquidation. The last I heard of it it was in voluntary liquidation. •' Do you say you have had nothing to do with it at all ?—No; I came home here at the time it was formed. '' Did you get any profits out of the promotion ?—I got paid-up shares for the promotion; not a penny in cash. '' Do you know what it has paid its creditors ?—I do not know ;it is not finished yet. '' Do you not take any interest in it ?—The only interest I am taking in it is to buy its assets, which I may do. " You are proposing to buy W. R. Cameron and Co.'s assets, which is being wound up now. The liquidation is not complete yet?—l am not aware of it. " When did you leave New Zealand? —15th October, 1903. •' Why did you leave?—l came home here to get capital to make a larger company. " In the place of this company?— Yes, in the place of this smaller company. " And in your absence it has been mismanaged, and smashed up?—ln my absence; that is so. " Have you succeeded in getting capital for the new company?— Not yet. " Were all your debts paid when you left? —That I cannot tell you. " Come; surely you would know whether you left solvent or insolvent? —Well, no, they were not all paid. •'' What did they amount to ?—-I am not sure. " Approximately? —A few thousand pounds, probably. [Note. —The witness, on reading over the evidence, desires to explain that this answer relates to the debt of W. R. Cameron and Co. (Limited) and W. R. Cameron and Co.] " And your estate was put into bankruptcy? —No. '' Was it assigned ?—No. " What have your creditors been doing?— Awaiting my return. "Do you intend to return shortly?—l hope so. " You have paid them nothing since you left? —Nothing. " How long have you been here —three years? —Yes. "What have you been doing since—have you been carrying on business here?—l have been carrying on business here—yes; sending orders out to the company when it was alive, and so on. " You have made no attempt to pay anything to the creditors over there? —No, not yet. [Note. ■ —The witness desires to explain that this answer refers to his personal debts, amounting to a few hundreds of pounds.] " It is your intention to do so, of course?— Yes, if I am able to. " Have any proceedings been taken over there against you or your company?— Against me? " Against you?- —Not that I am aware of. " You do not know?— No. " Have any proceedings been taken against your company, W. R. Cameron and Co. I —l do not know what has been done against them—yes, I think they are in the hands of the liquidators in the meantime. " Who has managed W. R. Cameron and Co. ?—A man of the name of J. B. Norris. " Now, we will come to this Meikle case. First of all, you told Mr. Godlee that you had no personal feeling at all about Mr. Meikle? —None whatever.
H.—2l.
"The first time you met Mr. Meikle, after your management, you say, there was a row? — l say that I asked him to bury the hatchet. " Then he raised a question as to some sheep on your land? —In my yards. " And you told him that if he had similar sheep on his ground that they had been taken there? —Yes. " You suspected Mr. Meikle, did you not, of being a sheep-stealer?—l did. " Long before his conviction? —Long before. '' At the time you wanted to bury the hatchet ?—At the time I wanted to bury the hatchet, provided he stopped molesting the company. " You were perfectly willing to be on friendly terms with this sheep-stealer?—Always providing he did not annoy or molest the company—yes, quite so. '' When you had the conversation with Troup as to employing a private detective, and afterwards with Constable Leece ?—And both together. "Did not you tell them that you suspected Meikle? —1 have never had the slightest doubt that it was Meikle who stole them. lam not afraid to say that. '' Was it not the natural thing for you to say to Leece, ' I believe Meikle is the thief '?— Probably I did. " And he would tell Lambert? —I do not know what he would do. Leece is too cautious a man to give himself away. " Before the conviction is it not the fact that the company and Lambert were endeavouring to secure proof of Meikle's supposed guilt?—lt is not. '' Why was Lambert making daily reports of what Meikle was doing and saying ?—Lambert had to report to the company what was going on. "And daily he reported what happened between himself and Meikle? —Daily he reported to Troup. " Did he report any dealings with other neighbours?— Very likely. He reported everything. " Can you swear that he did? —No, I cannot. lam not going to swear what took place twenty years ago. " These reports came to you?—No; they came to Troup. " Did not they come on to you?— No. " How were you able to tell Mr. Godlee that Lambert made his reports to Troup?—l have seen them in the company's diary on my visits there. " You have seen these reports?— Yes. " Can you tell me whether Lambert made any reports as to any one else except Mr. Meikle?— I do not think so. Ido not know that he suspected any one else but Meikle and his men and his son. " Lambert was there to catch Meikle? —No; he was there to catch whoever was stealing the sheep. " You were morally convinced that Meikle was the man?—l was morally convinced that Meikle was the man, and his crowd. I did not mean his men. " Then I will include his crowd. He was there to catch Meikle and his crowd stealing these sheep? —He was there to catch whoever was thieving them. We might be mistaken. " You told Lambert who you suspected?—l do not know that I did. " You told us that you told Leece? —I told Leece. Ido not remember that I told Lambert. " Lambert would not go to Meikle's place and have daily communication with him unless he had some sort of suspicion ?—Yes. Troup would give him instructions. " You have little doubt in your mind that Lambert was told that Meikle and his crowd were the suspected party ?—I do not know at all. Why should I have any doubt in my mind ? Ido not know at all. Lambert was sent there to find out who was stealing these sheep. I had no doubt in my mind. ■ " You had no doubt?— No. " During your management you had several lawsuits and proceedings between the company and Meikle? —I do not remember any at all myself. I think my predecessor had. " Not about boundaries? —No. " Road-lines? —The land was not worth going to Court about. " You do not deny your company had considerable litigation with Meikle?—Prior to my time; not during my time that I know of. " You say the company had no desire to buy Meikle's land?—We had neither the power, desire, nor capital to do it. " You had a strong desire to make a road across Meikle's land?— Certainly not. " Do you know, as a matter of fact, that shortly before Meikle's conviction an application was made to the Otago Waste Land Board to get a road through Meikle's land?— Not through Meikle's property. We had no desire to go through Meikle's property. It might be an alteration of an existing road, but not through Meikle's property. '' I put it to you that it was a road through Meikle's property ?—I do not care what you put to me. I swear it was not to my knowledge. " Whatever application it was, it did not succeed? —I do not remember anything about it, as a matter of fact. "What reason have you for calling Mr. Sutherland a professional blackmailer? He is the other side of the world?—l consider that is all he is. He has had no employment for twenty years. He has had no means of existence. " How do you know that? —I know that by his repeated tappings of my pocket. " You have been lending him money from time to time?—No; he has had money from me from time to time.
253
H.—2l.
" How? In what way?—l think that is a matter best left alone. " Then, I will leave it alone. You say he is considerably in your debt now?—No, Ido not; that is all written off fong ago. " He has never paid you? —No. "It is written off your books. Has Sutherland ever been prosecuted for blackmailing, as far as you know?— No. 1 think anybody who knew him would leave him severely alone —what I ought to have done. " He has never been in trouble with the police, has he?—l think he has been locked up many a time for being drunk. " You think that? —I think that. " Can you suggest any reason why Sutherland should voluntarily appear and give this evidence he has ?—Yes. No doubt he expected to get a good haul from Meikle when he got his money 7. That is one reason. Another reason is out of hate for me. He hates me like poison, f can give } 7 ou one incident to show you what I consider, if you want to know it. " Yes, you had better say it?—A country customer of mine came in once with a cheque arid wanted some change. He went out again, and I sent my man to bring some change in gold. Mr. Sutherland was sitting in the room. I put the gold in a small drawer, and was called out to the next room. When I came back Sutherland was gone, and the customer came in a few minutes afterwards, and there was no gold in the drawer. Who took the gold? " When was that?—A long time ago. "Long before you let Sutherland store his things at your place?—No; after that, or about that time. " When did he store these things at your place?—l forget the year; probably 1896, or something of that sort. " Do I understand you to suggest that Mr. Sutherland stole this gold?—I suggest nothing; I would like you to tell me. What Ido know is that he was drunk for about three weeks afterwards —never sober. "You did not prosecute him? —No, I did not. There are other reasons which I had betterkeep to myself, I think. " To go back, you told Mr. Godlee that the company did not mean to continue the Islay Station ? —Yes; we wanted to sell the station. " Then, why was this application made as to a road, because an application was made as to a road? —It may be a near out somewhere. 1 cannot tell you if an application was made. We did not want to go through Meikle's land on any account. It was at the far-away end from us. " What I want to get at is this: If you were going to sell the land why did you bother yourselves with an application to the Board?—lf you want to sell a place in New Zealand you must go on working it as if you did not want to sell it. The application, if I remember rightly, was about gates —having gates on the road-line near Meikle's land. " There was an application? —The application was to put some gates up, not on Meikle's land, but leading in that direction. " You remember the fact of an application being made? —I remember the fact of an application to the Land Board for gates, but not to open a road. That was a public road. I think the Land Board disallowed that, which was quite right and proper. "To go back, you told me you did not know whether Lambert had suspicions of Meikle. You had suspicions, but you do not know whether Lambert had. You told Mr. Godlee that Lambert told you he would have to get the man into his confidence? —Yes; that was after he was there for some time. " Before Meikle's conviction?—Meikle was such a notorious character " Before the conviction. Lambert must have known, then, that you suspected Meikle. You said, 'He told me he would have to get the man into his confidence.' He gave your company daily reports? —Yes; he gave the station daily reports. "He must have known you and your company suspected Meikle? —How should he? He knew the sheep were going away. I think the police and detectives take their own way to find out who does the thieving. " Do you think it a good plan to give a man like Lambert an inducement of a large sum of money to get a conviction ?—I think it is. He had a very small salary. "Especially when he knows the person who is strongly suspected by his instructors? —There was a whole group of them. It did not matter to us who he got convicted. He might have convicted Meikle's son, or Meikle's man, or the neighbours. They were all very much in the same box, I think, so far as we knew. Re-examination by Mr. Godlee on behalf of the Crown. " As far as your leaving the company was concerned, you and the local board and the staff all ceased to be connected with the company at the same time?—At the same time, that is true; and we left on very friendly terms. " So far as the litigation which my friend spoke about was concerned, in which Mr. Justice Williams is said to have made some comments on your evidence, have you any recollection of such evidence? —None whatever. Ido not believe a word of it. In fact, I know, as a matter of fact, he did not. "I do not know why we should fence about this. As a matter of fact, I think you told me that prior to the instructions, whoever gave them to Lambert, the snow-mark incident had been traced— that is to say, there had been sheep traced under a fence on to Meikle's land with men and dogs?— That is so. " That had been reported to you?— That was reported to me. '' That is an event which would probably be told to the detective ?—Yes; as a matter of fact, it would be told to him. I have no doubt it would be. "As far as Mr. Sutherland is concerned, you sum it up by saying that Mr. Sutherland hates you like poison?— Yes; that is right.
254
H.—2l.
Mr. Atkinson: In congratulating your Honours upon reaching the penultimate stage of your labours in this complicated and tedious case, 1 must at the same time condole with my learned friend Mr. Macdonald upon the fact that his indisposition yesterday prevented him from doing himself full justice. Nevertheless, your Honours, I may Bay, adopting the definition which was given yesterday of an inflammatory speech as meaning in this Court an excellent address, that I think I am entitled to say that Mr. Macdonald did deliver an inflammatory speech, and that there is plenty in it for me to answer. At the same time, your Honours, his embarrassment has to some extent rather increased my difficulties, because he failed to focus his argument on various important points in such a way as to enable me to discern quite clearly the attitude which the Crown asks the Court to take up. I desire also, your Honours, to make my acknowledgments to my learned friends on the other side, who have conducted their case not only with great ability, but with personal courtesy to myself; and I desire to make my acknowledgments to the Government for their assistance in bringing witnesses here, and specially of the indtilgence of the Government and the Commission in allowing me to call the fresh evidence which I was accordingly able to produce last week. This, your Honours, is actually the twentieth year since the occurrence of the events which your Honours have undertaken to investigate. It is an embarrassment for us all; but, somewhat oddly, counsel for the Crown rather implied that it is Meikle who has chosen the years 1906-7 for the purpose of adducing evidence on the events of 1887. Surely, your Honours, what is definitely before the Court in an absolutely undisputed fashion is sufficient to refute any such theory. It was alleged among other things that though Meikle was unable to give evidence in 1887, it was competent for him to make a statement. He did make a statement, but, unfortunately, we have not got a report of it. The newspapers do report that lie made a lengthy statement protesting his innocence, and that is the extent of the record which I have been able to ascertain. Then, your Honours also have it in evidence that in March, 1887, he sent a petition from the gaol to His Excellency the Governor requesting an inquiry. A copy is before your Honours, and the theory which he is supposed to have evolved later that Lambert put the skins in the building is mentioned in that petition. Then, the very day after liis release from gaol in November, 1892, he was in the office of the Minister of Justice at Wellington, requesting the Government to take the case up. I ask whether anything could have been prompter, or whether anything could look primd facie more like confident innocence? Would an impostor who had not yet had time to "square" a single witness have taken these steps, have approached the Government, have asked them to make the matter a Crown prosecution, and so put it in official hands in such a way that would preclude the possibility of this wholesale tampering with witnesses—this wholesale fabrication of evidence which my friends ask the Commissioners to find as the solution of all the difficulties confronting the Crown in this case? The Minister of Justice refused to take up the case. Mr. Meikle proceeded alone. It has not been suggested in the arguments of any of my learned friends, though it is a matter on which the Commissioners are asked to report, that he failed in showing due diligence in bringing Lambert to book. I need not go through the details of the abortive prosecutions. Your Honours are sufficiently familiar with them now. As I say, he proceeded alone, and it is actually made a matter of offence that he did proceed alone. He had not the money to employ solicitors to collect the evidence ; and it is made a matter of offence, by innuendo, that he had to do it himself. He had either to do it himself or leave the work undone. Accordingly, your Honours, in June, 1895, he got the accuser convicted. In October, 1895, he got a report from the Public Petitions Committee in his favour, and his demand or request from that day to this —perhaps it is more like a demand, in view of the tone which he has adopted—lias been that Parliament should give effect to the report on that petition. I put it, in view of the stress my friend has laid on this delay, Who is to blame if there is any delay? and how far Mr. Lambert, who is the angel of light upon whom my friends rely—how far he and the company have done anything to hasten any review of these proceedings, either before or after the year 1895? Now, your Honours, there are, of course, great difficulties, which have become greater as the case has proceeded, in view of the remote date at which the crime, or alleged crime, took place. Memories have become faded or coloured in the interval. Witnesses have died or disappeared, and, obviously, bias has a wider scope in dealing with matters that necessarily become vaguer in most minds by the lapse of time. Bias, of course, is naturally imputed, and would have been imputed twenty years ago, to Meikle and his family. I would only remind your Honours that it is equalh' imputable to the company's servants, especially, of course, to the man Lambert, whose evidence obtained the conviction. And I would also point out to your Honours that the independent testimony, almost without exception, is on the side of Meikle. My friend has treated it as though Meikle had an easy task before him, but I put it that it was an exceedingly difficult task, and a task the successful accomplishment of which is, I believe, almost unique. Despite the odium of the charge and the disgrace of the conviction, the sinister rumours of all kinds, independent of this particular matter —which, in view of the evidence, I submit it is not unreasonable to suggest were put about, a considerable part of them, by the real culprits, who may or may not have been members of the company's staff—despite all these difficulties he has succeeded in obtaining independent testimony on his behalf ; and I shall put it to your Honours that at even this late stage, and after allowing for all the difficulties, he has fairly and squarely established his case. It was put by Dr. Findlay in his eloquent address to your Honours in Dunedin that bitterness and the bias of course resulting from it were all on one side. "Assaults and battery"— Tarn quoting his words, on page 107—" assaults and battery, litigation, perjury trials, parliamentary petitions, and what-not are the outcome of a bitterness which I shall show was entirely confined to Meikle himself." Of course, there was no proof of this statement; and I may be allowed to say, after looking at Dr. Findlay's list —and his statement, by the way, is hardly in accordance with Cameron's want of recollection of any troubles at all of the kind referred to—surely, your Honours, in view of the list, which is undisputed, if there was any human nature in the company and its servants at all, these attentions of Meikle were just the very things to bring it out. Your Honours will hardly believe that their serenity was entirely undisturbed, and that they merely
255
H.—2l.
looked on these proceedings with a perfectly judicial detachment. "This conviction," said Dr. Findlay, in pursuing a line of argument which was, fortunately for me, contrary to the general trend of his argument —" This conviction was entirely due to the company's information arrd the company's witnesses." I am quite content, though the statement is not technically accurate in view of the fact that the Crown took up the prosecution—l am content—l am glad to have the admission, because it is an admission that, the same inevitable colour has been given to the proceedings on the side for the prosecution which has been so freely urged —and within certain limits properly urged—against the other side. Mr. Meikle was a nuisance to the company, from his temperament and from the position of his land, which your Honours can see cuts like a wedge into the company's estate and divides it into two parts in an exceedingly inconvenient way. The suggestion made by Cameron that because the company was thinking of selling instead of buying, therefore this consideration would not apply, is absolutely contradicted by another argument in Cameron's evidence —that if in New Zealand you want to sell you have to sell a place as a going concern. Obviously they would have sold at an enormous advance if the purchaser had not got to take over the estate subject to that very inconvenience. Then, memories, of course, have faded. If they have faded absolutely they are useless, and there is no comment. My friends congratulated a witness of mine who did not remember an answer to an important question as though he were possibly one honest man among a hundred. Then, there are witnesses whose memory has partially faded, and they are decidedly suspicious. There was Telfer, who was in the box last week, who, having a contract actually in hand for the company, was instructed by the police to report on the condition of the boundary-fences, and reported adversely to the company, and therefore was not called for the prosecution. Mr. Findlay closely examined him, and he did not remember he had given a certain answer in 1887. He was not contradicting it, but he did not remember that the question was asked in 1887. There was a highly suspicious circumstance, because he ought, of course, to have remembered the most trivial incidents of his examination in 1887, even though he had not read it since. Similarly with Angus Cameron, because he gave evidence in 1895 as to one brand being red and the other brand being black, and he was not now quite certain which—another suspicious circumstance. Then there was Mr. Johnson, who, I submit, your Honours, was one of the most obviously trustworthy witnesses in the whole case. His evidence was the most suspicious of all, because he remembers things a good deal too clearly to suit the case for the Crown. I submit, your Honours, that it is absurd to lay stress on lapse of memory in non-essentials after all these years. On the other hand, T submit with equal confidence that the essentials of this case are such as the principal actors, at any rate, could never forget, and that, as a man forgets more easily what he has invented than what he has actually seen, accuracy as to essentials even after this lapse of time is an excellent test of truth. Why, your Honours, if I were to judge my learned friends on the other side, both Dr. Findlay and Mr." Macdonald, by the same charitable test that they apply to Meikle and all of his witnesses, I could certainly make an unpleasant show of them. It is a complicated business, and the evidence mostly was taken in May; still, your Honours, we have it all here in print before us, or, speaking in Dunedin, we had it all type-written. Notwithstanding that, T shall be able to show," with regard both to Dr. Findlay's speech in Dunedin and to what Mr. Macdonald said yesterday—not merely in their suggested inferences, but in their statements of what Mr. Macdonald calls "solid facts "—that there have been serious, though obviously unintentional, misrepresentations on the part of my learned friends on the other side. I urge that as no offence on their part, only as a ground for a little more charity than they have ventured to show to any mistakes or inconsistencies in the case which they are attacking. Well, it was put to your Honours with some force by Dr. Findlay, and perhaps even in a stronger fashion by my friend Mr. Macdonald yesterday, that there must be some kind, I am almost inclined to say, of miraculous or supernatural power about Mr. Meikle in getting witnesses to give the kind of evidence he wants. It was seriously put to your Honours yesterday in regard to some of Meikle's witnesses, outside his own family, who, of course, are subject to fair comment as likely victims of bias—it was even put that Mr. Meikle had such power that he could not merely make people believe he was innocent, but was able to make honest and independent people believe they saw things material to his case which they never saw. These people were honest before, but they became subject to his influence, and they remained honest afterwards —not merely his wife and servants and family, who were naturally subject to his influence, but that he mesmerised the monthly nurse to give evidence in 1895, and actually got the policeman who arrested him, the Justice who committed him, and the foreman of the jury who convicted him to testify on his behalf ; and if my friend's sweeping arguments be justified, all of these may be swept aside because of this uncanny power he has by which he has made them, without being dishonest, forget what otherwise they would know to be the truth. Now, I put it to your Honours that there are all sorts of independent people outside of Meikle's immediate family and personal circle whose evidence cannot be put aside in that way; and in one or two cases they have, if anything, shown bias in the other direction. I refer to Templeton particularly. Your Honours will remember his frank, impulsive, outspoken, fearless evidence. You will remember two statements he made in his cross-examination. Though they were not in one respect pleasant for my client, yet for the purpose of the argument lam making now they were of the utmost service. One was, "You need not think I have any sympathy with Mr. Meikle," and the other wasthat the reason he did not take action upon Troup's statement, that he had certain statements in his possession, was that he knew it was no use asking anybody in Southland to believe in Mr. Meikle. I have the reference here to these two important statements. At page 79, question 656: — " Dr. Findlay] From the time he [Troup] told you he had evidence which would get an innocent man out of gaol did you not treat him as a blackguard? —I told him he had better be quiet, because I did not think any man in Southland would take any notice of anything in favour of Meikle."
256
H.—2l.
Well, there is not much suggestion there of hypnotism by Mr. Meikle. Then there is question 658, — " Mr. Justice Cooper.] What you want us to believe is that Troup told some one in your presence that he had evidence in his possession which would tend to the release of Meikle, who was an innocent man?— Something of that kind. " 65!). Dr. Findlay.] And that you, who were a witness for Meikle on his trial, told him to keep his mouth shut?— You are very wrong if you think I have any sympathy for Meikle." Then I might take Templeton at the beginning of the chain, and Perry and Christie, who gave ♦■vidence here last week, at the end of it, Perry being Troup's predecessor in the management of the station, and Christie Troup's successor. They are both perfectly independent men, and one of them, Christie, stated in the box he had never mentioned even to Meikle what was the most important item in his evidence —viz., Troup's admission in regard to letters in his possession. Well, surely, with that class of evidence before your Honours, my friend's sweeping contentions cannot be allowed to carry weight, and if Meikle has this extraordinary power, without any money at his disposal, to so influence the public mind and the private mind, really it is about time he went back to gaol again, or he may be converting my learned friends before he is done, and that would be a veryserious business. Now, I will just touch briefly upon two points which I dealt with very fully in my opening, and with which Dr. Findlay dealt in the opening of his address. First of all, Dr. Findlay asked in his address (p. 107), "What wrong, legal or moral, has this colony done Meikle? It has done him no wrong. No judicial officer, executive officer, or public official has been guilty of any misconduct or injustice towards him." Now, I must say, your Honour, that I regret that counsel for the Crown should be set up to split legal or casuistical hairs over a question on which I venture to say the conscience of the community would not hesitate for a single moment if the facts of the case have first, of all been definitely- and authoritatively determined in favour of Meikle. Whatever the technical position may be, the public conscience, of which, for the present at any rate, your Honours are deemed to be the keepers in regard to this matter, must surely take a broader view. If our Courts have done this man such a wrong the people may surely reasonably say it is for us to recognise our responsibility. Mr. Justice Cooper: The Court has not done any wrong. The wrong, if any wrong has been done, was done by the witnesses. Mr. Atkinson: Yes, your Honour, and my answer, of course, is we are not petitioning the Court for redress; we are petitioning the colony for whom that Court spoke. The Court, the Government, the Parliament —they are all the various modes of ultimately expressing the popular will, and the actual and ultimate responsibility for a miscarriage of justice in any of these departments rests with the State or sovereign people. If that is so, surely the question as to whether or not the man who made the mistake is the man in blue or the man who has got, a wig, or whether the man in blue or the man in the wig did their duty according to their lights, but were misled by perjured evidence —surely from a broad and moral standpoint the question must be absolutely immaterial. I submit in a court of morals the attempt to set up such a distinction is a sheer pedantry, a sheer impertinence. Of course, it might be replied that an abstract moral responsibility is an easier thing to demonstrate by general argument than perhaps the practical application of the principle to any particular case. I cannot give a universal rule. There are no rules in human affairs, so far as I know, that have universal application to every- detail, great or small. I submit, however, that in this ease at any rate the matter is clear—that the Government, if the facts are found in my favour, has a paramount duty to sec justice done; and the redress should be handsome and ample, and all quibbles should be set aside. Then, of course, your Honours, it is urged that the matter of this £500 receipt has nevertheless absolved the State from whatever moral responsibility mayhave existed. Now, if lam right in my contention that the redress in such a case is a duty which the State primarily owes to itself, and is regardless entirely of the merits or the magnitude of the man who has been wronged, then surely the question of this receipt is neither here nor there. The receipt may be an estoppel upon Meikle, but it cannot justify the State in taking what would really be not a moral but a litigious view of its responsibility. 1 can also apply this argument legitimately to the contention insisted rrpon somewhat strongly by both my learned friends on the other side. Who asked for this Commission? It was not Mr. Meikle. Mr. Meikle has asked from the first, that Parliament should carry out the recommendations of the Petitions Committee of 1895, and he has battled along on his own account on these lines. Mr. Justice Edwards: What was the recommendation? Ido not remember. Mr. Atkinson: It is quoted in my address to your Honours. It is as follows: — "On the 9th October, 1895, the Public Petitions Committee, to whom the petition had been referred, reported: ' That the Committee are of opinion that, after eliminating Lambert's evidence, who has since been convicted and is now serving a sentence for perjury, there is not sufficient evidence adduced at petitioner's trial to warrant his conviction on the charge preferred against him. The Committee are also of opinion that the request of petitioner to have his name removed from the prison records of the colony merits the serious consideration of the Crown. The Committee recommends the Government to make provision on the supplementary estimates for the payment to petitioner of a sum of money by way of compensation for the loss he has sustained in connection with his business, the legal costs incurred in defending the charge preferred against him and securing the conviction of Lambert for perjury, and also by way of compensation for the imprisonment he has suffered.' " Mr. Justice Edivards: No sum of money was mentioned. Mr. Atkinson:* No, your Honour, but that was the position in 1895, and, so far as Mr. Meikle is concerned, that has remained his position. Mr. Justice Edwards: The Government put a sum on the estimates, and so far the recommendation of the Committee has been complied with. You say it has been insufficiently complied with.
33— H. 21,
257
H.—2l
258
Mr. Atkinson: I will remind your Honours that the position as between the Government and the Petitions Committee was this: The Government said we have a report upon the case of the Judge who presided at the trial, and that report is adverse to Mr. Meikle. That report still contends that he is a guilty man. We cannot take the recommendation of a non-judicial body. We should be guilty of a dereliction of duty as a Government if we took the report of such a body as sufficient to wipe out the recommendation of the most competent judicial authority; and accordingly when that £500 was placed on the estimates it was placed so expressly upon the statement of the late Mr. Seddon, the then Premier, which I quoted in my opening address, on the basis that the Government was not going back on Judge Ward's report in treating Meikle as innocent, but was saying that he had brought a perjurer to justice and was out of pocket by so doing. Accordingly the Government paid him on the basis of a man who was guilty of sheep-stealing, but who nevertheless has discharged a public service in bringing a perjurer to justice. That was the position, your Honours, and it was the difference of attitude towards Judge Ward's report which led to the conflict of opinion between the Petitions Committee and the Government, and, as 1 put it to your Honours, the result of thai difference of opinion has been that a judicial tribunal was last year set up to determine the question in an authoritative manner —to review not only the trial of 1887, but Lambert's trial in 1895, and to make recommendations to the Government accordingly. But, your Honours, what brought the thing immediately to a head was this: not that Mr. Meikle petitioned, but that a large and growing section of the public were satisfied, as soon as full reports of the two trials from the Judge's notes were published side by side, that the matter did deserve an authoritative decision, and accordingly it was from them that the request came for this Commission, and the Commission was granted. It is not Mr. Meikle's Commission. Though he is glad to have it, it is not appointed at his instance ; and I put it to your Honours that it is a relevant consideration, because it shows there are other parties to this matter than Meikle and the Government. There is a large section of the country itself favourable to his claim, and who feel it would not be honourable to them as constituents of the body politic to insist, whatever estoppel in the moral sense it may effect against Meikle, that advantage should be taken of that receipt. They say, " Our Courts have gone wrong, and if the man is innocent we are not going to regard the money 7 paid to him on the assumption of his guilt as a final and moral quittance. We are going to do the thing in a manner more becoming a selfrespecting country." 1 regret that Dr. Findlay should have referred on page 128 of his address to " a gentleman who stands as Meikle's lieutenant, Mr. Jamieson, and who told the Premier that there was no use in talking about anything less; that Meikle must get £15,000; that he would not take anything less." My instructions from Mr. Jamieson are that he made no such statement. My friend Dr. Findlay stated that it was his intention to call him, but he did not call him, arid it did not appear to me to be necessary that I should call him. Now, I mention this because Mr. Jamieson is a gentleman of good standing in this city, who from sheer philanthropy- has interested himself in this matter and has done a good deal to bring it to a head. He has instructed me, at any rate, to deny the statement made, even though it is not going in as evidence. Mr. Jamieson's contribution to the matter, your Honours, was to focus the thing ami to organize the deputation to the Premier. At a public meeting, over which the Mayor of Wellington presided, there was organized a deputation to the Government of which the Mayor of Wellington was the chief spokesman. I mention this just to show that the matter has assumed a public aspect far broader and higher than that of a mere claim on the part of a man who signed a receipt for £500, for a little more money. With regard to the estimate of £15,000, I submit no figures. I cannot formulate a claim to put before the Crown, but I put it this way: that Mr. Jamie-son's memorandum submitted to the Premier showed, among other things, that if £3,000 were taken as the value of Meikle's property — and I do not think your Honours will dispute that that has been fairly proved Mr. Justice Edwards: You will have to show us, I think. Mr. Atkinson: It was shown pretty fully. Mr. Justice Edwards: We have 184 pages of printed stuff here, and there will be a great deal more now, and if you think I have retained in my mind all these printed pages since 14th Maylast, you are very much mistaken. Mr. Atkinson: No, your Honour ; but this was in my mind when preparing this address now : that, although it would not be in your Honour's memory for the purposes of a judgment ex tempore, it would be sufficient to refer y 7 ou to the argument and evidence instead of repeating it. Your Honours would then be in a position to note it as you read through the matter from cover to coverbefore the report is sent in. Page 36, from the beginning of the last paragraph and going down to Dr. Findlay's interruption on page 37, is where I summarise the financial position of Meikle at the time of his conviction, and this, to the best of my recollection, was absolutely borne out by the evidence. Having given that reference to your Honours it will not be necessary, I expect, to give the details. Mr. Justice Edwards: No. We just want something to enable us to refer to it. Mr. Atkinson: A telegram from the Government Life Insurance Department is put in there showing the value of Meikle's property in 1886 to have been £2,352, and that it was mortgaged for £1,000 to the Department in the same year. In round figures £3,500 is the net value of his property. Then, writing off £500, as we had not got the Government valuation of all items, I was surely on the safe side in treating him as worth £3,000 at the time of the proceedings. On that basis I put it to your Honours that, seeing that the fact of the conviction was obviously utter ruin to the man's property, involving the utter loss of everything, it was reasonable to assume without going any further than -the first broad item of financial loss resulting from his conviction that we may start with the capital value of £3,000 in December, 1887, as to be debited entirely to his conviction. Then, Mr. Jamieson's contribution to the finance, as far as I am aware, was simply this—my friend will have an opportunity of checking it if my statement is wrong—he worked out what that would be at compound interest at 6 per cent, up to April or May last, and it
H.—2l.
worked out to .£8,564. That is under the heading " Property." As to " liberty," Ido not know Lew you are going to assess the value of the man's liberty during the years he was in gaol—from ISB7 to 1892— but surely it must be taken into consideration. My friends may claim some deduction because the country kept my client for five years, but we shall not quarrel over that. Well, then, it' your Honours please, surely the years in which he was seeking redress, in which his life was absolutely monopolised by this quest —if the quest is based upon truth—surely it was the highest duty he owed to himself and to his family —surely something must be allowed on that score. Then there is the last item to which my friends have devoted themselves almost to the exclusion of all others. It is the item of personal character, and it is upon that they have levelled all their attack. Now, I put it to your Honours with regard to this alleged claim of £15,000, if my financial basis is correct and the compound interest is calculated correctly, you will see that £10,000 will be more than accounted for without touching any character issue at all. Now, I may be allowed to say about Dr. Findlay's statement with regard to Mr. McNab's supposed evidence, which will be found on page 1 30, it would ]nit Meikle obviously in a worse light morally if he had actually adopted the position which, according to Dr. Findlay's statement, he believed Mr. McNab would be able to prove. This is the statement on page 130, after the money had been on the estimates: — " He persisted in further demands, and on the recommendation of the Parliamentary Committee tlfe Premier interviewed those who purported to be helping Meikle —among them particularly Mr. McNab —and he informed Mr. McNab that he wanted to have done with this interminable Meikle business, and he said that if Meikle would accept £500 in full and final settlement of all possible claims he had or thought he had, his Government would put that sum on the estimates. Now, so Mr. Seddon informs me? Mr. McNab went away and saw Meikle —so Mr. McNab says —and lie came back and assured Mr. Seddon that Mr. Meikle would honestly accept the sum of £500, and give quittance not on paper only, but a genuine bond —a morally binding quittance to trouble this colony no further. It was only upon that assurance that Mr. Seddon placed on the estimates and paid over to Meikle the sum of £500." Of course, there must be some mistake in the matter, and I did not anticipate for a moment that there would be any conflict between myself and Mr. McNab on the point, and I am pleased it lias so turned out. Meikle was not iv Wellington at the time, and Mr. McNab's attitude, as was explained to the Court last week, was simply that he would be no party to prosecuting any further claim if the £500 was put there and taken. Well, it is a case of res ipsa loquitur. Meikle was in a state of want. The money was placed on the estimates, and it was in the Treasury for fourteen months before he took it. What I dislike about Dr. Findlay's statement is the suggestion of cunning or breach of faith on Meikle's part. Whereas the £500 was on the estimates and waiting in the Treasury for him at a time when he was in dire financial straits, he nevertheless hung off for fourteen months before he agreed to take it ; and then, as it appears, £250 of that sum went into the hands of a money-lender and £50 of it as interest at the rate of 40 per cent, on money that he had raised to keep going during all these proceedings. The £500 was so taken under those circumstances, and 1 do not say, if the matter were merely a personal one as between private people, that that receipt would not count for something ; but, at any rate, I contend it was not a case of deliberate breach of faith on the part of a man who had undertaken to stop asking before the money was put on the estimates—-money which was paid to him on the basis that he was guilty. And even if it is conceded for the sake of argument that it is wrong for Meikle as plaintiff to come forward and make a claim, it is not wrong for the members of the body politic to say that " Though the receipt may be binding against Meikle, we will be no party to setting up the receipt as a moral and binding quittance in favour of the colony.' . That, 1 put it to your Honours, is the true moral aspect of this receipt, which, instead of being treated in the ordinary narrow way, should be treated in the broader and higher fashion that the matter really deserved. Mr. Justice Edwards: The principle is not a narrow one. The principle is recognised as a broad principle in all civilised States that there should be an end to litigation. • Mr. Atkinson: 1 do not wish to traverse again the ground I have covered, but I did put it in Dunediu that there may be cases, and are in business every day, where a man under a mistaken impression gets a legal release from a claim and even as a matter of business recognises the moral obligation to pay something more, as, for instance, where there was some misconception on the other side which would give no legal ground for reopening the matter. But my main point now is that, whatever the moral estoppel, the receipt has worked as against my client; it has effected none upon the citizens of this country, or upon any section of them. This is not a mere lawsuit which the Commissioners are dealing with. It is not a question between Meikle and the Government; it is not even a question of a moral suit as between these parties ; but it is an inquiry which has a much wider range. It is a question which concerns the whole community, and can only be tilfcimately determined from the highest considerations of public honour. The issue is not one between my client and the Government; the people of this country have the right to reopen this settlement, even if Mr. Meikle has not, and it is because a considerable section of the people desire to have it reopened that it has been reopened at their instance, and not at Mr. Meikle's. Well, what I meant to make as my last point was this: II we are to take a lawyer's view and say, "Yes, that settlement shall be final as against Mr. Meikle," then I say your Honours will not have given a final determination of the question, because there are rights and obligations on others who have no interest, either financial or personal, in Mr. Meikle, but who simply regard the question from the standpoint of their obligations tq the Stale. Now, your Honours, I pass to the legal and more difficult aspect of the case, which, of course, is more within the usual province of us all, and I first take the case, following somewhat on the lines of Mr. Macdonald's argument yesterday, as it presented itself to Mr. Judge Ward and the jury in 1887. It is not disputed that there were then five points in the Crown's case —(1) Lambert's testimony ; (2) the sheep found on Meikle's property; (3) the skins found in his smithy; (4) the state of the fences; and (5) the state of cultivation of
259
H.—2l.
the two properlres. With regard to the last item—the matter of cultivation—it was put with great earnestness by both my learned friends on the other side that the matter of cultivation had been fully raised in the original trial of 1887, and that all honest evidence that was available in regard to it must have been brought before the Court then. Well, 1 desire to point out to your Honours that it is easy to make these general statements, but an examination of the evidence does not justify the statement that any great importance was attached to the relative degrees of cultivation of the two properties in 188*. Considerable stress was laid upon the matter in Mr. Justrce Ward s report in 1888, but the evidence was very slight for the prosecution with regard to the cultrvatrorr; and so far as Mr Meikle or his counsel being prepared for it when the case came on for trial in the Supreme Court there was only one single reference in the proceedings before the Justices to the matter of the cultivation as having any bearing on the question, and that reference was not by a man who had any special knowledge of it, or who was asked specially to report upon it but by a man who had taken a casual observation of the property as he went round and examined"the fences. I refer to Mr. Fleming. 1 think my recollections are correct. Mr. Fleming stated frankly in the box that he was only'called to examine the fences, and 1 think he stated before the Commission that he made no special examination of the laud. It was not part of his duty. In the depositions of 1887 we have, — " And this deponent, James Fleming, on his oath saith as follows :—I am a tanner. Have no connection with the company. I was asked by the police to examine the fence and see if sheep could pass to and fro from Meikle's and the company. 1 came to the conclusion thai the sheep could not get off the turnips except round the corner by the shepherd's hut. There is nothing on Meikle's land to attract them." That is the statement of a man brought up to run round the boundary-fences m a hurry. 1 say in a hurry, because he admitted he did not try all the wires. He tried a considerable number of them and he took a casual glance at the cultivation as he went along. There was no evrdence led at all upon this point by the employees of the company. That, your Honours, will show we cannot treat this point as having been considered a substantial point in the company s case up to the time Meikle went to trial in Invercargill. Now, 1 put it to your Honours that very slight evidence indeed was given even in the Supreme Court. Mr. Stuart gives a lrttle evrdence. Mr. Macdonald: There was Trotter. Mr. Atkinson: Trotter only says,— " Don't think sheep would leave turnips for anything else. Waiariki is not sheep-proof, f know hut. There is gateway. No gate near hut. I know ground marked as tussock. Sheep wouldn't go on it from turnips. I remember search." Mr. Stuart's evidence was very similar, and Mr. Stuart, in cross-examination, made a statement, which, 1 submit, was just as much in Meikle's favour as anything that was said at that trial on behalf of the company, viz. : — " Two more sheep found there on rough ground. Others were found there on English grass. Don't think there were green oats on Meikle's in October. There were some in front of house, but others were just through ground. On 17th October land was newly harrowed." Mr. Macdonald: That was in the depositions. Mr. Atkinson: No; before Mr. Justice Ward. There was nothing at all in the depositions. 1 hope my friend will correct, me if 1 am wrong. 1 have taken the utmost care to verify what statements 1 am making, and 1 am unable to find any reference to cultivation there, except this general statement of Mr. Fleming's. Mr. Stuart's statement before this Commission that he dealt with the question before the Justices is not borne out by the record, unless my friends are able to show something, your Honours. I have searched, and can find no evidence whatever. However, let me put this to your Honours: Without going beyond the Crown's case at all in 1887, there are two admitted modifications which have to be made, irrespective altogether of the intrinsic credibility of Meikle's evidence, that are quite enough to entitle me to say to this Commission that Meikle on that evidence should not have been convicted. In the first place, 1 take it that what impressed His Honour Mr. Justice Ward and led to this statement in his report, " a good deal of contradictory evidence was about the state of the fences between the company's land and Meikle's, but there were no questions as to the respective merits of the sheep-feed on the two places," was one fact and only one, and it was a fact that was not in my mind when I opened my case before the Commission. That fact was the map that was put in on behalf of the prosecution, and that map which is before your Honours now. The two references to the map are in the first part of the 1887 report. First of all we have, — "W. L. Falkner, surveyor: Made survey of station and farm. Map produced is correct. Colours, &c, marked therein. Went round most of fences marked on plan last Monday." Then we have the evidence of "William Lambert, private detective at Islay Station," about the fourth line down, — "Lived on pre-emptive right of company: hut there. Land marked 'turnips' was then under turnips and sheep. Land marked ' tussock ' was part ploughed and part tussock. Nothing to attract sheep off turnips." Now, if your Honours refer to the map your Honours will find there that from 350 to 400 acres are marked off as " turnips " on the company's plan, and we have it, without going outside the company's witnesses, from the manager of the station at that time, that 30 acres was the maximum area in turnips at the time. Mr. Justice Cooper: Is this the map you mean, Mr. Atkinson —the one that 1 have in my hand? Mr. Atkinson: Yes. That is the map on which Meikle was convicted. Mr. Justice Cooper: Is this the one that was before the Court? Mr. Atkinson: Yes. Mr. Justice. Cooper: It is not marked in any way 7 . You mean that this is a similar one? Mr. Macdonald: There were a number of these maps supplied to the jury, and this is one of them.
260
H.—2l.
Mr. Atkinson: That is so. I think I can produce the one that was formally made an exhibit. The correctness of that was not disputed when it, was put in in Dunedin. It is right, your Honours, to call attention to the point which Mr. Macdonald indicates to me, and that is that Mr. Robert Duncan, one oi Meikle's own witnesses, in 1887 made an admission with regard to the cultivation, which it is proper should go in— "Cross-examined: Sheep-expert. Sheep might have turnips for tussock for a stroll; generally come back. Not likely to leave turnips to get at plough." Your Honours will see from that map that, the area of the pre-emptive right is 640 acres, and that approximately from 350 to 400, probably, are covered there by Ihe word " turnips," and it was put before the jury accordingly. Now, we have it from Mr. Troup, as J say, without going for the present outside the range of the company's witnesses —and the witness was a. witness at Meikle's trial as well as before the Commission —we have it from Mr. Troup on page 131 of the printed evidence taken in Dunedin, at question 9, as follows: — •• How many acres of turnips were there, roughly speaking?" —this is in the examination-in-chief —" i do not remember." "Can you not give us any idea at all? —I should say from memory 30 acres, more or less. There were oats up towards Fortification Creek, and turnips towards the southern part —that is, down to what is marked ' 7.' ' Mr. Macdonald: That was in October, 1887. Those were the remains. Mr. Atkinson : There is no question of the remains at all. We shall see what the remains were a little later on, in the cross-examination. The point was jjut before him in cross-examination at page 135, question 169: — •■ Were you asked to swear to the correctness of this map —the same sort that Dr. Findlay has been showing to you —in the Court when Meikle was tried?" (That is the map that is before your Honours now.) " 1 think I was; it strikes me I was; it is a long while back to remember. " Can you remember whether you swore that the representation of the turnips there was correct!—! cannot remember whether I swore to the representation of the turnips being correct —it is so long back. •' Would you have sworn that it covers from 300 to 400 acres?—l cannot grasp the number of acres so far back. The pre-emptive right occupied about 1,200 acres. If you give nre that map 1 will approximate any out of the 1,200 by looking at the map. [That map was handed to the witness.] " Could you estimate it, Mr. Troup?—lt is 1,200 acres up to the road-line. " How many acres would you say 7 are covered there by the word ' turnips ' I— I should say there would be about 700 acres covered by the word ' turnips.' ' That, your Honours, is an error of which Ido not desire to take any advantage. Troup has estimated the whole as 1,200 acres, instead of 640, and he has given the turnips as half. He arrived at 700 acres as being covered by the word " turnips," when clearly he was proceeding on a false assumption. So that correction Mr. Troup is entitled to have made in his own favour. Then there was some slight confusion in the reporting: — "Mr. Justice Cooper: Is the area marked off by the plain, simple word 'turnips' written across ? "Mr. Atkinson: Yes, your Honour, by the word 'turnips' written across. 1 think the witness was taking a bit too big an estimate. (To witness): It is a little over half what you reckon to be pre-emptive right. You say about 300 acres really represented the area in turnips?"— That, of course, clearly should be 30 acres, as indicated by the answer to question 10 on page 131.—" I would say to about 30 acres, more or less." —Here dearly the " to" is superfluous—" If you want me to figure, out the map you must give me a little margin. " Are you quite sure there were more than 20 acres?—Oh, certainly more than 20; they kept these sheep going. My naming -'id acres is just by a glance at this map. This land was ploughed by contract, and measured and paid for by contract. To find this out 1 would know by the books." Then, with reference to Mr. Macdonald's suggestion that this 30 acres would represent the remains. Well, we shall see how the examination proceeds: — " 177. How long had the sheep been on these turnips?— They went on some time in August. "178. 646, you believe?— Yes. " 179. How much feed was left there by the middle of October ?—-Oh, well, the feed was getting down then, because " 180. There had been some six hundred sheep on it for about a couple of months?— Yes. " 181. Apart from the turnips being eaten oft', was it not getting rather late in the season for turnips?-.—Generally speaking, turnips are all over by that time pretty well." Now, surely, your Honours, I am entitled to say that if that map, sworn lo by one of the company's witnesses and apparently by the surveyor, went before the jury, a very gross misrepresentation was before the jury 7 unchallenged—a misrepresentation so gross that Troup, after correcting the error which he had made in my client's favour, says that instead of 350 or 400 acres about 30 acres should be substituted. Mr. Justice Cooper: 1 suppose we may take it that this plan that I have here was the one that went before the jury. I see it is signed by Mr. Falkner, under date the 12th December, 1887. Mr. Atkinson.- Yes, your Honour. It was admitted in Dunedin. ! think I can produce the copy 7 that was actually used at the trial. Mr. Justice Cooper: What Was the date of the trial? Mr. Macdonald: The 16th December. Mr. Justice Cooper: Mr. Falkner was the first witness, and it bears his signature. Mr. Atkinson: Well, your Honour, that surely is an important point as to evidence in the Crown's case that was before the jury, being—innocently, of course, so far as those conducting the case was concerned—absolutely misleading. Now it has this further important indirect bearing, your Honours, upon the credibility of certain statements which my client has made with regard to
261
H.—2l.
the absence of important points from his case in 1887. "If you could produce these points in 1895 and 1906 and 1907," he is asked, "why could you not produce them in 1887?" I am not going into that point, your Honours, at length at this stage, but I do desire to point out that if that line of argument is correct, we must be now accused of giving false evidence when we prove here what we did not prove in 1887—that the quantity of turnips on the company's land was exaggerated 90 per cent. It is not a point that I desire to press as to this particular aspect of it, but your Honours will see that it is of the inmost importance, because it proves that admissions we get from one of the most important witnesses for the company could have been got in 1887, and were not got —admissions which would have reduced the strength of the company's case with regard to that one item by '•><) per cent. Now, your Honours, if I were going to imitate the courtesy of my learned friends on the other side—the courtesy which they have extended in such generous measure to my client —I should talk about manufacturing. We have heard a little about the manufacturing and fabrication of evidence which has occupied Meikle's time from 1892 to this date; but 1 say that if we liked to make nasty innuendoes we might say, and 1 can say, there is no manufacture of evidence that can be brought home to Meikle comparable with the manufacture of a map showing 350 or 400 acres of turnips when there are only 30. That, I submit, is one point of the utmost importance in the two errors that 1 put before you. The other point is that Lambert was a convicted thief, and the jury did uot know it. 1 submit with confidence, your Honours, that the Crown would never have put in that map if it had been aware of its misleading character, and that the Crown would never have taken up a case relying, I put it to you, practically entirely upon Lambert's evidence if it had been aware of his character and that he was a convicted thief; and 1 submit that, assuming the Crown nevertheless felt bound to lake the opinion of a jury upon the matter, no jury would have hesitated for a moment to acquit the prisoner when they were being asked to recognise that the company was doing a proper thing in giving this heavy reward to an informer and actually carrying out the maxim, " Set a thief to catch a thief.". 1 submit with confidence that if these two points which we have established had been before the jury in 1887 your Honours would not have been troubled to say now what a jury would have said without any hesitation nearly twenty years ago. Mr. Justice Edivards: Where is the statement about Lambert's record.' Mr. Macdonald: On page 167. Mr. Atkinson: I have asked my friends, 1 do not know how often, to let us have the official record of those convictions. I asked for it in March or April last. 1 was shown a telegram in Dunedin, but the telegram was not put in. I wish to have the official record here, and I hope my friends wiif get it. Mr. Macdonald: 1 obtained the telegram in May last, and handed it to Dr. Findlay to show to mv friend, and it was shown to him in my presence. I understood that Mr. Atkinson was satisfied with that statement. At all events, Dr. Findlay examined Lambert upon his convictions, and 1 thought the matter was at an end. If the telegram is still in existence I will endeavour to find it and produce it. But the statements contained in the telegram were got from Lambert himself in examination by Dr. Findlay 7 and cross-examination by Mr. Atkinson. Mr. Atkinson: That is so, but I should like a higher authority. The Commissioner of Police could easily 7 supply it. Mr. Justice Cooper: He admitted that he had had seven days with another man for stealing a bottle of whisky, and that he was twice fined for assaults. Mr. Atkinson: I submit, your Honour, thai the theft stands in the official record, and that we want some better evidence than Lambert's to show its character. Mr. Justice Edwards: Not if you got it from him. He admitted it. Mr. Atkinson : 1 did not get it from him. Mr. Justice Edivards: Well, it was got from him, at all events. Mr. Justice Cooper: You cross-examined him about it and asked him whether he was charged with the theft of a gold watch and chain, and he said he was not. Mr. Atkinson: I wish my friends would let us have a copy of that official record. When the Court rose, your Honours, I was dealing with the ease as presented to the jury in 1887, and I concluded my treatment of the case for the Crown. The two points 1 desired to mention at this stage with regard to the defence are, in the first place, the alleged perjury of the witness Templeton, which impressed Judge Ward so much, and the second, the failure to set up an alibi for Arthur Meikle. Ido not propose to consider either of these points fully now, but 1 wish to say first of all, with regard to Templeton, thai he has been put into the box before this Commission and left it without a single question as to the matters on which he is supposed to have perjured himself. That, I think, is sufficient clearance from Judge Ward's imputation, on page 29 of the first report. Secondly, although the alibi for Arthur Meikle lamentably failed in 1887, and with the usual result of discrediting the ease, it may now be taken that the alibi was genuine, notwithstanding its failure at that time. I refer your Honours to Dr. Findlay's argument on page 124 of the proceedings in Dunedin to show that this point is practically conceded now. Mr. Justice Edwards: What matters I You say lie was not asked questions in respect to matters in which he had been charged with perjury. What were they? Mr. Atkinson: As to the date of the conversation with Lambert as to the company asking him to go for Meikle and Lambert stating he would stick to Meikle. The witness gave the 24th September as the date of the conversation, whereas it is perfectly certain that it was on the 24th August. Your Honour will remember that-he remembered certain transactions on that date. He was confident he was right, and on examining his books he found he was wrong, and told this Commission so in Dunedin. His evidence was considered by Judge Ward as bolstering up Meikle. Mr. Findlay: He corrected his evidence in the Court below.
262
H.—2l.
Mr. Atkinson: He was not cross-examined to explain the matter to your Honours. Mr. Justice Edivards: Ido not know. He gave his recollection for what it was worth. Ido not say he committed perjury. Ido not know anything about it. Mr. Atkinson .- If your Honours do not mind, 1 will deal with that point subsequently. lam only giving you a summary now. What 1 was putting to your Honours was the two fatal points in the 1887 defend —the perjury of Templeton ami the failure of the alibi in regard to Arthur Meikle. 1 shall proceed now, your Honours, with the second point — namely, that the alibi attempted was set up for Arthur Meikle, was a true one, and is so admitted now, although it failed. At the top of page 124 Dr Findlay says,— " Meikle says that Lambert admits he was told that young Meikle was ill, and went on the 18th and asked how he was. The date is not fixed by Lambert, bid by Meikle and his witnesses, who swear that young Meikle was ill on (he night of the 17th, and that, Lambert came next day and asked how he was. And that is true." Then on page 126, — "What did my learned friend and Mr. Solomon do? First they established an alibi —or they thought they had—for young Meikle: they established that the night was rough to drive sheep about, and probably if it be true that Lambert had fixed the 17th or the date on which young Meikle was ill, the conclusion might have been taken as reasonably correct." I submit that I may take these two statements to be a sufficient admission that the alibi was correct with regard to the 17th, although the evidence in support of it was so contradictory that it was disbelieved by His Honour and the jury. I submit, your Honours, that the last point entirely saves the credit of these two witnesses, Arthur Meikle and Harvey, and infereiitiaily of my client, as affected by the credit of his witnesses, and proves that they have been exceedingly stupid in their evidence and in the manner in which they gave it but absolutely honest. I think lam right in saying that the most serious, the gravest points dwelt upon by Judge Ward as impairing the credibility of Meikle's case have been proved to justify the opposite construction. Mr. Justice Edivards: 1 do not see that he pointed out anything in particular. I have no doubt you were right in saying what you were saydng. You were referring to Mr. Justice Ward's report on page 29? Mr. Atkinson: Yes, your Honour. " For the defence the first witness was Templeton, who swore to a conversation with Lambert, giving full particulars as to time and place, but finding that certain witnesses were prepared to prove an alibi for Lambert desires Mr. MacGregor, counsel for prisoner, to retract his evidence next morning by stating that he had been entirely mistaken in both the above particulars, by which retraction he saved himself from being committed for perjury and enabled the jury to duly appreciate his testimony " And he stands in the forefront of the case as a perjurer in support of Meikle. The report next proceeds,— "The next witness, Harvey, a servant of the prisoner's, swore that Lambert did not leave Meikle's house on the 17th October till 10 p.m., in which he was contradicted both by Lambert and Gregg, and that he (Lambert) was at Meikle's every other night and sometimes two nights running, in which he was contradicted by Arthur Meikle and Mrs. Shield, both witnesses for the defence, and ultimately stated that he could not tell at all whether Lambert was there between the 17th October and the Ist November." The importance of the contradiction between Harvey and Arthur Meikle is that the defence endeavoured to establish a defence for Arthur Meikle by proving that he was ill in bed that night, and therefore could not possibly have been driving sheep at the hour alleged. There were gross discrepancies between the evidence of Harvey and Arthur Meikle, and in opening I had to concede that Harvey's chronology was hopeless. Now I have to point out my friend's admissions in pages 124 and 126, that that alibi was a true alibi for the 17th, and therefore the good faith of these witnesses and the case for the defence is saved to that extent. Then, the three points in regard to the case of 1887. It was actually 7 suggested by Mr. Macdonald yesterday that without the evidence of Lambert there was still a case on which the jury might have convicted Meikle. I made a note yesterday, your Honours, expecting to reply then, but it was not really worth arguing such a point on so hot a day. Mr. Justice Edwards: There was evidence, Mr. Atkinson, and evidence of a sort from which there are constant convictions. There were sheep-skins found there, and he had to account for their possession. Mr. Atkinson: There were sheep-skins and sheep, but nothing else. Mr. Justice Edwards: I do not know. I have seen a good many convictions on evidence of that sort. Of course, it was a case of stolen goods. The sheep might have got through the fence, but the presence of the branded skins there certainly shifted the onus of proof on to Meikle, and it was necessary that he should give to the jury a reasonable explanation as to that; otherwise the only conclusion which could be come to was that he had stolen the sheep from which the skins had been taken. Mr. Atkinson: I submit, your Honour, he would never have been asked to prove it before a jury, because nobody would have taken the trouble to commit him upon such obviously unsubstantial evidence. Mr. Justice Edwards: The Magistrate would have committed him on the ground that the sheepskins were in his possession, and'on account of there being no satisfactory explanation of that fact. Mr. Atkinson: The position would be very much the same as if T were brought into Court on the accusation of a man who saw me stealing my neighbour's fowls and killing two of them, and in corroboration of his testimony it, was proved that the fowls were seen on my land and that two of them were dead.
263
H.—2l.
Mr. Justice Edwards: Suppose we eliminate Lambert altogether, and that the case for the Crown closed with the evidence that the sheep were found upon Meikle's property —which in itself would not have been of any great importance—and that the skins of recently killed sheep bearing the company's brand were found in his stable: could any Judge withdraw the case from the jury? Mr. Atkinson: I do not think it could get there. Mr. Justice Edwards: 1 have been connected with the criminal Courts for eleven years and a half, and such" a case constantly gels there. Loss of stolen goods; recent possession; possession bysome one else shortly afterwards who has no right to them. Then the onus of proof is shifted. It is incumbent upon the person who has the stolen goods in his possession to give the jury a reasonable explanation of how he came to have them in his possession. Then, if he is unable to do so, the Judge instructs the jury that it is their duty to convict. Mr. Justice Cooper: The mere fact of sheep being found upon a farmer's property is not necessarily evidence of deliberate conversion, but the fact that the skins of sheep bearing the brand of the sheep which are missing, and which are identified as part of the missing sheep, are found upon the person's property is evidence that he has killed some of the sheep of his neighbour, and unless it can be explained it is evidence of fraudulent conversion. I ask you —suppose the case had been simply this: The company have lost twenty-seven sheep; twenty-five of them are found upon Meikle's property : the skins of two of them are found in his stable or in his smithy —could any Judge withdraw the case from the jury? That is a proposition of law. Mr. Atkinson: If it could get so far. Mr. Justice Cooper: That is what we have to assume on this Commission. One of the questions we have to determine is whether, if you eliminate Lambert's evidence from the evidence which was before the jury, there would be a "case to go to the jury. That is a question of law. Mr. Atkinson: I take it that, is not the issue at all. Surely your Honours are sitting here just as much as a jury as in the capacity of Judges. It, cannot be a question of whether the Judge at the trial did right because Lambert's testimony was there. Mr. Justice Edwards: You are taking exception to Mr. Macdonald's proposition that there was evidence upon which Meikle could have been convicted, and properly convicted; and I say so, certainly, unless there is a reasonable explanation of possession of the skins. You may say that, Lambert's evidence is so connected with the case for the prosecution that if you eliminate Lambert's evidence you eliminate the substance of the case for the prosecution. Mr. Atkinson: That is my substantial ground. T submit, with respect and with confidence, that as a matter of practice that the ease con hi never have gone to the jury, that, the jury would never have been troubled with the case had it not been Mr. Justice Edwards: That is quite erroneous. Speaking from an experience of eleven years and a half constantly in the criminal Courts, I can say there never was a session of the criminal Courts—at all events, when T have presided—in which the evidence has not consisted of the proof of theft, and of proof that the article stolen was found in the possession of the thief without his being able to give any possible explanation of it. Mr. Atkinson : T do not wish to argue that as an abstract matter of law; but I would put it this way, to draw a parallel: Suppose I do not know my liberty is in such serious jeopardy as it really is. Say my neighbour keeps fowls Mr. Justice Cooper: Suppose your neighbour keeps fowls, and among them are two fowls which can be readily identified by the combs. Suppose in your stable are found the heads of those fowls, what about this? Mr. Macdonald: There is no dispute about the identity. Mr. Atkinson: I do not think I should have got. into the dock if that were the only evidence tin- police could find. 1 will put it to your Honours in all seriousness that the parallel can only be made complete by the chief witness against me swearing that he saw me, and afterwards being proved to- have lied. Mr. Justice Cooper: That is another branch of your case. What you say is that if the chief witness upon whose evidence the placing of what you may call the actual commission of the crime depends—the eye-witness of the commission of the crime—if that man is discredited, then you say the case for the prosecution is discredited, and no jury ought to convict. Mr. Atkinson: Yes, I submit Meikle's case the position is, technically, as your Honour has stated, and that practically the case for the Crown showed from the evidence of the constable that the skins were found, without concealment, among Meikle's skins in an outhouse with the door open, so that the access was not confined to Mr. Meikle. Now, as to the omissions from the case for the defence in 1887, of which a good deal has naturally been made by my friends on the other side. I make these three submissions. First, of all, that a very large measure of allowance must be made for a layman conducting his own case before the Justices, and conducting it unexpectedly, owing to a dispute with the lawyer whom he had originally retained ; secondly, the confidence of his counsel in the Supreme Court that he had what was apparently, and as I submit was actually, a very strong case ; thirdly, that the law disqualified both the prisoner and his wife from giving evidence. I shall deal specifically with the aspects of these omissions. Mr. Justice Cooper': Was there no provision in 1887 which would allow such evidence to be taken? Certainly there was not, in the Act of 1882. Mr. Macdonald: No, there was no provision. Mr. Atkinson: Referring to the point of what evidence there was outside Lambert s, the last paragraph on Judge Ward's second report is worth referring to:— _ " Had there been no evidence beyond this, T certainly should not have directed the jury to acquit but the case for the Crown would have been greatly weakened, and probably the able counsel engaged by Meikle would then have secured his acquittal, had it not been for the exposure of the gross perjury committed on Meikle's behalf by the witness Templeton, which might have turned the scale the other way."
264
H.—2l
265
So that I submit in his Honour's opinion there would have been no doubt if Templeton's perjury could have been cleared up. Then, corning to the position in 1895. Meikle and his witnesses were competent witnesses for the first trine. An alibi was established to the satisfaction of the jury both with regard to Arthur Meikle and, what is more important, with regard to Lambert. Naturally, as my friends have pointed out, the question of the date entered largely into that evidence, for there is no proving an alibi unless a date is assigned as well as a place; but, as to Lambert's testimony, although the date w 7 as an element, it was very far from being the sole element. As Mr. Justice Williams rules in his summing-up to the jury, on page 48 of our printed pamphlet,— "H Lambert swore wrongfully as to the date, but rightly to the sheep having been removed, it would be absurd to suggest that fixing the date wrongfully was other than a mistake, if it was true that on some date or other about that time he saw Arthur Meikle drive the sheep." I submit it was proved to the satisfaction of the jury, and the Commissioners will find it proved similarly, that not merely 7 the chronology but the whole story told by 7 Lambert was unworthy 7 of credit. Of course, there were various important elements introduced into the case in 1895 for the first time. There was McGeorge's departure to fix the date of the alleged crime. There was the conversation with Lambert and McGeorge relative to these skins, and other matters, which I shall deal with full} 7 presently. Then Lambert was convicted and served his term, and not a word of his innocence was ever heard from that day until Dr. Findlay opened his case for the Crown before this Commission. Dr. Findlay said he was not an advocate for Lambert, but Lambert certainly 7 could not have been in better hands, for ho had the additional prestige of Counsel for the Crown to help him. The Government had no word of Lambert's innocence; they never assumed that his guilt was open to doubt. Mr. Justice Edivards: Who ever takes any notice of what a prisoner say 7 s about his innocence? Mr. Atkinson: It is not very common, your Honour. Some notice has been taken in this case; but, of course, this is one out of many hundreds. Mr. Justice Edwards: I would not say it is not common. I have reason to believe the contrary, because, unfortunately 7, prisoners are constantly in the habit of petitioning to be released, and are constantly in the habit of asserting their innocence. I know about these petitions, because they are referred to me for a report. I know instances where prisoners are constantly 7 protesting their innocence when it is as clear as the sun at noonday they are guilty. Mr. Atkinson: I did not mean to say the instances are uncommon, but believing them is very uncommon. Mr. Justice Edivards .- The wise prisoner who wants to get out does not begin by protesting his innocence, because the odds are he is likely to keep himself where he is. Mr. Atkinson: Of course, after he has got out the position is clearly changed. However, the curious point in this case is that the Government in adjusting the amount to be paid to Meikle has proceeded on the basis of his meritorious service in convicting a perjurer, and saving the country the cost of so doing. Mr. Justice Edwards: Supposing we come to the conclusion that the services were anything but meritorious. Mr. Atkinson: Then, your Honour, it is a serious position, of course. Ido not know whether the money 7 could be recovered : it is worth trying. I submit, at any rate, that was the position : and it is very odd, in view of the Government proceeding on the basis that the man was properly convicted of perjury, that my friends should now be putting a halo on his head, as Dr. Findlay did in Dunedin in his generous eulogy. I almost believe that my 7 friend yesterday would have provided him with a pair of wings if he had not been in such poor health. Now, y 7 our Honours, with regard to the case in 1906. The Commission is asked to review the previous trials, to pronounce on the evidence and on such new evidence as has been adduced, as to whether the two previous verdicts of 1887 and 1895 are compatible, and, if not, which should stand. That is the main burden of the task set before this Commission. Mr. Macdonald's statement yesterday that I approved of the form of this Commission is not correct. I was indirectly asked to advise upon the form of the Commission, and I did not care for it at all. I made some objections to it, but through some oversight attention was not paid to them; but after hearing the generous spirit in which Fhe Commission was going to interpret the task set before it all my objections vanished. I appreciated the substance and the spirit of the Commission's ruling. Now, your Honours, Dr. Findlay stated, on page 125 of the printed proceedings, "The essential witnesses as to essential questions are only Lambert on the one side and Meikle on the other." Of course, if your Honours believe Meikle's testimony, my task is very easy. If your Honours do not believe Meikle, I shall nevertheless submit that, excluding Meikle, his family, and servants —those most reasonably presumed to be under his influence —there was ample evidence to clear him and convict Lambert, his accuser. A good deal of evidence has been admitted here that would not be admitted in a Court of law. Taking first of all briefly the legal evidence, the question as to the fences is very much as the questions were in 1887. The question as to cultivation has been a good deal more widely treated. It was only lightly touched in 1887, and, T submit, was ignored as irrelevant in 1895. There is the question of the date, as to which I shall submit the change attempted by the Crown for the day of the crime is an impossible one. Then Lambert still remains, as I submit, the principal witness, and practically the sole witness, of all the essentials, and the various means of corroboration which were promised have failed. They have failed utterly so far as direct corroboration by legally admissible evidence is concerned, but have had some kind of success under the second class of evidence which your Honours have admitted. I propose first of all, in order to get it out of the road, to deal with"what is entirely new evidence before your Honours, and that is evidence which would not have been admissible in'a Court of law. I think lam giving a fairly complete summary when I say that evidence is as follows: (a.) For the Crown—(l) The company's losses previous to Meikle's conviction and the recurrence of these losses after his conviction : (2) the footprints of
34— H. 21.
H.—2l.
those sheep and man in the snow leading from the company's ground on to Meikle's; (3) Lambert's conversations with Troup, Stuart, and Leece relative to his dealings with Meikle; and (4) Arthur Meikle's statement to the witness Munro. Mr. Justice Cooper: That was after the event. Mr. Atkinson: Yes, your Honour; but you cannot call it irrelevant. Mr. Justice Cooper: It is not irrelevant, but it is after the event of the trial. Mr. Atkinson: lam dealing now with the cases before your Honours. If this had been known it would have gone in ; but all these heads of evidence I am dealing with now relate to matters that could not have been admitted. That, I submit, exhausts the benefit which the Crown has received by the relaxing of the strict rules of evidence. Then, on the other hand, for Mr. Meikle there are two points which come under this head. First of all, there is the evidence of Troup's admissions with regard to letters in his possession which would clear Meikle: and,'secondly, Meikle's statement to Detective Ede on the 3rd October, 1887. Mr. Justice Cooper: It has been assumed that it was inadmissible at the trial. I say nothing about that assumption, except that I do not subscribe to it entirely. Mr. Atkinson: Of course, it was immaterial to my case after your Honours' ruling. Mr. Justice Cooper: We did not rule upon it. I//- itkinson ■ There was some discussion upon it which does not appear in the report. Mr '.Justice Cooper: The position is this: Counsel for Meikle put a question to Detective Ede as to what Meikle said to him in September. The Judge presiding at the trial although there rs nothing in his notes about it, seems to have rejected the question, and no objection was taken by counsel for the defence. It is.assumed on both sides the question was properly rejected. I want to guard myself from expressing any opinion one way or the other. 1 do not say I agree with that assumption': I do not say I disagree with it. ~,.-, , Mr. Atkinson: It was His Honour the President who intimated the evidence was properly Justice Edwards: I did not say so. On the contrary, what I did say was to my brother Cooper—that the point was immaterial, as we had got rt now. Mr itkinson • Yes, your Honour : and for that reason there was some conversation on the point which does not figure in the report. It was not necessary to my case to maintain it was legally admissible, because I was not attacking what was done at the trial so long as I got it now before this Commission, and we have got it now. I remember distinctly what took place. I said the conversation with Detective Ede was ruled out, and Dr. Findlay said it was a proper ruling, and I thought it was His Honour Mr. Justice Edwards, or it may have been Dr. I mdlay, referred to a decision of Mr. Justice Richmond in the Chemis case. Mr Justice Edwards: I cannot charge my memory with what took place, but a casual remark made by a Judge in the course of proceedings of this sort is not to be taken as a definite ruling upon a point of law. Mr. Atkinson,: Of course, it is immaterial now, except that my classification is a little wrong. Mr Justice Cooper: All that is reported is this: — " I made a complaint on the 3rd October, 1887, to Detective Ede at Invercargill in consequence of what Lambert had told me." Then there is this statement by me, — " Mr. Justice Cooper: Well, that was admissible, but the particulars were not given in evidence." That seems to me the only reference to it. Mr. Atkinson: In regard to the reference to the Chemis case, I think Mr. Jellicoe wished to cross-examine some constables. Mr. Justice Edwards: No. The Crown in the course of its investigations found certain persons who said Chemis used threatening words in regard to Hawkins. They also found other persons who said Chemis had spoken about Hawkins as being a very nice old gentleman indeed. That evidence was not called by the Crown, of course; nor, I think, did they give any intimation of it to Mr. Jellicoe. Mr. Jellicoe published a statement in which he charged counsel and the Crown and the police officers and everybody concerned with falsely and maliciously suppressing evidence which would show Chemis's innocence. A libel suit was brought by Mr. Bell, and Mr. Jellicoe's trump card was that this evidence had not been called —that evidence referring to statements made by Chemis professing to show a friendly feeling towards Hawkins had not been led by the Crown. Upon that he hoped to get a jury to decide that, the Crown Prosecutor and the police had been guilty of the suppression of evidence in order to get an innocent man convicted of the crime of murder. His Honour Mr. Justice Richmond said when that was adduced at the civil trial that this suggestion was absurd, because it was plain that the evidence was inadmissible. That is how there came to be a ruling upon the point, I remember, now you mention it, that you are quite right in saydng that in Dunedin reference was made to the Chemis case. Mr. Atkinson: Of course, my only contention with regard to the point in the previous proceedings in Dunedin was that, whether or not the evidence was properly rejected, it was properly admissible into a report to the Executive. Well, your Honours, coming to this evidence not ordinarily admissible, very interesting questions are raised as to the effect upon legal procedure of relaxing these rules, and your Honours intimated last week that the relaxing of the rules did not imply attaching the same value to evidence of what I may call this inferior class, but for convenience I propose to group under this part of my argument all the evidence which seems to be of any importance that has come in by this liberal ruling. First then, your Honours, is the matter of the company's previous losses as compared with its subsequent losses—subsequent, that is, to Meikle's conviction. I submit that those are mainly matters for prejudice rather than evidence, but I feel it my duty to deal with them briefly, though to a legal mind I have not much fear of the matter carrying weight, It was opened by Dr. Findlay 7 —on page 107—that the company had lost in the
266
H.--2L
year preceding Meikle's arrest from one thousand two hundred to one thousand four hundred sheep. Troup was, I think, the only witness examined on the point, and he reduced the total to one thousand, which was less, but quite sufficiently serious—a thousand out of something like 2,279 sheep on the station. On page 131, at question 30, the evidence reads, — " Was the company losing sheep during the part of the year you were there ?—They had been losing sheep during my time, and also before. "31. What number of sheep had been lost for the year previous to the 19th October?— The book showed a leakage of over one thousand. "32. Mr. Justice Edwards.] Out of how many? —There might have been two thousand put on that land." I cross-examined the witness Troup as to the meaning of the words " that land," which clearly means the pre-emptive right " in that context, but I cross-examined him to see if he would refuse to say that 2,000 were ever on the pre-emptive right, but his memory was not clear enough to enable him to answer. That was last week. Then Troup goes on to say, on being recalled—on page 182, at question 782—in reply to Mr. Justice Cooper: — " I understood you to say- that something like a thousand sheep were stolen in the previous twelve months?— Yes. " 783. Do you suggest that Meikle stole those thousand?—No, I do not." The question as to the admissibility of that evidence appears at the top of the same page. I submit that the Crown is taking undue advantage of the liberty allowed by this rule in introducing such vague prejudicial matter. Dr. Findlay states his point at the top of page 182, where I objected to going into events subsequent to the conviction :—. "Dr. Findlay: It is .surely admissible. What I desire to ask the witness is this: he continued as manager of the company for two years; sheep were on the same piece of land from which these sheep had disappeared the year before; and his evidence is to the effect that after Meikle's conviction they lost no sheep for two years, although musters were regularly taken. " Mr. Justice Cooper: What inference is to be drawn from that? " Dr. Findlay: If before the conviction of Meikle those sheep were regularly disappearing, and after his conviction they ceased to disappear, the inference was that he was rightly convicted." 1 submit that the inference was a good deal wider, because twenty sheep do not make much of a hole in a thousand. "Mr. Justice Cooper: Another inference might be drawn: that the sentence of seven years, assuming that he was an innocent man, frightened away the sheep-stealers, who did not continue their depredations any longer." Then, at question 785, is his statement: — " Throughout the two years following Meikle's conviction the losses, which had been so large before, ceased altogether? —Yes; it became extinct; there were no losses worth recording." It is a very difficult position to put my client in—to face such a vague charge. Mr. Justice Edwards: That could not have been admissible at the trial, because the trial had taken place, but I think it might have been admissible probably in the case of an action for malicious prosecution. Mr. Atkinson: Well, your Honour, I submit that there would have to be some connection shown. Mr. Justice Cooper: It would be admissible in order to show that the defendant in prosecuting the prisoner had an honest belief that lie was stealing his sheep, and therefore he had a right to prosecute Meikle. Mr. Justice Edwards: I should think it would be admissible. Mr. Atkinson: I should hope not, your Honours. Well, then, your Honours, the position in which my client is placed, as I say, though mainly a matter of prejudice rather than evidence, is a somewhat serious one, and it was by great good fortune and the indulgence of your Honours' that we were enabled to lead evidence last week which, I submit, puts a very different complexion upon that evidence. Mr. Cameron—l cannot give your Honours the reference—confirmed in a general way the fact that there had been serious losses during the previous years, but the evidence that was called m rebuttal of that statement is, I submit, convincing. First of all there was Mr Perry who was called here on the 2nd. His evidence appears on B3 of 2nd January—Thomas William Perry, who was manager at Islay Station previously to Mr. Troup. We elicited from Mr Troup himself that he came in February, 1887. Mr. Perry- was his predecessor, and he had been he says abottttwo years m charge of the station before he gave way to Mr. Troup. He was asked on B3 — " Had you ever occasion to give notice to the police during your term of office with regard' to loss of sheep on the station ?—No. "Were there losses?— Yes, small losses, just as there are on every station. " Was there ever anything beyond that?— No. " If there had been a thousand sheep lost from Islay during any of those years you would have known of it?— Certainly. " Were you ever troubled with Meikle's sheep trespassing, or vice versa, during that time?— Sometrmes there were a few of Meikle's sheep on the station, and sometimes there were a few of ours on Meikle's. You could not help it." That, I submit, your Honours, is conclusive, coming from an authority presumably not biassed in our favour—the manager- who preceded Troup; and let me say that, seeing that Troup only came to the station in February, this statement by Troup with regard to the year preceding Meikle's convrctron, of course, covers part of the time during which Perry was manager, when there would be no losses. Then, we also had the evidence of the man who followed Troup as manager—Mr Chrrstre—on page A 4 m this bundle of evidence. His evidence begins there, and the statements I wish to quote are on page A 5. He came to the station in December, 1888—just a year after Meikle s oonviotion—and he was there for some years afterwards: —
267
268
H.—2l
" How many did you take over? —I would have to get my book. I cannot remember the exact figures. There were something like sixteen hundred when they passed through the shears. "When you had your first muster how many were short from that number?— Subsequent to shearing in January, 1889—well, the following year when we got them in to shear we were something under a hundred under what we could account for as having died and been killed. " And on your next muster ?—-Well, it was the next muster after this that we handed over the station and stock to J. G. Reid, and I was going away to another station, and I did not stop to muster the whole country. That is to say, we had the first muster, but I did not stop for the straggler muster, and up to the time I left there were some two hundred sheep short on the book tally, over and above those marked off from month to month as having died and been killed." So the position is, surely, on that evidence and excluding Troup's evidence, that there were more sheep stolen from Islay Station after Meikle's conviction than there were before. Mr. Justice Edwards: Why, because they did not get the straggler muster, which may have amounted to a good many ? Mr. Atkinson: For the first year, when the figures were a hundred, it was a complete muster. That is Mr. Christie's evidence. Mr. Justice Edwards: It was something under a hundred. Mr. Atkinson: Yes. It was the second shortage—the two hundred—that represented a muster which was not absolutely complete. Then, the curious position is this: that if, as Troup says, there were a thousand preceding Meikle's apprehension, they must have been crowded into the nine or ten months of that year of Troup's management, for there were none in the balance of that year or in the preceding year when Perry was there —when Meikle was there unchecked. There is the further fact as to the" muster that was brought out before the Commission, and was also put in the same form before the jury in 1887. The reference to Troup's evidence before this Commission is page 182, question 775: — " A muster was made in August, and another muster was made in October of the sheep on this pre-emptive right land near Meikle's land? —In 1887? "Yes; the muster showed that in these two months how many sheep had disappeared?—l think it was eighty-seven." Your Honours will find he was dealing with gross totals only. There was no deduction on account of sheep which had been killed, died, or strayed, and the evidence on the trial in 1887 was that the same man was responsible for the loss of the whole eighty-seven. Mr. Justice Edwards: You are mistaken. It refers to the others that disappeared as well. Mr. Atkinson: It could not have, because my client never got the benefit of them. Mr. Justice Edivards: That question does not show it. Mr. Atkinson: At page 23 of the evidence in 1887 given by Robert Troup you will find, " 640 put on turnips in August (559 taken off). There is the eighty-seven difference; and putting these two statements together justifies my contention that no allowance had been made, and that the loss represents the felony of some one, presumably my client, Mr. Meikle. Mr. Justice Edwards: What page are you at? Mr. Atkinson: Page 23—the evidence of Robert Troup, third paragraph. Mr. Justice Cooper: What is the number of the question you referred to just now? Mr. Atkinson: 776. Mr. Macdonald: Read his total re-examination. Mr. Justice Edwards: One would not expect a large loss between September and October, because that is a fine part of the year. Mr. Atkinson: If there were a thousand sheep going in the year before Meikle's arrest, and none during the months of Mr. Perry's management, it leaves at least a hundred a month for the balance. Directly we get to close quarters the statement is seen to be exaggerated. Mr. Justice Cooper: It seems to me rather strange that a thousand sheep should be stolen out of two thousand in twelve months. Mr. Macdonald: They were missed. Would you mind repeating his re-examination? Mr. Atkinson: "The difference of eighty-seven in number of sheep could not be accounted for by natural decrease." That does not say that natural decrease had been allowed for. Mr. Justice Edivards: There could not be naturally so large a decrease between those two months. I do not know anything about these interesting animals, but I should not think it probable at that time of the year. Mr. Atkinson: I am not saying that all the decrease was due to natural causes, but it is not for these people to bring serious charges without giving the person accused the benefit of all reasonable deductions. They were killing at the hut at this time. Mr. Macdonald: For two men. Mr. Atkinson: How about the station? But I do not propose to deal with that now. The second head of that class of evidence for the Crown is in regard to the footprints in the snow. Page 131, questions 35 and 36 of Troup's evidence, where he saw the tracks of sheep, of a man, and a dog leading over the snowy ground on the company's leasehold to Mr. Meikle's boundary. The value of that evidence it is not necessary for me to enlarge upon as against Meikle or anybody else, to the legal mind; but I would say it was cruel to lead such evidence, which must be absolutely futile for any judicial purpose, but is liable to create prejudice against the person accused. Look at questions on page 131 (35 and 36). Mr. Justice Edwards: Ido not see why he should not have asked those questions. I should have thought they were clearly admissible. Mr. Atkinson: As to what? Mr. Justice Edwards: The fact that he was stealing the company's sheep. Mr. Atkinson: Admissible in October to prove that he was stealing them in July?
H.—2l.
Mr. Justice Edward": Certainly —to prove the system. Mr. Atkinson: Without proving who was in charge of the sheep ? Mr. Justice Edwards: It is admissible for what it is worth. Mr. Atkinson : I submit it is worth absolutely nothing, and is calculated to prejudice the Court against the accused. Mr. Justice Edwards: 1 do not know whether 1 am competent to weigh evidence or not, but 1 should certainly attach importance to it. If I found that my sheep were disappearing, and into my neighbour's premises, 1 should certainly attach a great deal of suspicion to the man. Mr. Atkinson : It is clearly necessary for me to address my argument to your Honour. I did not so intend. I desire, then, to say that if the evidence is to be seriously treated before a competent tribunal, the selection of a snowy day, when sheep are difficult to drive and perfectly easy to track, points rather to the work of the real thief who stole the bulk of the thousand sheep and desired by -driving these sheep to Meikle's boundary to divert suspicion to him. That surely is the most reasonable and natural explanation of such a proceeding. The real thief, if driving them off to his own property, surely would not select such a day. I say that such a hypothesis is not to be sustained for a moment, especially in view of the superhuman cunning with which my client is credited. The third point is Lambert's conversation with Leece, Stuart, and Troup. I intend to deal with it fully at a later stage. The fourth point on which the Crown got the benefit on this class of the evidence was on young Meikle's statement to Munro, " They have got the old man at last. It is a good job, or he would have had the whole lot of us in gaol." I desire to point out that the remark was addressed to the company's servant in the presence of a stranger who knew nothing about the proceedings; that the change of a pronoun or noun or the intervention of another remark, which the witness honestly might not have heard, or the change of an idea in the speaker's mind would have given an absolutely opposite meaning to the expression. Two of the most likely explanations 1 suggest would be that the pronoun was "they " instead of "he," in reference to the action of the company, or that the reference was to Lambert instead of Meikle. Both he and his father were originally put on their trial together. Or take it that the words were as quoted without any context —and that is the worst suggestion that could be made against him —is it not possible that, the young man, dreading or professing to dread the hostility of the company, and desiring to conciliate it in a conversation with the servant of the company who had been a party to the charges of assault and perjury, which had led to most grievous difficulty between Meikle and the company, the petition to Parliament having been pending at the time when Meikle was arrested, might have used the words in the sense that it was "better he was out of it"? But what I think to be the strongest point is this : Nothing certainly is easier than to mistake a reference in a general conversation where the whole meaning depends upon a single pronoun; nothing is more impossible than to judge it fairly apart from the context, which is not forthcoming. An exceedingly interesting example of this kind of thing was before the Commission in the evidence of Leece and Fouhy as to what this same young Arthur Meikle said when the police came in. Detective Ede was the senior officer. Leece and fouhy both recorded the conversation to imply an admission of guilt on the part of young Meikle, and both conceded when a different statement was put before them that this was more probable. On page 22 of the 1887 trial you will find Leece's statement that " Ede asked Arthur Meikle, ' Have you the sheep here '? He replied, ' Yes; they are down in the paddock.' " Further on you find in the evidence of Detective Ede, " I asked if there were any sheep of Islay Station on their land. He: ' Yes, several ' —one an admission that he had got the sheep named in the warrant on the land, which would be tantamount to an admission of guilt, and the other that there were some Islay Station sheep on the land, which, as far as it goes, tends to support the theory of innocence. There is a case of two unprejudiced and qualified men reporting a conversation and giving diametrically opjiosite accounts in perfect innocence and good faith. And I must put it. to Constable Leece's credit that, after having repeated the words in a similar manner in Dunedin, when he was faced with Detective Ede's version of the story he was quite prepared to accept it. Of course, in this particular case the case is really stronger than in the conversation with the witness Munro. There are circumstances that make the conversation as reported by 7 Leece and Fouhy absurd —that the sheep named in the warrant were fifty-four and there were only twenty-seven found on the land. It cannot be taken that the whole of the sheep named in the warrant were acknowledged by the lad to be fifty-four. It is absurd to suggest such a thing. Constable Leece's admission is on page 142: — "398. He [Ede] says at page 22, 'Search-warrant read to Arthur Meikle. I asked if there were any sheep of Islay Station on their land. He said "Yes, several." Are you prepared to say that was the way he put the question?—l think he said, ' Are those the sheep here ' when I read the warrant. "399. How many sheep were you searching for? —The number named in the warrant. I think it was fifty-four. " 400. There were not fifty-four, were there?— No. "401. Did it not strike you as more probable that Detective Ede would put his question in this way: 'I asked if there were any sheep of Islay Station on their land. He said, "Yes, several "'? If he said that in his evidence it is probable he put the question in that way?—lt is quite probable." That is a fair admission from a perfectly unbiassed witness which quite unintentionally had put a very serious construction upon an answer which, I submit, is now proved to have, been quite innocent. And with regard to Munro's conversation, the young man not being here, and the old man not being a party to the conversation, without impugning in any way the good faith of Munro, I submit the Commission will not read the serious meaning in it that "my friends desire. With regard to the evidence on behalf of Meikle of this inferior order, there are the admissions alleged to have been made by Troup with regard to the evidence in his possession which would clear Meikle.
269
H.—2l.
Mr. Justice Edwards: Suppose we believe that Troup has said something to that effect, what inference do you desire us to draw ? That Cameron, Troup, and Lambert had conspired together to falsely convict this man of sheep-stealing, and that Cameron had written letters to Troup, which he had kept in his pocket for two years showing their guilt? Is that the inference we are to draw? I am merely seeking information. It is probable enough that the witnesses are very reputable people. It is probable enough that Troup may have made some wild statement when he was discharged from his employment; but, assuming that to be so, what inference are we to draw if we are not to draw the inference I have suggested? And is it conceivable that that inference can be drawn ? Is it conceivable that if two would conspire together to commit this crime, which would be a crime almost as bad as murder, one of them would be foolish enough to put in into writing, and that the other one would carry it about in his breast pocket for all that time? Is that conceivable? Mr. Atkinson: I submit it is not essential to my case to even suggest the names of the persons or the name of the person to whom Troup was referring as the writer of that letter. It might have been Lambert or any one of twenty people ; but 1 do submit this, without going a step beyond the inevitable inference from those words, it amounts to this: that Troup as manager of the station at the time of Meikle's conviction knew that if the whole truth were out Meikle would be out of gaol. Mr. Justice Edwards: If we are to believe the evidence, and we are to suppose that Troup was not —as the witnesses last called suggested—simply boasting or bragging or giving vent to his ill-temper by wild statements on his discharge from the company or removal from the managership, we must believe, if he was telling the truth, that not only was he satisfied of Meikle's innocence, but that he had in his pocket documentary evidence which would show it. Mr. Atkinson: I must confess I feel a little more sense of responsibility than my learned friends,_ who see their way to a clear inference of fabrication. Ido not care to charge these men with being a party to a conspiracy when the only direct inference I have relates to some person unknown, and when the identity- of that person, it seems to me, is absolutely immaterial to my case. Mr. Justice Edwards: If you eliminate every name but Troup's you must assume conspiracy. Troup is the only known conspirator. The inference must be that there was a conspiracy between Troup and some person unnamed to falsely procure your client's conviction of sheep-stealing, and that the unnamed conspirator had put the evidence of that conspiracy into writing, and that Troup was carrying it about in his pocket for two years. lam actually seeking for information. _ Mr Atkinson: I do not know what Troup had in his pocket; I only know what he had in his mind. I must confess I thought the most improbable item in Mrs. Meikle's evidence in Dunedin was when she made a similar reference to what Mr. Troup claimed to have in his pocket: but one or two witnesses confirmed it. And it seemed to me still more probable when Troup produced a couple of memorandum-books out of his pocket in the Court here last week, and appeared to be prepared to tell me from his own private diary different things that happened in 1887. But when I asked to be allowed to look through the book he w 7 ould not hand it over. Mr. Justice Edwards: He said you would not understand the entries, as they were something like Greek. If you had pressed for it you could have got it, but you let it go, and I did not suppose you wanted it. Mr. Atkinson: I just wanted to look at the contemporary entries, and I thought I got a definite refusal. But the inference is some such infer-enoe as your Honour has stated—that he had documentary evidence, and it seems to me that by the time all this evidence is set out together it rs very strong. Mr. Justice Edwards: I am pointing out to you—l am not committing any one to what I say, not even myself, without consideration—there is a large body of witnesses who show that Troup has been making wild statements, and, assuming that he did make those statements, I want to know what rt means. The witnesses you called last—two very respectable female witnesses—stated that they regarded what Troup said as boasting and bragging, as far as I remember, and they both thought Troup was in a very ill temper because he was removed from his position. Mr. Atkinson: Surely there are various hypotheses outside a formal conspiracy under hand and seal. Mr. Justice Edivards: He talks about a document in his breast-pocket, and Mrs. Meikle says it was two years after Meikle was convicted. Mr. Atkinson: The chronology is confirmed. I did not notice that point, They speak about the time Troup was leaving the station, which was at the end of 1888. Mr. Justice Edwards: That they fixed the date. Mr. Atkinson: Mr. Christie was the only one who was anything like definite on the date, because he succeeded Troup, and the conversation took place at the homestead, and he could fix it. Mr. Justice Edwards: I think they all agree that Troup was in an ill temper about being superseded, so that they must all have spoken about the same time, although none of them attempt to speak more definitely than that. Mr. Atkinson: Suppose— not to carry my charges an inch further than they have gone already —that Lambert had written, " If you do not give me that £50 and another £50 besides, T shall let people know that Meikle ought not to be in gaol." Mr. Justice Edwards: I do not think Lambert could ever have said that. Mr. Atkinson: Well, he is more likely to have said, "I will blow the gaff," or, "I will let the cat out of the bag," or something of that kind. Mr. Justice Edwards: Unless your charge is one of conspiracy, there is nothing against anybody. Mr. Atkinson: It is not a position which would have suited the company, at any rate. Mr. Justice Edivards: If you are to believe the witnesses, Mr. Troup was very angry, and I do not see any reason to disbelieve them.
270
H.—2l.
Mr. Atkinson: Of course, I would put it to your Honours, if you had not seen the witness, it might be supposed it was the result of an outburst of passion that had got "no substantial reality behind it; but in view of the fact that these conversations evidently took place somewhere about the same period, and in view of the fact that Troup is a quiet, collected sort of man, as one could see when he was m the witness-box—in view of the fact that several of the witnesses spoke of his quiet demeanour—no one who spoke to him for five minutes would ever suspect him of a joke—seeing also that he is deliberate in his speech—l say, putting all these things together, the possibility of his merely having done it in a momentary pique, or in any other fashion which would take away the natural meaning from his words, is highly improbable. Mr. Justice Edivards: That is what all the witnesses said. We know some of these very quiet, collected men are sometimes the most vindictive. Mr. Atkinson: I will put it to your Honours presently that the bulk of these witnesses took him to mean what he said. Mr. Justice Cooper: None of them said they took him seriously. Mabin, who gives the most circumstantral account, said he did not take him seriously. Mr. Atkinson: It is a very odd thing, your Honours. Tdo not know whether the expression is used differently in Southland, but one other witness said the same thing in Dunedin. However, I got the clue to Mabin's meaning before the cross-examination concluded, because he said subsequently he reckoned it was none of his business—this was not a matter for him to pay serious attention to. But your Honours will notice when I put the question to him whether he took him to be joking, he said, " Certainly not," Mr. Justice Edwards: They all said he was not joking, but was ill-tempered. He was angry and holding out a vague threat which had no substance. That is what I understood them to mean. Mr. Atkinson: Of course, I am speaking from recollection, and I must not speak too precisely, but my strong rmpression is that only two of the witnesses, of whom Mabin was one and one of the ladies we had here last week was the other, did use that expression. Mr. Justice Cooper: Mabin in his evidence says this :— " 348. When this man made the statement to'you, did you take it seriously?—No, I did not take it seriously. I did not know whether he was correct in his statements or not, " 349. He was talking against the company in a publichouse, and he makes use of this statement, and you did not take him seriously?— No. " 350. Did you refer to the police, or report the matter in any way?— No. "351. Did you communicate with Meikle?—No; I did not think anything more about it. " 352. It escaped your memory?- -Yes." Mr. Atkinson: The question I put to this witness, on page 90, was this: — " 365. Was there anything to show that Troup was joking when he made this remark about documents ?—No." And the next was :— " What do you mean by saving that yon did not take it seriously?—l did not think it was any business of mine." Mr. Justice Cooper: Well, I think you will find all the witnesses practically say the same thing —they did not take him seriously, but they understood him to mean what he said. Mr. Atkinson: Yes: but I certainly have a clear recollection of Mrs. Beange's evidence. I think she was asked a similar question. Mr. Justice Cooper: Mrs. Beange says the same thing. Mr. Findlay: Mr. Johnson says the same thing. Mr. Justice Edwards: I never rely upon mv memory — I prefer the shorthand notes; but I think they all said the same thing. Certainly, Mr. Atkinson is quite right in saying one of these ladies wound up by saying, " I think he meant it all the same." Mr. Atkinson: That was Mrs. Beange. . Mr. Findlay: Johnson said, "Of course, I could not understand the man or what he meant by it all." Mr. Atkinson: Christina Beange said in her evidence: — " I did not think it was for much good the way he said it. At the same time, I did not take any heed of what he said. I was busy with mv work at the time, and he was just merely talking." Mr. Justice Cooper: Mrs. Beange also said the same as Mabin. This is her evidence: " You did not take it seriously?— No. "Did you think Troup was joking?— Well, he has rather peculiar sayings, and I did not, know anything about it, for we did not know anything about the case. " Was he smiling when he made the remark?—l do not think he would be." She was cross-examined in the same way, and in her re-examination she gave this evidence: — " You used the expression that you thought it was ' a boast ' ?—Yes; I thought he was making a brag on leaving the company 7 —that perhaps he thought they had used him badly; but I did not bother anything about it. "Had you no idea at all as to what he meant?—No, I could not say; but I did not think it was for much good the way he said it. At the same time, I did not take'anv heed of what he said. I was busy with my work at the time, and he was just merely talking. " In what tone was he speaking?— Not very pleasant." Then, William Beange said, " I think that he meant what he said." Johnson said,— "Did you take him to mean what he said?—Of course, I could not understand the man or what he meant by it all." Mrs. Johnson says at the end of her evidence:— "You did not take rt seriously, I suppose?— No. " Did you take Mr. Troup to mean what he said ?—I did not know whether he meant it or not; but I think he would hardly have said it if he could not do it,"
271
EL— 21
272
Then, Mr. Kidd was the gentleman who knew nothing about it. Christie's statement differed. He said Troup said, " A word from me would bring Meikle out." However, I suppose there are only two possible inferences to be drawn—one, that Troup was angry with the company and did uot care what he said, and therefore what he said was untrue ; or that he meant what he said, and had something in his possession which "would have satisfied the authorities that Meikle was an innocent man. Mr. Atkinson: Yes, that is where I desire to be allowed to leave it. That is exactly the way I put it; but I did not want to have to frame an indictment for conspiracy, and have to mention the peopie who ought to go into it. I would like to say, before concluding my 7 remarks to-day, that I regard this evidence that was brought up here last week on this point as of the utmost importance for the double purpose of absolutely discrediting Troup's testimony 7 in any event, because he has sworn deliberately he did not use this language to any 7 of these witnesses. If he swears that, there are only two alternatives : either he is not responsible for his words, or that he knows what he was saying and is prepared to contradict it. In either case, his testimony must be regarded as unworthy of credit. Of course, there is the other important point that he shows that he knew if the whole truth came out Meikle's conviction would not stand. There is another point which I regard as of the utmost importance on this side of the case, and that is that it has incidentally corroborated the testimony of Mrs. Meikle in the one part of her testimony on which the most grievous doubt had been thrown. It would nol be suggested by my learned friend that there was any possible collusion between Mrs. Meikle and some of the witnesses who gave evidence last week. It was, indeed, elicited from some of them by 7 Mr. Findlay in his cross-examination that they had held no communication with Meikle about it, and had only 7 quite recently been called upon to give evidence, or had any idea of giving evidence ; and Christie stated expressly that he never mentioned the conversation to anybody 7 until I put the question to him on the morning of the day he was called to give evidence. So that there is no possibility of collusion. Then, I submit that, highly improbable as the statement sounded as Mrs. Meikle made it in Dunedin —highly improbable a, priori, and perhaps unbelievable if Troup's evidence alone were admitted against it —the substantial fact to which she has deposed, and even the manner in which she deposed to the statement having come out, have been borne out in a very striking fashion by independent witness after witness in the Court here last week. Now, that being the case, your Honours, I would suggest that it would not be reasonable if the mistake which she made in regard to the name of the solicitor to whom she mentioned the matter—it would not be reasonable that that mistake should be allowed to discredit, as was suggested by 7 your Honours last week, not merely her evidence on that point, but her entire credibility as a witness. It would surely 7 be a singular position if the essential fact to which she was deposing were absolutely 7 borne out by independent testimony, and an absolutely unessential circumstance that she mentioned incidentally with regard to it should be treated as invalidating her whole testimony. "You spoke the truth on the main fact, but an incidental circumstance was incorrectly stated. We find that you spoke the truth, but we find that, you are a liar nevertheless: we may believe this one statement to which you are deposing, but we cannot believe any other statement." It, would be a singular position in which the Court would find itself. Mr. Justice Cooper: You might nut it in this way: You have called a number of witnesses who have sworn to Troup making the statement that he had documents in his possession which would clear Meikle ; that Mrs. Meikle must have heard it—and she says she did—and there is nothing inconceivable in her going to Troup and asking for those documents. And you might, perhaps, put it in this wav : that she may have made a mistake from inaccuracy 7 of recollection when she said that she went to Mr. William Stout, because she must have known that, if that was untrue Mr. Stout could have been brought here in twenty-four hours to contradict her. Mr. Justice Edivards: T cannot see how there could have been a mistake about Mr. William Stout, because Mr. Stout was identified not only in his own person, but by reason of his relationship to a much greater personage. . Mr. Atkinson: I desire to meet the point. I did not look through the text of that discussion, but on looking through it now I do not find that your Honour's inference is borne out. At question 600, on page 158, and the following questions—right through these questions it is quite true that Mr. William Stout's name is mentioned, but you will see there was no pressing as to the identity. Mr. Justice Cooper: You have to take question 471 : — " Had you got, £100?— No ; but Mr. Stout, the lawyer, would advance it to me if I could get the letters. " 472. Did you say anything else to him?—He said he did not know how to go about it; and I said, ' You write to Sir Robert Stout and he will advise you, or give me instructions and T will write.' " Mr. Atkinson: The next question is: — " Did you mention that to anybody 7 ?—l mentioned it to several people. I told it to Mr. Finn, a lawyer in Invercargill." Then, the cross-examination is over the page, at questions 600 to 606; but what I would put to your Honours is that it was no part of my friend's case to prove that it was Mr. Finn more than Mr. Stout or anybody else ; and I do not think you will find right through that she was asked to swear that it was Mr. Stout, and nobody 7 else. " 600. You had a good adviser, apparently, in Sir Robert Stout. Was it him or his brother, Mr. Stout?—l used to see Mr. Stout sometimes. " 601. And y 7 ou say that Mr. Stout was to find the money?—He said he would get the money for me if I could get the letters. " 602. You swear that you told Mr. Stout that this man Troup admitted that he had letters in his possession which would get your husband out of gaol—letters signed by Cameron?—No; I did not tell Mr. Stout that. I said I was going to see Troup—that he had letters in his possession.
H.—2!
273
" 603. You said you were going to see him?— Yes. " 604. But you admit you did not tell him what Troup told you after you saw Troup?—No." Then the next question does not touch Mr. Stout at all. Might I put it to your Honours that the identity of her legal adviser—of course, it is perfectly clear in her mind throughout, but the identity was not challenged by Dr. Findlay's questions. It was more the substance of the interview that he was after, and the incidental error with which she started was enough Mr. Justice Cooper: There is no doubt that, whether innocently or not, she intended the Commissioners to believe that she had consulted Mr. William Stout. Mr. Atkinson: Undoubtedly, your Honour. Mr. Justice Edwards: But there is a great deal more than that, because this was not a consultation. This was a most remarkable arrangement. He was to find £100, to get —what? Some letters. It is a thing there could be no mistake about. Mr. Atkinson: I submit that for a woman who is not a woman of business, who had probably had nothing to do with a lawyer until her husband was in gaol, and who probably went to lawyer after lawyer over this business—l submit that the question of whether it was Mr. Finn or Mr. Stout, though it would be a serious mistake for a professional man, is a very trifling thing for a woman. Mr. Justice Edwards: A woman is much more likely to remember a person in that way than a man. Mr. Justice Cooper: She was speaking fifteen years after the event, of course. Mr. Atkinson: Yes; and as I think I am entitled to put it that the identity Mr. Justice Edwards: There could not be any possibility of mistaking Mr. Stout for Mr. Finn. I do not know either of them, but I know that one of them is a Shetland-Islander and the other an Irishman, and you could not possibly mistake one for the other. Mr. Atkinson: There is a Mr. Henderson too, and another gentleman. Mr. Justice Cooper: She does say that she spoke to Mr. Finn about it. Mr. Atkinson: At any rate, your Honours, the fact to which she was deposing having been more clearly established than any fact which has been seriously disputed before this Commission, and the question of identity not being a matter of the first importance—a matter of which she would take special notice — and not a matter which was emphatically challenged in her crossexamination, T submit that your Honours will treat the evidence that was given here last week as re-establishing the witness and entitling her to the benefit of the doubt as having made an innocent mistake. Mr. Justice Cooper: It stands on quite a different footing to what it would stand on if Troup had told her that she would get the letters ; and then she made a statement that she had consulted Mr. Stout, and if she was contradicted by Troup and Mr. Stout, and there was no other evidence to show that Troup had said to any one else he had got the letters. Mr. Justice Edwards: Troup did not deny having had a conversation with Mrs. Meikle. Mr. Justice Cooper: He denies all through that he said he had such a document. He does give an account of an interview that she had with him upon the street, and admits that she told him that some people had told her that he (Troup) had papers and documents that would get Meikle out of gaol. He then said he told her that any one who had told her that was misunderstanding the whole position—that he had no such documents or papers whatever. He gives a circumstantial acoount of the interview. It is the only one that he does give an account of. He contents himself throughout the other cases —excepting Mabin's—with denying that he made any such statement to any one or that anything was said about a document. Mr. Atkinson: There was a general denial with regard to the Wellington witnesses. Leaving then, your Honours, this part of the case, I submit in conclusion that first of all the result of the evidence is to re-establish Mrs. Meikle's credibility as a witness, notwithstanding her mistake as to the name of the solicitor she consulted ; secondly, to discredit Troup absolutely as a witness ; thirdly, to prove that the manager of the station at the time of Meikle's conviction knew that if the whole truth came out Meikle would be cleared. The Court adjourned at 4.15 p.m.
Wednesday, 9th Januabt, 1907. Mr. Atkinson: If your Honours will allow me to refer to the statement I was making as to how the case would have stood against Meikle without Lambert's evidence, I would refer your Honours to the charge of Mr. Justice Williams to the grand jury when Lambert was originally committed for trial, and the remark made to the Commission at my opening address^ Mr. Justice Edwards: You said that one was printed, and the other was not. Mr. Atkinson: It was given to the Commission from the same paper as I have got here. Mr. Justice Edwards: Where is it in the opening? The Crown did not object to your referring to what was printed in that pamphlet, but I do not know that they went beyond that. Mr. Macdonald: In that case the pamphlet was before us. In this other case Ido not know that we have any evidence before us at all. Mr. Justice Edwards: What do you read it from ? Mr. Atkinson: The Southland Times. Mr. Justice Edwards: Of course, you are quite conscious that there is not a paper in New Zealand that reports legal proceedings fully or accurately. Mr. Atkinson: I think my friend has been relying on the same sort of evidence. Mr. Macdonald: I relied upon my notes at the trial. Mr. Atkinson: " The present charge of perjury is made by the then accused against a person who was a witness for the Crown at, the preliminary inquiry at Wyndham and also at the trial here,
35—H i2l.
H.—2l
The evidence that the person now accused then gave was undoubtedly of the highest importance in the case of sheep-stealing, and without it the accused would not have been convicted." 1 propose to proceed now to rebut the general presumption, against my client in relation to the presence of the company's sheep upon his land. 1 will just run briefly through the evidence which has been led before your Honours on the subject of the relative attractiveness of the sheep-feed on the two properties at the period in question. According to His Honour Mr. Justice Ward's report, it was strongly in favour of the company at the trial in 1887. Of course, any evidence called now is subject to exception, and my friends have been very sweeping in their objections. Mr. Justice Edwards: 1 do not wish to stop you or abbreviate your remarks, but in our opinion the mere presence of the live sheep on the man's land would not be sufficient to justify a conviction. I do not wish in the least degree to abbreviate your address, but I say so much in your client's favour. Of course, if there are other circumstances taken in conjunction with the presence of the live sheep there, such as the skins of the dead sheep, that would be a consideration. Mr. Justice Cooper: Of course, they say that Lambert's evidence was the major evidence on which the Crown relied to show that those skins were placed in the smithy by Meikle. Mr. Atkinson: Then, your Honours, 1 will simply pass from that. ' I rather resented my friend's criticism on the class of evidence and the ease with which it could have been manipulated. Mr. Justice Edimrds: We do not wish in the least to interrupt you, Mr. Atkinson. Mr. Atkinson: The answer I should make to that criticism is this': that, of course, general evidence at this period of time would be open to grave suspicion, but where persons are competent observers, and where they have specific reason for directing attention to the matter at issue, their testimony is important. I would refer your Honours to the evidence of James Forsaith, Mabin (who leased the pre-emptive right), Kidd, W T ild, Johnson (who was working at Gregg's), Westacott, and Ebenezer Forsyth. In the cases of Mabin, Wild, and Ebenezer Forsyth, of course, they were brought by business into direct relation with Meikle's property. Ebenezer Forsvth took charge of the crop for the mortgagees. James Forsaith paid special attention to the crop when he took home a cow from McGattigan's on the 7th September, 1887. The only point on which he was shaken was as to the year, but he afterwards corrected the suggestion that it was 1886 and not 1887, and it was definitely proved by Winter that he went with him at the same time. I will not detail that evidence after what your Honours have said. With regard to (lie crops on the company's land— the turnips in October—we have the following evidence as to the attractiveness of turnips at that period of the year : Kidd said turnips would be spongy ; Wild said that turnips would not be much at that time—scarcely anything; Johnson said they would be eaten off or nearly rotten ; Mabin said they would not be worth anything; Ebenezer Forsyth, that turnips would be pretty well eaten : Perkins that they would be all rotten. On the other hand, Duncan, one of the witnesses, spoke of turnips as good in October, and Fleming, called in Dunedin by the Crown, said that all good farmers should have turnips in September and October, and occasionally into November. Troup said there were only about 30 acres, and they were pretty well knocked about. The question of the boundarvfence in the pre-emptive right in Meikle's property is not seriously relevant to the case because as I put it to your Honours, the most easy way was not through the fence but past the unfenced land along the Waiankiki Road to the school-reserve, where, according to the evidence of Baynes, Duncan and Telford, there was a gap large enough for the admittance of a dray. Proceeding from that evidence to the evidence more directly relevant to this crime, of course, we come at once to the credibility of Meikle—to the personality of Meikle and the credibility of his own evidence as well as the veracity of those whom lie may be presumed to have influenced." I must take it upon myself to say that I cannot but feel that the wrongs of a cruelly injured man have been increased by what he lias had to pass through before this Commission. The cross-examination was conducted with great vigour and ability by Dr. Findlay in Dunedin. It cannot have been welcome work to him It was work which nobody would have done without special instructions, and, as I have said the work was carried out ably. But Ido submit that the line of cross-examination shows a complete misconception of the duty and the dignity of the Crown in this matter. The severest possible cross examination on every fact in the most remote degree bearing on the alleged crime was of course proper, and was, indeed invited by Mr. Meikle's appearance before this Commission ; but the universal mud-slinging that was indulged in during his cross-examination before this Commission I submit was entirely improper. tCtltnenr rdS: VGrjtKm " is P ro P er in cross-examination which goes to test the credits I 1""' A f™ son -: Of c ° ur f! lam not objecting on the ground of legal inadmissibilitv, but on the ground of policy and of fairness of treatment of a man who has to face such an inquiry a this. The archives of the police have been ransacked in the hunt for utterly irrelevant and improvable offences. The alleged events of 1899 were made the subject of an exhaustive cross examination and even the alleged events of 1881 were also brought before this Court. The alleged complaint of a girl who obtained money by false pretences, who was charged with it and akinst whom the proceedings were dropped, in the manner explained, after the intercession of the girl's parents, and the supposed counter-charges that this young woman made to the police—a charge to which any one would be open who preferred such an accusation—the supposed charge of this young woman was even made the subject of examination, and threats were made of the production of police officials to prove not that it was true, but that whether false or true it had been made It was impossible for my client at that distance of time to go into the whole matter, though he would have been very thankful to have done it, My friend undertook to produce the information and the summons, but it seems it was'impossible to obtain them. All that my client could do was to get the report of the case which appeared in the Dunedin papers, and my client put in a copy of It in his examination in rebuttal in Wellington. Surely, your Honours, insinuations of disgusting crimes of which no legal proof has ever been offered or ever can be produced in any Court—insinuations winch the judicial minds in this Commission will put aside, but which by their mere mention
274
275
H.—2l
raise a prejudice in the minds of the unthinking —surely, your Honours, insinuations of that kind form no proper part of the case for the Crown. And notwithstanding 1 have no technical ground for asking that they be ruled out, I have the right to protest against the attitude taken up for the purpose of injuring my client. Apart from these vile charges and insinuations, the counsel for the Crown rely upon certain contradictions elicited in cross-examination as to Mr. Meikle's relations with a certain young woman in Invercargill. We had a veiled lady 7 brought before the Court in order to give theatrical point to this examination, and one's imagination is appalled at the procession of veiled ladies that might go through the Court if the precedent is to be followed and that kind of relation is to be made the subject of investigations when any one comes into Court whose credibility as a witness is at stake. The relation is, unfortunately, so common that if Mr. Meikle had to wait for a man who is without sin to be the first to cast a stone, he might have to wait a long time. But, of course, it is not the relation itself, but the denials and evasions, that my friends are able to make the basis of any relevant argument as addressed to your Honours. Your Honours will have noticed even in the concluding sentence of my learned friend Mr. Macdonald's address "he dwelt upon this matter, as 1 say, in the indirect and prejudicial way which constitutes the real injury to my client, and not in the manner which is directly relevant to his credibility. Is it an alleged breach of the seventh or eighth commandment that this Commission was set up to inquire into? Mr. Justice Edwards: Nobody would suppose that the fact of a man having had immoral relations with a woman would in itself necessarily involve the fact that he was a man who should not be believed. I should not suppose it; but the gravamen of the matter as it touched Meikle was that he swore falsely. Mr. Atkinson: I am quite aware, your Honour, of the distinction, and I am quite aware that what I am speaking to as matters of prejudice would not prejudice your Honours; but surely I am entitled, when a large quantity of matter besides the direct issue has been brought in, has raised prejudice, and has caused cruel suffering to my client —surely I am just as much entitled to comment upon it as my friends were entitled to bring it in. Mr. Justice Edwards: 1 am merely pointing out what I consider relevant. Mr. Atkinson: Coming, then, to your Honour's point as to the effect upon the credibility of Meikle as a witness, I desire to point out that the relations which formed the subject of that investigation in Mr. Meikle's cross-examination constitute a special class ; that there is an instinctive secrecy 7 inherent in human nature with regard to these matters —an admirable safeguard on the whole, undoubtedly; but the desire for concealment results in an entirely different attitude prevailing with regard to these nratters from the openness which prevails elsewhere. How many men in this Court, or out of it, could stand a similar cross-examination in a suit dealing purely with property and business transactions to that to which Meikle was subjected? Mr. Justice Edwards: Rightly 7 or wrongly 7 , there is supposed to be a code of honour upon people who trangress the rules, which we properly 7 consider should govern the morals of people in this respect, that it is justifiable to tell a lie with a view of shielding the woman, but your client did not do so. What he did was rather to blacken the character of the woman, and to attempt to throw the stigma arising from his own irregular action upon his nephew. Mr. Justice Cooper: You must not forget that it was placed very clearly, both by my brother Edwards and myself, before Meikle. Ton will notice on page 60 of the report I said, — " You know what sleeping in the same room is. Of course, if it were proved, it only goes to your reputation, and not to the real issue; but if you deny it, and it turns out afterwards that your evidence is untrue, it affects your credibility on the main issue." 'then Mr. Meikle, quite properly, said, " 1 admit that." And after that he specifically and forcibly denied that he Lad ever had intercourse with this woman. He specifically denied it after having had it put to him in that favourable way to him, and he specifically swore that it was untrue, that he had never slept with her, and had never been guilty of any immoral relation, and it was not until afterwards that he retracted this evidence. The very point that you are putting now was put to your client in the box. Mr. Atkinson: lam putting the point to your Honours in this way: I fully appreciate your Honour's kind intervention in that manner ; but I say 7 there is, nevertheless, this distinction, and it is implanted in human nature, and it will not be treating a witness fairly not to recognise the distinction. Mr. Justice Edivards: I never heard of it being conceded, except with a view of protecting a woman. There is that code which is supposed to justify people in telling lies about that very class of transgression with a view of protecting the woman. But Meikle did not seek to protect the woman at all; on the contrary, he blackened the woman and sought to throw the transgression on his nephew. There is no code or supposed code which would justify that. Mr. Atkinson: Of course, in the case of a man who has lost all sense of shame for himself your Honour's argument would apply. The best of men has something to keep back, and the worst of men has some shame in proclaiming to the world a matter of this kind as to which Mr. Meikle was cross-examined in this way. How would any jury in a commercial case treat that kind of examination? and how would any jury even in a case where personal character and reputation were at stake—an action for slander or libel—treat it? I should say the only result would be to increase the damages to the person who was subjected to that kind of attack. Mr. Justice Edwards: If he had simply said, "The woman is as pure as Diana, and I never touched her nor anybody else, to my knowledge," the jury would have excused that even if it could be proved false; but, so far as my knowledge and experience goes, no jury would excuse an answer which was not to shield the woman, but to blacken the woman, and to throw the transgression on to the shoulders of another man, and that man his nephew. Mr. Atkinson: I submit the jury would resent as irrelevant such a line of cross-examination. Mr. Justice Cooper: I have had a good deal more experience of juries than you have, Mr. Atkinson, and what a jury does resent is an unfair attack upon a man's reputation, which is not
H.—2l.
relevant to the matter, and which may tend to blacken the character of a girl; and a jury will look with a very lenient eye upon an untruthful statement made by the man for the purpose of shielding a girl. My experience of juries is, however, that if a man for the purpose of saving his own reputation throws an untruthful stigma upon another man or upon a girl the jury resents that against the man. That is human nature. Of course, you must not forget that in this particular instance Mr. Meikle in his evidence affirmed and asserted with very great force that he was a man against whose character and reputation nothing whatever could be said for the last forty years. He affirmed it with great force, and he claims heavy damages on the ground that his reputation has suffered. Mr. Atkinson: Yes, your Honour, he has been branded as a sheep-stealer, and the other side can prove him to be something else. Mr. Justice Cooper: If you look at Meikle's evidence it was before the sheep-stealing arose. You find how Meikle affirmed that no one could raise anything against him and say, " You are a bad man." Mr. Atkinson: Whatever took place did not bring an inquiry of this sort within the scope of the order of reference of this Commission, and 1 submit, with all deference to your Honours, that it was a cruel proceeding and unworthy the dignity of the Crown to introduce it in a case of this kind. 1 submit also, with deference to your Honours, that a common jury would have resented the line of cross-examination, and the result would have been a sentimental gain to my client. Mr. Justice Edwards: It does not matter what a common jury or a special jury would have done about it. This is the important point: Where you find your client has committed and reiterated perjury where he conceived it to be in his interest to do so in the course of this inquiry, and in the course of that perjury has blackened the character of the woman with whom he is alleged to have had illicit relations, and with whom he adrrrits he had illicit relations, and moreover to shield himself endeavours to throw the result of his transgression upon another man, and that man his nephew, can we attach tire slightest weight to the credibility of that person ? Mr. Atkinson: I submit you can, your Honour. I submit there is a radical distinction between the two departments. There is the instinct to which I have referred irnpiauted in our nature which sets up this distinction. Mr. Justice Edwards: I never heard of it. Mr. Atkinson: And my reference to the common jury is not by way of suggesting that the prejudices of a common jury should be taken by this Court as being a standard for its deliberations, but as only indicating what the attitude of human nature is in regard to these questions. I leave the point now. I say that there is this vital distinction, and 1 feel that the general feeling of the community does resent strongly the introduction by the Crown of matters of this kind in a State trial, where the one and real issue is whether or not Meikle was properly convicted of sheep-stealing in 1887. I submit that your Honours will be doing quite right in recognising that distinction and in not confusing the two departments which everyday experience of the world and the common sense and common charity of mankind keep as wide asunder as possible. Mr. Justice Edwards: You wish us to say that we believe that a man would commit wilful and deliberate perjury, reiterated perjury, to free himself from a charge of fornication, but that the same man would not commit wilful arrd deliberate perjury to free himself from a charge of sheepstealing and to support a claim for compensation ? Mr. Atkinson: I say there are scores of such men who would be " tripped up " in the one case and whose evidence could be relied upon in the other. Mr. Justice Edwards: There is no question of " tripping-up." Your client was cautioned over and over again in the most solemn manner by myself as the President of this Court and by my brother Cooper, and was warned not once, but many times. And, moreover, your client had a veryready answer to the whole matter. He could have said, " 1 decline to answer these questions," and lue would not have been compelled to answer them, so far as I am concerned, and I think my brothei- Cooper would have agreed. Of course, we woufd have drawn the inference that he had been guilty of fornication, but we would not have attached any importance to that as affecting his claim, because, as Mr. Atkinson remarked, it is a matter quite beside the question. But wilful and corrupt perjury and blackening the character of a woman, and not only that, but seeking to throw his own transgression upon his nephew are matters of vast importance. Mr. Macdonald: Ido not wish to interrupt my friend, but he has reiterated that the Crown dragged this in of its own accord. I would refer your Honours to page 57 of the report, to Dr. Findlay's cross-examination of Meikle, — " 444. I understand you to say on oath you ask part of that for the damage that had been done to your character by these convictions?— Yes, and for the losses I have sustained. " 445. Had you before and had you since borne such a character as entitled you to come to this colony and ask for its bounty?—l landed here nearly 7 forty years ago, and I ask you to put any one in this box and state that I have, either by word, thought, or deed, done anything of which I need be ashamed." Then Dr. Findlay continued, "lam glad you have given me that challenge, because I accept it." I quote that to contradict my friend's statement, made inadvertently, I have no doubt, that it was the Crown who dragged up this question. Mr. Justice Edwards: If I thought there had been anything improper in Dr. Findlay's conduct I should not have hesitated to say so. I never do. I saw nothing improper in his conduct. Mr. Atkinson: lam not suggesting anything improper. It was an unpleasant duty carried out acoording to instructions. Mr. Justice Edwards: People talk about instructions, but I pay no attention to instructions. A thing is right, or it is wrong. If it is right, it should be done; if it is wrong, the instructions should be disregarded. Mr. Atkinson: I submit it was cruel and irrelevant, and your Honours are against me.
276
a.—2i.
Mr. Justice Edwards: The aspect of the whole thing might have been changed if your client had simply said, " 1 decline to answer these questions: it has nothing to do with this matter.' He would not have been compelled to answer them. At all events, I should not have felt at all disposed to compel him, and I am quite sure my brother Cooper would not. Mr. Justice Cooper: Or he might have said, " Yes, 1 did." We know men transgress in tins way. It would not have gone seriously to his reputation. The serious matter is that, after being warned that if he had had this immoral intercourse with this young woman it would only go to his reputation and not to the real issue, arrd if he denied it and it was shown to be true it would go to his credibility, he persisted in his denial, not vindicating the young woman's character, but in throwing the immoral relation upon his nephew, which struck me as being of considerable importance in estimating the value of his evidence generally. Ido not say it justifies us in excluding his evidence, but it certainly is of importance in considering the value of his evidence when he is contradicted by witnesses who have not committed themselves in that way. 1 do not mean committed themselves by immoral relations with the other sex, but by admittedly untruthful evidence. That is the point, Mr. Atkinson: 1 leave it there, your Honours, but I submit, with respect and confidence, that, notwithstanding His Honour Mr. Justice Edwards's remark, there is, altogether .apart from the consideration of the reputation of the other parties, this feeling in human nature which prompts a man to be ashamed in a public inquiry in regard to one class of evil. I would suggest, in view of Mr. Justice Cooper's last remark, that the consideration of the contrast between my client's attitude to this unpleasant business to which we have been referring and his attitude towards the res gestae which this Commission was appointed to examine goes, your Honours, to confirm rather than invalidate his accuracy as a witness with regard to the charge of sheep-stealing. It was obvious in the one case there was something to be kept back. With regard to the sheep-stealing, notwithstanding the general statement of Mr. Macdonald in his address to your Honours, 1 put it, there was no hesitation whatever on Meikle's part as to any date, fact, or explanation, even when the appearances might be unfavourable. He was frank and fearless in his answers to every question put to him. So I put it that, judged by any ordinary canon, the weight of the testimony in regard to the matters connected with this inquiry is increased rather than diminished by the contrast to which 1 have referred. Now, how was Meikle shaken by any direct examination in regard to this alleged crime in October, 1887? 1 submit he was absolutely unscathed by the exceedingly able and persistent and searching cross-examination of my friend, Dr. Findlay. Even that able counsel had to be thankful for very small mercies, and to the best of my recollection the chief point which he made as the result of his labours was that the word "barn " was substituted in 1906 for the word " buildings "in certain conversations in the year 1887. Lambert's statements that the plot was to pnl the skins in the buildings was alleged in 1887 and in Mr. Meikle's testimony in 1895; and " bam " first entered into the conversation in Meikle's evidence in 1906. The point is surely niicrosoopic, and so far as there is a difference I should be disposed to say it was in my client's favour as showing no mere photographic or parrot-like repetition. But when Dr. Findlay proceeded to say that " barn " had not been mentioned previously in these conversations or alleged conversations of Lambert's he was not speaking accurately himself. In the depositions of 1887, in James Meikle's examinations at page 6, there is a reference. Mr Justice Cooper: The barn was all the same building. Mr. Atkinson: The barn and the smithy were practically the same building, and then there was the stable and the man's hut. It is a small point, but I mention it as only showing the extraordinary accuracy of my client even in the hands of such a master in the art of cross-examina-tion as Dr. Findlay. Then, we have it in Mr. Harvey's evidence in the pamphlet, at page 24: " On one occasion he (Lambert) said it was beginning to get warm round the barn now " ; and in 1*95, in the evidence at Lambert's trial, Harvey 7 said, " 1 had to look out for barn and smithy." That illustrates, as I submit, what a very small amount even Dr. Findlay was able to reap by his able cross-examination. The other point on which he was persistent, and Mr. Macdonald made something of it in his address to your Houours, was in regard to the letter written by Mr. Meikle to Lambert on the 14th November, 1887 : — " Deae Srn, —I want my sheep shorn. Can you come and shear them? Tell Arthur whether you are corning or not. I hope you will lie straight in this matter about the company and myself. You have nothing to fear, and listen to no report. Constable Leece, lam afraid, will be in serious trouble over this matter and the company. 1 should like you to come and shear, as you promised. J. J. MEtKLE." I submit, your Honours, that, the explanation which Mr. Meikle gave in the box was a perfectly natural explanation, and one perfectly consistent with his innocence. The material questions are 268 and 269, on page 67: — " Well, what are these reports?— The report was that if he made a clean breast of it he would probably be indicted; and I wish to try and get him to make a clean breast of it, as I would have explained to him that the very men who employed him to do this were really the guilty parties, much more so than he was, and that they would be indicted. " 269. Dr. Findlay.] You say he was to listen to no reports. These reports, you say, were that he was paid to put the skins upon the place by the company's servants. Well, if that was so, he must have known it. Why did you refer to a report he knew already?— The report was that he was likely to get into gaol if he confessed." The main thing, of course, was that Mr. Meikle, according to the story of Mr. Meikle and his witnesses, had reason to suppose that this plot was going to be carried out. He did not suspect Lambert right up to the very last, but naturally after the charge was laid he had his suspicions: he wanted to know how the matter stood, and he desired an interview. The reference to Constable Leece being in serious trouble over the matter is, of course, in accordance with what my 7 client let fall in more than one part of his cross-examination —that he had suspicions of Leece being in the
277
H.—2l
278
plot also. At page 68, question 290, Meikle said in answer to His Honour Mr. Justice Edwards: — " The only way I could get him to come down was by sending a plausible letter like that, I thought. " 291. It seems to me silly? —It may be, your Honour, but that is how I looked at it." I do not say whether it was a plausible letter or a silly letter, but I do submit that it is absolutely compatible with innocence, and that there is nothing in it which is reasonably capable of the distorted construction that my friends desire to place upon it, Mr. Justice Edwards: Of course, it confirms Lambert's evidence that he was to shear Meikle's sheep. Mr. Atkinson : Yes. Mr. Justice Edwards: It shows that is true, so far. Mr, Atkinson: Yes, your Honour. 1 do not think that was disputed, as to the proposal to shear, though not as to the felonious purpose. Mr. Justice Edwards: 1 did not say it was a silly letter, but it seems to me to be a silly suggestion. If he wanted to go and see Lambert, why did he not go and see him? He did not follow it up. Mr. Atkinson: lie was very anxious to find the man out, your Honour. It was easier to get Lambert to come to him than to go to Lambert. Mr. Justice Edivards: Lambert apparently did not go—did he? Mr. Atkinson: No. Mr. Justice Edwards: Why did he not go to Lambert? Mr. Atkinson: I gather from the cross-examination in some of the previous proceedings that he made efforts to see Lambert. He certainly desired to see him. But it is not in evidence. Of course, he had left Islay before the arrest. That appears in his evidence. Mr. Justice Cooper: The date of the arrest was the 2nd November, was it not? Mr. Atkinson : It was a little later, I think. Yes; Arthur Meikle was arrested on the 3rd, and Mr. Meikle in Invercargill on the 7th November. Mr. Justice Cooper: Did Meikle obtain bail? Was he under arrest when he wrote this? Did he get bail ? Mr. Atkinson: Yes. Mr. Justice Edwards: Is that consistent with Lambert's story? Mr. Atkinson : It is entirely consistent with Lambert's story 7, that if the shearing is to be taken to mean felonious Mr. Justice Edivards: There is a great deal more than that: — " I hope you will behave straight in this matter about the company and myself. You have nothing to fear ; and listen to no reports." Does not that all show an understanding, or what Meikle thought was an understanding, between himself and Lambert? Is it consistent with anything else? Mr. Atkinson: Of course, your Honour, he has told this Commission, and he has insisted all along, that Lambert told him the terms of his employment, and of the design that he was requested to carry out, and stated that he would not carry it out. Meikle would have found out at an interview, or he thought he could find out, who it was put the skins there and how the matter stood. Lambert was to get £50 on conviction, and the essential part of his policy was, as Mrs. Meikle stated Mr. Justice Edwards: Yes; but there can be no question at all about "having nothing to fear " about that, Of course, there was nothing to fear. This is quite intelligible if y 7 ou suppose that Lambert's story is true, and that he was there when the sheep was killed, because, apart from the fact that he was the detective —I do not know whether he could excuse himself on that ground, but apart from the fact that he was the detective —he had everything to fear unless Meikle and he swore together, because he was a party to the theft. Mr. Atkinson: Yes, exactly, your Honour. .I//-. Justice Edwards: Is not the natural interpretation of that, "We stick together; you have nothing to fear ; listen to nothing y 7 ou hear said about it " ? Mr. Atkinson: 1 submit, your Honour, it is perfectly compatible with the answers Meikle gave in the box—that it was either Lambert or Stuart who put the skins there. That was Meikle's inference, as he told the Commission. He was anxious to find out which. Assuming that Lambert was in the plot, if Lambert owned up he would under ordinary circumstances get himself into trouble. Mr. Justice Edwards: But there is no suggestion that Meikle suspected Lambert at this time, is there? Mr. Atkinson: According to Dr. Findlay, who Mr. Justice Edwards: Ido not care much about what Dr. Findlay said. I want the evidence. Mr. Atkinson: What Dr. Findlay said sometimes bears some relation to the evidence. Mr. Justice Edwards: We have to decide the case not on what Dr. Findlay said—though it is of assistance to us—but on the evidence itself. Mr. Atkinson: I will put the evidence on that point before your Honours in a few moments. That Lambert was offered £50 to secure a conviction ; that Meikle was suspected ; that Lambert thought the best policy was, in the language which Mrs. Meikle used in the box in 1895, "to gammon to be my husband's friend " ; that he got into the confidence of Meikle, and told him that he was being asked to put Meikle away, but that he declined to do so—all this is common ground. The episode in this extraordinary story which most attracted Dr. Findlay's attention was the reference to the proposed visit of the man in light clothes and the man in dark clothes, one of whom, according to Dr. Findlay, was the angel of light and the other the angel of darkness ; and the episode was farcically 7 treated by Dr. Findlay. Undoubtedly, the episode is broadly farcical, and
H.—2l.
with Dr. Findlay's artistic embroidery, I submit, it became a sheer tale of bedlam—absolutelyincredible. Evidently Lambert was a good and plausible talker. He ingratiated himself with the Meikles; he played on their fear and hatred of the company, and he proposed to protect them. That this story was a hoax on his part is sufficiently obvious from its absurdity. That Meikle treated it or its essentials as containing a considerable serious element, though not placing full reliance on Lambert's promised protection, is proved, 1 submit, by 7 Meikle's communication with Detective Ede. His Honour Mr. Justice Edwards asked Meikle when in the box, after Lambert made this statement, what steps did he take ? I think I am correct in saying that this was about the middle of September—this first announcement of Lambert's—though it is in dispute as to whether or not the communication was made at Meikle's house or out in the open. I would call your Honour's attention to this fact: this conversation took place about the middle of September, and, though Mr. Meikie did not see Ede untii the 3rd October, he has informed your Honours that he made a previous visit for the purpose of communicating with Ede, but was unable to find him. On the 22nd September it was that my client went to Invercargill with a view to seeing Ede, and was unable to find him. The date of the actual interview, as deposed by 7 Ede before the Justices, was the 3rd or 4th October. Your Honours will see that there was not very much time lost, considering the distance of his property from Invercargill, in making the proper communication to the proper authority 7. Well, Dr. Findlay, in the ridicule which he poured upon this whole episode, stated that the testimony required to support a statement is at an inverse ratio to its probability 7, and, undoubtedly, from that point of view strong evidence would be needed to support the whole of this extraordinary narrative; but in another part of his argument it was just as necessary 7 for him, as it is for rue, to invoke the contrary 7 principle, which is that an invented story 7 will not ignore the canons of probability. Mr. Justice Edwards: Does Dr. Findlay say so? He does not know so much about proceedings in the criminal Courts as I do, then, because it is most amazing how you find criminals giving themselves away by stating absurdities. Mr. Macdonald: Crime would never be found out unless that were so. Mr. Justice Edwards: That is so. A criminal generally gives himself away. Of course, you must remember that Dr. Findlay does not practice in the criminal Courts, nor did I, for that matter. I believe I conducted two criminal cases ; but during the number of j 7 ears I have sat on this bench a good many of these gentlemen have passed before me, and a good many 7 of them, I am sorry to say, have also passed into the custody of the gaoler. Mr. Atkinson: Of course, these are general rules—their application is not universal. Mr. Justice Edwards: All I can say is that I consider it is amazing the inconsistencies and improbabilities into which criminals fall in making up stories to shield themselves from punishment. Mr. Atkinson: No doubt, your Honour, if the criminal was not also a fool in the majority of cases, society 7 would be in a much more insecure condition than it is at present. Mr. Justice Edwards: Every criminal is a fool in a sense; but at the same time some criminals ara very astute in trying to get off. Mr. Atkinson: What I think, your Honours, is not unreasonable to invoke is the principle which my friend has invoked in regard to this story 7 —about inventing this statement with regard to the " joker," with a view to strengthening his case. It was not putting Lambert any deeper in the mire; it was not establishing any fact of criminality that would have been otherwise inferable. There is absolutely 7 nothing essential to Meikle's case against Lambert in this remarkable story about the two men who were to come and the treatment they were to receive. Meikle was filled with hatred of the company, and Lambert played upon that. Assuming that he made the statement about the £50 and the skins, was there any motive for Meikle and his witnesses to invent this further embroidery about the " joker "? Obviously not, because, instead of imparting colour to the story, it was introducing an element of farce, flow such an absurd and pointless addition could have been made by even the maddest of criminals with a view to giving probability to the story is beyond my imagination. The first mention of this matter in the Supreme Court proceedings was elicited in the cross-examination of Mrs. Meikle (page 35) at the Lambert trial. Mr. Justice Cooper: No; it is in her examination-in-chief. The reference to the one in light clothes and the one in dark was in cross-examination. Mr. Atkinson: In regard to the " joker," in itself, of course, there was nothing comical about it: it was really 7 the light clothes and the dark clothes. With regard to the "joker" that was mentioned —although I do not think the name was used —by Arthur Meikle at his father's trial: — " Said he was to get £50 to arrest father ;to put sheep and skins on property. He said he would not do it. He said the man named Stuart had come to do it—a cleverer buck than him." There is the essence of the story 7, and there is nothing absurd or incredible on the face of it: but with that substratum of facts it is absurd to suppose that invention would run to such a length as to add this story of the man with the light and dark clothes. The first independent witness in regard to the point in the Supreme Court was Mrs. Howe (page 36 of the pamphlet). She says: — " I remember seeing Lambert there. I saw him more than once. He said he was to get £50 from Cameron and Troup to put skins on Meikle's place to catch Meikle. On another occasion he said there were two men coming, and he would let Meikle know the night they 7 were coming. One was to wear dark clothes and the other grey clothes, and Meikle was to fire at the one in grey clothes. T complained. I say that such a man should not be allowed about the place. He was talking to Meikle in earnest. I did not hear whether he said he was willing to do it. He made no concealment about it." I do not think there is anything relevant in the cross-examination. Mr. Justice Edwards: It is amazing to me that he was not himself struck with the absurdity of this. How could Lambert know what clothes his co-conspirators were to wear?
279
280
H.—2l
Mr. Atkinson: Ido not know how they worked it out, your Honour. The suspicion of conspiracy which Lambert probably detected very early in his conversations with Meikle was evidently worked upon by him, and he was successful in this extraordinary story; but as it stands there I only put it to your Honours that it is not the kind of thing, apart from the fact that it is sworn to by "independent witnesses—not the kind that anybody- would have invented to add an air of accuracy or probability to the narrative. His Honour Mr. Justice Edwards referred to the matter as a very simple kind of conspiracy, arrd so it was in one aspect if its simplicity succeeded. On Lambert s theory it has great simplicity about it. The simplicity of this extraordinarily clever and cunning man, as Meikle has been described (page 19). According to Lambert, this cunning man was sosimple that at their first interview Lambert got inside his defence by arrangrng that he should call and steal grass-seed. A few weeks afterwards Meikle, without any consideration on hrs part, allows Lambert to see him tampering with the brand of the stolen horse, and after this Lambert was so established in his confidence that Meikle a week or two later not only allows Lambert to see him stealing those sheep, but has such absolute confidence in him that he keeps the sheep untampered with for fifteen or sixteen days, although he had taken the precaution on the night, of the crime to obliterate the marks on the one sheep killed in Lambert's presence. I shall deal with that subsequently. Of course, there are some improbabilities on the other side, but I say the utter absurdity of a man giving himself away in this fashion will entitle the Commission to throw Lambert s evidence away altogether. Mr. Justice Edwards: If Meikle knew he was stealing the grass-seed, he would consrder Lambert a bird of the same feather, and that he had got a hold of him. Mr. Atkinson: No hold that could not get himself into trouble—not a hold that would do Lambert any good. - __. . Mr Justice Edwards: The hold is quite good enough to keep the other man silent, llrrs is the position, assuming the story to be true in regard to the stealing of the grass-seed : the result of that would be that, obviously, Meikle need not be in dread of Lambert informing against him for stealing the sheep, because, if he did, he would at once give Lambert away for stealing the grassseed. Mr. Atkinson: Why was it not done when Lambert did turn on him? Mr. Justice Edwards: He did not know that Lambert was going to turn on him. Mr. Atkinson: He knew it before he went into the Supreme Court. Mr Macdonald: He knew it when Lambert gave evidence in the Magistrate's Court, Mr Justice Cooper: There was nothing referring to grass-seed in Lambert's or Meikle's trials. Mr Justice Edwards: It is to corroborate the fact that Lambert reported that he had given the grass-seed. According to my memory—and Tarn not stating it positively, because I have not read the evidence —that story is corroborated. , Mr Atkinson: I might be allowed to remind your Honour, grass-seed was mentioned m the trial by one of Meikle's witnesses. He said he had been offered grass-seed of the company s anda share of the profits. With regard to Lambert's conversations with Meikle, Dr. Findlay states m his argument (page 113): — " If Meikle's story is correct, he must have known as soon as ever the police discovered the skins that the man who put them there was Lambert, and no one else. Your Honours will remember that Lambert had told everybody that he was going to put the skins there. _ Harvey swears that he heard him say so repeatedly. Arthur Meikle knew and swears he heard him say so. Nobody but Lambert, it is said, was there the night before the police arrived." _ ...... i Now I put it to your Honours that counsel who indulge so freely in charges of fabrication and perjury might be expected to be reasonably circumspect, in their own criticism; but he falls a victim' here to the same tendency that he was endeavouring to expose. The evidence is not so idiotic and I trust none of it wanders so far from the fact as this extraordinary criticism. Iwrll give your Honours all that the witness Harvey had to say on the point. His first statement is m Meikle's trial (page 24): — , - " Often seen him at Meikle's since September until just a few days before Arthur arrested. He would be there every other night; sometimes two nights running. Heard him at end of September in Meikle's small kitchen, before Mrs. Meikle, Jane Geary, and myself, Arthur, and Mr. Merkle, say that company had either offered or promised him £50 if he could get Merkle arrested. They want me to put things on to your property to get you into trouble.' He said he could not do it, and it was better to tell him what they were going to do." Then in the cross-examination, on the following page, He (Lambert) said he was wanted to plant sheep or skins on the property, and he would not do it." Of course, that is the exact opposite to what Dr. Findlay has alleged. Then, in the cross-examination, about the fourthiline from the bottom of the page, " Lambert said company would probably-get Stuart to do it. Then, in 1895, Harvey tells exactly the same story. That is on page 37 :" He (Lambert) generally referred to the matter every time he came there. I can't say he used the same words every time. He said he would not do it. 7 ' Now, those are Harvey's statements on the pornt, and Dr. Findlay s version of them is that Lambert had fold everybody he was going to put the skins there. Haryey swears that he heard him say so repeatedly." Then, Dr. Findlay ascribes srmrlar statements to Arthur Merkle He was not called in 1895, because he had died while his father was in gaol. His only statement on the point was on page 27 of the report of his father's trial :" I know W. Lambert, And then, further on " Said he was to get £50 to arrest father: to put sheep and skins on property. Ho said he would not do it. He said a man named Stuart had come to do it—a cleverer buck than him " Mr. Meikle, to the same effect in 1895 (page 33): "He sard he was to put sheep or sheepskins on the land, so as to get me into trouble and off the place He sard T wrll let you know the night it is to be done, Mr. Meikle. I won't do it.' " Then, Mrs. Merkle on page 35, says He said he would not do it, and he would let my husband know when rt was to be done. So that it
H.—2l.
was not quite such a tale of bedlam as Dr. Findlay has represented it to be. Of course, it was also said by Mrs. Meikle in Dunedin, as in her statement at the trial of Lambert, that he had said on the night before the police came, when he came to get a knife sharpened, " Depend on me, it won't be 3one to-night." I wish your Honours, following on this endeavour to rescue the position from the sheer absurdity to which Dr. Findlay's argument had endeavoured to reduce it, to deal with the credibility of the witness Harvey, which was made a very strong point of by Dr. Findlay. Harvey gave evidence in both of the previous trials, and he is now dead. His inaccuracy was selected by Dr. Findlay as typical of Mr. Meikle's deliberate manufacture of evidence. He refers to him on page 117 in his argument: " Your Honours will put side by side the varying evidence of such a chief witness as Harvey. Harvey was evidently Meikle's sheet-anchor." Harvey was let off comparatively lightly by Mr. Justice Ward in his report, but now he has become the second villain of the piece, in Dr. Findlay's opinion, in the place of Templeton. On the other hand, your Honours, I propose to show that there is far more inaccuracy in the counsel's criticism of this witness than in the statement of the witness itself. These are the four main points in Dr. Findlay's indictment of Harvey, the general line of the criticism being, of course, to show that whatever gaps in Meikle's case of 1887 had been filled up since had been filled up by perjured and manufactured evidence. Well, the four main points in Dr. Findlay's indictment were Harvey's knowledge of the bag which Lambert is said by Meikle to have brought with him on the night before the police entered; the alleged counting of the skins before the police came; the alleged locking of the barn; and the alleged instructions from Meikle to carry out these precautions. First, with regard to Harvey's knowledge of the bag, Dr. Findlay says on page 114, " Harvey was in the witness-box in the lower Court, and might have been asked with regard to this bag." If lam not mistaken, Mr. Macdonald made a similar point "in his address to your Honours. Then Dr. Findlay proceeds, on the same page, "Meikle says that Harvey heard him asking Lambert, 'What bag is that?' and Meikle says that Harvey heard the reply." The fact is, your Honours, that Harvey remained at the hut, while the conversation between Lambert and the son took place at the smithy, and the distance between the two places is 2or 3 chains; and if Harvey had sworn to hearing the conversation under those circumstances he would indeed have been a witness unworthy of credit. I refer your Honours to page 37 of the trial of Lambert. Harvey says, " I don't know of any other keys. I never saw him bring any bag. My hut is about a chain from Meikle's house. It is between 2 and 3 chains from the smithy." Well* Harvey never having left the hut, it is somewhat hard now to accuse him or Mr. Meikle of fabricating statements because Harvey was not brought to testify to the talk about the bag in 1887 and 1895, the fact being that Harvey could not conceivably have heard it. It is remarkable that my friends should both Have fallen into this error, seeing that it was clearly stated by the witnesses that after Lambert made his first appeal to Harvey to be allowed to sharpen his knife in the smithy, Harvey passed him on to young Meikle, and he did not see him again that night. What is a still more vital point is the alleged counting of the skins in Meikle's smithy. On page 114 of Dr. Findlay's argument he says, — " On his (Harvey's) evidence in the Lambert trial, he must have counted these skins forty times, and in a locked building. On the first occasion, in 1887, he says that he only counted the skins two or three times, and in a higher Court he only tried to say he counted them forty times. But in 1895 he took his oath that he counted them every morning—that is, over forty times —and kept the place locked. Surely such inconsistency as that only shows the material out of which Meikle attempts to establish his innocence." I submit, your Honours, if the witness's words are carefully read there is no such inconsistency or falsehood as is alleged. The first statement on the point is in the depositions of 1887, page 17: — "On the 2nd November —the day the police came —I saw them take two skins out of the smithy. The two skins were not in the smithy the day previous; of that lam certain. From the time I brought a number of skins from off the fence into the smithy until the arrest I must have counted them three or four times. The skins produced look as if they have been killed some time. They were not in the smithy before the day of the arrest." Then, the same witness in the Supreme Court (page 25 of the pamphlet) says, " There were only twelve skins the day before; then T counted them." Then, in the cross-examination towards the bottom of the page, "There were only twelve when I examined them the day before." Then there is the further statement on page 26, in brackets, " (In deposition : I must have counted skins four or five times)." And cross-examined on that he says, "I got skins off fence two or three days before." Then he was re-examined, and this is the important point which I submit Dr. Findlay has overlooked: "Counted skins every day after Meikle told me." Now, Dr. Findlay's point, which he made with his usual skill, was that the witness did not know whether he had counted them every day or only four or five times. I submit if my friend had noticed the statement in his reexamination in 1887 he would have seen, as your Honours will see, there is really no inconsistency, and there is not the slightest occasion for the insinuation that the witnesses had been tutored. Of course, on the face of it, the statement remains there in 1887, that he counted the skins every day after Meikle had told him; but how comes it that he made reference in the depositions to counting them four or five times, and then gave the answer under cross-examination, " I got the skins off the fence two or three days before "1 Well, this is the explanation : The number that he spoke of, twelve, was the number after the last addition when Harvey had brought the skins off the fence two or three days before. This total of twelve had been counted by him two or three times daily. Your Honours will see that is the natural explanation of an apparent inconsistency, perfectly compatible with veracity and accuracy. He still adhered under cross-examination to the noint that he had counted the skins from the day when he was first told by Meikle so to do. There is nothing inconsistent between that and the statement that the completed total of twelve skins had been counted three or four times since he had taken a few more off the fence three or four
36—H, 21,
281
H.—2l
282
days ago. Otherwise, if this reference in the depositions were taken as complete, it was utterly absurd to suppose that he could have repeated in re-examination the statement relating to the daily counting of these skins, which would have implied from thirty to forty times, instead of from three to four. Then, the next of Dr. Findlay's points with regard to this witness is as to the alleged instructions from Meikle. It appears on page 114 of the report: — "We heard him tell your Honours how he gave instructions to Harvey to have the smithylocked and the skins counted. Yet there was not one word in the trial of 1887 about having given any instructions, and not one word about the place having been locked up." And on page 118 we find this: " Not a word about instructions in 1887 —it is all new." And my friend Mr. Macdonald pursued the same line of argument in his address to your Honours. Well, there is, first of all, the statement in re-examination which I have just quoted, and which is conclusive. "I counted the skins every day after Meikle told me," on page 26; and the statement at page 25, " Ever since Lambert told me they were to put skins on run I began to tally sheepskins." He corrects himself, and says, "Did not keep tally; just counted." Now, the reference there to " after Meikle told me," in re-examination, is a clear implication of the instructions from Meikle which, according to the contention of my learned friends on the other side, were a subsequent invention of Meikle, and were drummed into this witness's head after Meikle came out of gaol. Am I not justified, your Honours, in pointing to the fact that the reference to the instructions from Meikle was reserved for the re-examination of the witness Harvey in 1887, and in saying that that lends support to the suggestion which I have previously made that the evidence had not been so fully briefed as it would have been under less unfavourable circumstances? And at the same time it entirely disposes of the very emphatic assertion of my friends on the other side that this matter of the instructions'was manufactured by Mr. Meikle subsequent to his trial. Now, with regard to the locking. That is another very crucial point, and I think it admits of a similar answer. On page 118 Dr. Findlay says,— — "For the first time in 1895 do we hear anything about the locking of the smithy. Harveydoes not say a word about the locking of the smithy in 1887 ; neither does Arthur Meikle. If this had been locked for forty-eight days, and Arthur Meikle and Harvey aware of it, is it credible that they were not asked about it? I submit the explanation can be only that it was manufactured, for no such fact was there to correspond with the explanation given in 1905." That " 1905 " must have been " 1895." That, of course, is a highly suspicious circumstance, your Honour, if it could be proved. I am glad again to see, your Honour, that the mistake here is on the part of learned counsel on the other side, and not of the witness he is criticising. Might I refer your Honours here to the explanation which Mr. Meikle gave in the box of certain omissions in his case in the year 1887. It is on page 70, and the questions run from 356 to 361 :■ — " 356. Well, can y 7 ou explain this: that when Harvey gave evidence in your favour on y 7 our trial for sheep-stealing he was never asked and never said one word about locking the barn?— That is quite possible, because Mr. MacGregor was so sure of an acquittal that he did not trouble to put himself about. " 357. Then, you know your chief witness, Harvey, was never asked about your instructing him to lock the barn ; now when you were examining him yourself in the Court below, and no Mr. MacGregor was there to tell you you had such a safe case, did you ask him any questions about it? No : because, as I told y 7 ou, I was not allowed to cross-examine my own witnesses. "358. Did you ask him any questions? —I was going to ask some, but that was what the Court ruled. Tt was about some of the skins. Even Westacott's evidence about the skins being on the wire fence was cut out. It was said I was charged with stealing sheep and not skins. " 359. You say Mr. MacGregor did not ask in the higher Court because he was so sure of your acquittal, and in the Court below you were represented by lawyers (who retired for the reason you told us yesterday), you did examine Harvey? —T examined him on some points, but not on all. I did not expect to have to defend the case myself, and it upset me a little bit. " 360. I want to know why y 7 ou did not examine Harvey on this question about locking the barn after this time? —As I have said, it was regarded by everybody in the neighbourhood that the whole thing was a put-up job : but I did my best when conducting the case. "361. We have it that Harvey was not asked about locking the barn until 1895, and your son was not asked about locking. He gave evidence in the lower Court and in the higher, and he was both examined and cross-examined, and your son was not asked any question about locking the barn?— No." . Now, your Honours, that, of course, is a very serious indictment; but with regard to Meikle's explanation, might I also call your attention to question 349, on the same page, as to why he had not instructed Mr. MacGregor more fully? " 349. Will you swear, Mr. Meikle —I suppose Mr. MacGregor can be found, if you will permit me to ask him —that you told Mr. MacGregor that you saw this suspicious bag outside the barn, and that, you asked Lambert what was in it, and that he and your son were both present and heard it, and the answer Lambert gave you: will y 7 ou swear you told Mr. MacGregor any such thing?— I swear that I brought up a lot of questions, and that was one of them, and handed them to him, and he just took them and tore them up and walked up to me and said, ' Do not put yourself about. No jury will convict you.' As I kept writing them down, he said there was no need to do it." Mr. Justice Edwards: You might call Mr. MacGregor to prove all this. Mr. Atkinson: I saw Mr. MacGregor, and found that he had lost his brief, and his mind was a complete blank in regard to the whole case. He did not remember it, or certainly I should have found out. Mr. Justice Edwards: It all sounds very improbable. • Mr. Atkinson: I was going to say, with reference to that last point, I thought your Honours would appreciate it, because I have been overwhelmed with suggestions on every point in these proceedings since I first took the case up in March,
H.—2l.
Mr. Justice Edwards: I have no doubt about that, but this is quite another matter. You must assume this was a very serious charge, and obviously supported by very serious evidence. Mr. MacGregor could have been under no mistake about that, and it is suggested he did not bother his head about anything because he was sure of an acquittal. Well, it seems to me improbable. It may be true, but it sounds improbable. Mr. Atkinson: lam quite aware it souuds improbable, and for that reason 1 was very thankful that this point about the locking of the barn was so strongly emphasized by my learned friend. If your Honours will turn to the depositions of 1887 you will find that the locking of the barn was deposed to before the Justices. William Harvey deposed, in examination by Mr. Meikle, " I told Detective Ede that the door of the smithy had been left open, although for a while back it has always been kept locked." Now, what does that mean? And Ido ask your Honours' indulgent attention to this point, because it concerns a good deal more than this single point. It simply comes to this: that a very vital part of my client's case in regard to which Dr. Findlay challenged him is proved, because it appears on looking at the records that the locking was mentioned in the depositions in the lower Court, although the locking was not mentioned in the Supreme Court. I say there is absolute proof there from these official records of the absolute correctness of my client's contention on this point, and I submit therefore with confidence that the a priori improbability to which His Honour the President referred must not be allowed to stand against definite proof of a discrepancy like this; and therefore the same improbability should not be allowed to stand against other omissions in regard to which there is not the same class of proof. The question was put when Meikle examined his witnesses himself before the Justices, and the question was not put when the case came before the Supreme Court. Their, your Honours, we have Mr. Meikle's explanation in the box in Dunedin as to his not being allowed to cross-examine his own witnesses; and might I put it to your Honours that Mr. Meikle when he went before the Justices in 1887 did not expect to be conducting his own case? Your Honours will remember he started with two lawyers, and quarrelled with both of them after lunch l and therefore without rireparation he had to set to arrd examine his witnesses. Your Honours will surely make indulgent allowance for a layman who under these circumstances was suddenly launched into the conduct of his own case. I will undertake to say there are many able lawyers who if called upon at a moment's notice would have missed many vital points. Mr. Justice Cooper: As Lord Bacon says, " The occasion sudden; the opportunity dangerous.'' Mr. Atkinson: Quite so, your Honour. I also put it to your Honours that my client's reference to the fact that he was not allowed to cross-examine his own witnesses shows the difficulties into which a layman would get. Mr. Justice Cooper: You say Harvey was examined ? Mr. Atkinson: Yes, on that point. I shall put it to your Honotrrs presently that I value that point highly as showing that one vital point which was omitted from the case before the Supreme Court had been made when Meikle in an impromptu fashiorr conducted his own case before the Justices. I ask your Honours to infer from that that there may be other important omissions from the proceedings for which allowance ought to be made. In regard to this cross-examination of his own witnesses, suppose he desired to bring out the fact of instructing Harvey, and there was a smart interrupting lawyer on the other side Mr. Justice Cooper: In the case for the prosecution in the lower Court was the company represented by counsel ? Mr. Macdonald: Yes. Mr. Atkinson: This matter of the instructions came out in a curious way—though a vital point. It appears in the Supreme Court record; it only comes out in re-examination. I put that to your Honours as an important indication that the briefing, for reasons, was not so thorough as it is desirable it should have been in so important a case. To refer to what I regard as Mr. Meikle's pathetic explanation that he was not allowed to cross-examine his own witnesses, suppose a layman wanted to bring the fact in reference to the instructions, and asked the question, " Did I not tell you to lock the barn," we would have question objected to and ruled out. "What instructions did I give you?" Question objected to and ruled out. Your Honours will see the scope there is for a lawyer to object to questions, which if put in right form would have elicited valuable evidence. Mr. Justice Edwards: Whom were these proceedings before? Mr. Atkinson: Two Justices—Forsaith and Crossby. Mr. Justice Edwards: I do not know anything about the gentlemen, but I think they were very wrong in ruling out anything in their proceedings. Mr. Justice Cooper: Very often in these cases if a lawyer is conducting a case before Justices, and the defendant is not represented by a lawyer, the Justices will uphold nearly every objection taken by counsel, and disallow every objection taken by a layman. Mr. Atkinson : We know Westacott was bundled out of Court because he was proceeding to give evidence about the skins, on the ground that Meikle was accused of stealing sheep and not sheepskins. Mr. Justice Cooper: That was a very extraordinary circumstance in the lower Court in connection with the skins, why the Justices would not hear any evidence about the skins. Mr. Atkinson: And the remarkable thing is that one of them in Dunedin said he had himself noticed the wire-marks, but that he had never mentioned it to anybody until I had put the question to him. I will therefore ask your Honours' indulgent consideration for the difficulties under which my client laboured in putting his case before the Justices, and even before the Supreme Court. He was called upon at short notice to conduct his own case, and he elicited some material facts after some of his questions were ruled out. We come, then, to the Supreme Court, and we find able counsel was undoubtedly retained for him. But he told us in the box he saw Mr. MacGregor once in Dunedin, and he saw him at his hotel in Invercargill when he came down. We found, y 7 our
283
a,—2l.
Honours, that a vital point upon which both counsel on the other side have laid great stress—the omission of any reference to the locking of this barn prior to the arrival of the police—was omitted from the Supreme Court evidence, but it was before the Justices; arid we have also got the remarkable fact that another very vital point—that Meikle had given instructions for the taking of precautions —did not come out in examination-in-chief in the Supreme Court. It only came out in reexamination, and then in quite an incidental way. " Counted skins every day after Meikle told me." I submit, your Honours, that on that ground a very liberal consideration —a much more liberal consideration than my friends have suggested —will be allowed for possibly quite bona fide omissions, even of vital points from the case for the defence in 1887. Mr. Macdonald: Arthur Meikle made the statement that he did not think it was necessary to take precautious. Mr. Atkinson: Yes; he did not take any precautions. He did not suspect Lambert. Mr. Justice Edwards: I thought I noticed just this moment that he said no precautions were taken. Mr. Macdonald: " First time he called he mentioned about the £50 to be paid for trapping father. Had no suspicion of him. Thought no need of taking precautions." Mr. Atkinson: We had it from Harvey before the Justices that he had been locking the shed. Mr. Justice Edwards: If Arthur Meikle knew that this shed was being locked, and had been locked for a considerable period with a view to preventing anybody from putting sheep-skins in, it is very extraordinary that he should have given this answer. Mr. Macdonald: If the evidence given by the accused is true, Arthur Meikle must have known that it was locked, because he wa.s a party to getting the key before the police raid. Mr. Atkinson: He was a boy of only sixteen years of age at the time. Mr. Justice Edwards: A boy of sixteen is usually as smart about locking a door as you or I. Mr. Atkinson: It is not suggested that he had any instructions about locking the door. It was Harvey's business. Mr. Justice Edwards: That is not the point at all. He could not have been residing there with his father without knowing that the door was locked, if it was locked. Mr. Atkinson: Well, if y 7 our Honour is going to construe this general statement, " Had no suspicion of him; thought no need of taking precautions," as implying that the young man knew that the door was locked, I submit it is not a reasonable construction to put on a vague statement of that kind, made by a youngster who possibly did not know the meaning of the word " precautions." Mr. Macdonald: There was no re-examination on that question —no re-examination of Arthur Meikle. Mr. Atkinson: No. We have seen the way in which the English language is construed by adults as to the meaning of "taking the thing seriously." "Precautions" is certainly a less common word, and this youngster, as I say, had not quite turned sixteen. Then the question was asked by Dr. Findlay—and that, of course, is not so simple a matter, from my point of view—as to why Arthur Meikle was asked no questions about the bag. Well, I would put it to your Honours that what I have already stated about Harvey probably supplies the key to that omission. Arthur Meikle was not a witness before the Justices. Mr. Justice Cooper: He could not be; he was charged jointly. Mr. Atkinson: He was charged jointly. The position therefore is that if Mr. Harvey, in the hands of Mr. Meikle, brought out an essential fact which was not elicited in the Supreme Court, is it not likely that if young Meikle had had the opportunity of being examined by his father certain vital points which are not in the Supreme Court proceedings could have been supplied from the record of the proceedings before the Justices, in the manner in which 1 have already done so with regard to one point? And, of course, one result of his not being a competent witness before the Justices would be that there were not even depositions for counsel's guidance in the Supreme Court, and for that reason I submit it is only a fair and indulgent consideration to presume that the omission might be so accounted for. I also put this, your Honours: that it is possible Meikle's counsel in the Supreme Court might have been considering that Arthur Meikle would not be a witness. Ido not know how the matter actually was arranged. Then, Arthur Meikle was dead before Lambert's trial in 1895, and so he did not go into the box then, and any possibility of explanation was removed. In concluding this important branch of my case, relating to these omissions of which my friends have made so much capital, I would call your Honours' attention to a remark by His Honour the President of this Commission when Lambert was in the box. It is reported at page 173, just under question 487, when I was cross-examining Mr. Lambert as to discrepancies between tlie story he told at different stages of the proceedings: — " Mr. Justice Edwards: The witness only answers what he is asked in any case. He goes into the witness-box to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; but immediately he goes beyond the answer to the question put he is told by counsel, ' I wish you would keep yourself to the question, and if my friend wants any more from you he will get it by-and-by.' You are making a point of somethingnot being there, and I do not attach any importance to the fact of its not being there. Of course, if it is something clearly inconsistent with what the witness says in the box previously, that may or may not be of importance, according to the time that has elapsed : but the fact that the thing is not there is not material." Mr. Justice Edwards: As I understand, you were attacking the witness's credibility, but the point you now make is that if all this was true his counsel there ought to have known all about it, and why did he not ask about it? Mr. Atkinson: Begging your Honour's pardon, the point was exactly the same. The question I was asking was Mr. Justice Edwards: You were attacking the witness's credibility.
284
285
H.—2l
Mr. Atkinson: I beg your Honour's pardon. 1 was questioning him as to what he saw on the occasion of the alleged crime. He had sworn to certain marks in 1887, and he had sworn that there were no other marks, but he discovered a new mark in 1906. It was a relevant cross-examina-tion . Mr. Justice Edwards: You were attacking the witness's credibility—at all events, that is what 1 understood you to be doing—because he said something that was not in before. The point made by you now, as I understand it, is: if this was true, counsel for Meikle must have known all about it; why did he not ask all these questions? Mr. Atkinson: If Lambert's statemeut was true, why 7 did not counsel for the Crown ask about it ? Mr. Justice Edwards: I do not mean to suggest there is anything in it one way or the other, but you are referring to something I said, which I should have thought perfectly obvious—that the witness swears to tell the whole truth, and he is only allowed to tell so much of the truth as the parties wish to get out of him. Mr. Atkinson: I submit that that is a poor compliment to my friends who have got up the case. The point was as to what was done in the way of the felonious removal of marks. If that matterwas passed over in taking statements and contradictory statements were got from him by counsel for the prosecution with regard to this very matter, I am certainly unable to see why they should be put on a different footing from the omissions I am now discussing. Mr. Macdonald: There was evidence given before the Commission that Lambert had made the statement. Mr. Atkinson,: There was no evidence given of any such statement at all in the Supreme Court, but he thought he had made it before the Justices. Mr. Macdonald: Yes, before the Justices. He told the constable so. Mr. Atkinson: The constable did not say that he said anything at all about it in Court, Mr. Macdorwld: lam not saying in Court at all. It was out of Court. Mr. Atkinson: The point is as to what took place in Court. He believes he mentioned it to the Justices. It is admitted he did not mention it in the Supreme Court. I say that we must infer that he had not mentioned it to counsel for the Crown when taking his statement, and counsel for the Crown themselves elicited a contradictory statement on that point. Mr. Justice Edivards: On the point that counsel would not see all these witnesses. Mr. Atkinson: Mr. Macdonald referred to the special care that was needed. Mr. Macdonald: I saw Lambert, but 1 should like to say this: Lambert, stated distinctly in evidence that Meikle, after removing the fire brand and the ear-mark, had stated that " now he could defy the company or any one else." That necessarily implied that he had removed all marks. That is what we are contending. Mr. Atkinson: That is a very lucid explanation as to why in taking witnesses' instructions previously such an important and dramatic incident as that was passed over. Mr. Macdonald: Mr. MacGregor cross-examined on that. He was not satisfied. Mr. Atkinson: I am not talking about Mr. MacGregor's duty, but that of counsel for the Crown, and the probability of the thing being in the witness's mind. It was all invention, and he told it to some people, but did not repeat the whole story consistently everywhere. Ido ask your Honours, therefore, in view of the way I have been able to supply some of these omissions and the explanations 1 have suggested as to others, that the spirit of Mr. Justice Edwards's remarks which I have quoted at page 1 73 may allow of indulgent treatment of my client in opposition to unfriend's argument based on these omissions. Passing from these two witnesses—both of whom are dead, and one of whom (Harvey) was referred to by Dr. Findlay- as Meikle's sheet-anchor—might I mention that the most discrediting feature of Meikle's defence was the contradiction of these two witnesses with regard to the alibi attempted to be set up for Arthur Meikle on the night of the crime. I put it to your Honours that the correctness of that alibi has now been practically admitted—the correctness as to the night of the 17th, which, of course, was the only night to which it was directed at that period. I submit that the result of a fair review of.the mistakes, omissions, and discrepancies of these two important witnesses will lead to the establishment of their perfect bona fides and to the absence of any concoction or coaching—to the absence even of that thorough briefing which Meikle would have secured if he had not quarrelled with his lawyers when the proceedings were halfway through before the Justices, and gone to trial without the intervention of any local lawyer at all. There is only one other witness for Meikle to whom I desire to make special reference, and that is to the case of Templeton, which I thought would be sufficiently in your Honours' minds yesterday to justify me in passing it over. If you look at Judge Ward's report you will see the immense importance attached to Templeton's evidence at that time. At page 29 he says,— ■ " For the defence the first witness was one Templeton, who swore to a conversation with Lambert, giving full particulars of time and place; but finding that certain witnesses were prepared to prove an alibi for Lambert, desired Mr. MacGregor, counsel for prisoner, to retract his evidence next morning by stating that he had been entirely mistaken in both the above particulars, by which retraction he saved himself from being convicted for perjury, and enabled the jury to duly appreciate his testimony." It is also stated by His Honour on the following page, in the letter he wrote to the Parliamentary Petitions Committee in 1895, that notwithstanding the elimination of Lambert's testimony there remained sufficient evidence to go to the jury. " But the case for the Crown would have been greatly weakened, and probably the able counsel engaged by Meikle would then have secured his acquittal, had it not been for the exposure of the gross perjury committed on Meikle's behalf by the witness Templeton, which might have turned the scale the other way." Mr. Justice Cooper: What is the perjury suggested?
H.—2l.
Mr. Atkinson: A mistake in the date. Mr. Justice Edwards: Of course that might or might not indicate false swearing. Of course it is not obvious, but it might be. Mr. Atkinson: As stated by Judge Ward it could not be otherwise, because he says he mistook the particulars of time and place. I submit that an error in chronology nine times out of ten is a venial thing. Mr. Justice Edwards: In nine cases out of ten it really has nothing to do with it. There is nothing more common than a mistake in date; still, there might be such a misstatement of date as would indicate perjury. Mr. Atkinson: The evidence given by Templeton is exceedingly brief. It is on page 24. Mr. Justice Cooper: Was Templeton put up as a witness to support the alibi? Air. Atkinson: He was tendered to give evidence as to an admission made by Lambert, and he put it by mistake on the wrong date; but on looking up his letter-book he found he had misconceived the date. That is all the explanation. Mr. Macdonald: That is hardly accurate. Mr. Justice Cooper: There is nothing said on the Judge's notes. Mr. Macdonald: Yes, your Honour, there is. We got leave to call rebutting evidence, and after that Mr. MacGregor admitted it. Mr. Justice Cooper: There is nothing in the Judge's notes to show that. Mr. Macdonald: There is, if your Honour will look at the errd. There is the evidence of Burgess, Gregg, Wilson, and Troup. Mr. MacGregor made the correction in his address to the jury. That, of course, came after the evidence was closed. It was only after the rebutting evidence was called that Mr. MacGregor made the correction. If he had made it before that, of course, the rebutting evidence wouid not have been called. The rebutting evidence is perfectly plain; it is there. 1 have a very distinct recollection of the fact. My friend has got the newspaper report of His Honour's address to the jury. Mr. Justice Cooper: The position was that Templeton swore to a conversation on the 24th August with Lambert. You called rebutting evidence to show that it could not have taken place, because Lambert was somewhere else. Then Mr. MacGregor mentioned to the jury that Templeton had made a mistake. Mr. Macdonald: That is exactly the fact, your Honour. Mr. Atkinson: These are not the facts, if it wiif please your Honour. It is a most extraordinary thing that when Templeton told his story to this Commission there was not a single question put to him on that point. Mr. Justice Cooper: What is on the notes is that he swore to a conversation on the 24th August, and rebutting evidence was called that Lambert was elsewhere. Mr. Atkinson: There is a statement in the report. Mr. Justice Edwards: That is a year later. Mr. Atkinson: It is hardly likely to be mistaken. It would obviously blacken Templeton's character worse if the Judge had said respectable witnesses proved to the contrary. Mr. Justice Cooper: We have the Judge's notes before us and Templeton's explanation. Mr. Macdonald: You have rebutting evidence on page 28 of the pamphlet. Mr. Atkinson: I think my friend should have dropped this altogether. Owing to the importance that Judge Ward attached to it—l did not attach much importance myself to his original statement —I put him in the box for cross-examination, but not a question was asked, and now my friend repeats this thing. I submit it is not treating my client fairly. Mr. Justice Edwards: It is quite clear that rebutting evidence was called, because it is there. Mr. Atkinson: It does not follow that the admission was not made previously. Mr. Macdonald: If it was the rebutting evidence would not have been called. Mr. Justice Edwards: Ido not know what Mr. Justice Ward would do, but if counsel before me were to do it, I should certainly stop him and tell him not to waste the time and money of the country. Mr. Atkinson: ft is on the notes that he told Mr. MacGregor on his way to the Court next morning after having consulted his book. Mr. Macdonald: That may be perfectly consistent with the statement I have made. You have the newspaper report, and you will find in Mr, MacGregor's address a suggestion that it did not come until after the evidence. Mr. Justice Cooper: Can you say from your memory whether all the evidence was completed the first day ? Mr. Macdonald: 1 would not like to state that now, but I have papers at the hotel which I could see. My 7 impression is that the rebutting evidence was called on the following morning. If your Honours wish, I will look my notes up and make a statement later on. Mr. Justice Cooper: It may reconcile the whole thing if Mr. MacGregor made a statement the next morning that Templeton had made a mistake. Mr. Macdonald: If your Honour cares, I will look up my notes. Mr. Atkinson: Then, Judge Ward's report must be incorrect. Do you say so? Mr. Macdonald: I have made my statement. Mr. Atkinson: Ido not know if my friends admit the good faith of the witness, but I have done with the point. Mr. Macdonald: I did not elaborate Templeton's evidence at all. Mr. Atkinson: It was never admitted that he had sworn falsely as to the place. There was no cross-examination upon it. Lambert had admitted the conversation, and there was no dispute as to the fact of the conversation. Mr. Justice Cooper: He admitted the interview ; he did not admit the conversation.
286
H.—2l.
Mr. Atkinson: He admitted some conversation. They discussed the grievance he had over being turned out of the hotel. The importance of saving the credibility of that witness, your Honour, is considerable, though the evidence itself has a very remote bearing really upon the question which was before the Court in 1887, seeing the conversation was simply this: " Lambert put his arm round my neck arid said, ' Look here, Jack, company wants me to go for poor old Meikle, but I will stick to Meikle.' " The evidence had originally only a remote bearing on the case, but it became of the utmost importance as soon as it was given the air of perjured evidence procured by Meikle in order to secure his acquittal. It was a singular thing that Templeton's mistake should again be emphasized by his Honour in 1895, when he referred to the fact that notwithstanding the elimination of Lambert's testimony, "the gross perjury committed on Meikle's behalf by the witness Templeton " might have secured Meikle's conviction after all. That will be found in the concluding paragraph of the second report on page 30. However, my friends do not appear to be inclined to make any admission. Then, on page 78 there is Templeton's reference to his books. He referred to his books as to the date, and found he was mistaken. He has sworn to this Commission (question 614) that he told Mr. MacGregor on his way to the Court next morning. So far as the charge of having withdrawn his statement with regard to the place of the conversation is concerned, in the first place, the place was never in doubt, and, in the second place, he has repeated it. He swore before the Commission that he told Mr. MacGregor of his mistake after a reference to his books, when Mr. MacGregor w 7 as on his way to the Court in the morning. He repeated the same statement in Dunedin to this Commission as to the place at which he alleged this took place in 1887, and he left the box without a single question being raised by my friend with regard to that matter. I propose, your Honours, to deal now with the question of the muster that was taken on the company's pre-emptive right, and on the 26th October, and of the inferences which are sought to be drawn from that fact and from the entries in the station diary which has been produced. It has been contended by my learned friends on the other side that the entries under the date 26th October in that diary prove that the company's agents were aware at that date of Lambert's report that there were twenty-seven sheep of the company's on Meikle's land. It was apparent on the face of the entry in the diary of that date that the figures have been altered both in the body of the entry and in the margin. The relevant figures are in the margin below the corrected figures. There is no reference to this in the body of the memo., and my contention is that, both from the omissions, insertions, and corrections, this was not a contemporary entry so far, at any rate, as the margin goes, and that, as a matter of fact, the figures " 26 Meikle's " and " 1 ram Meikle's " were put there after the result of the execution by the police of the search warrant on the 2nd and 3rd November was known. The alterations in the main figures are curious, but I have been unable to ask the Commissioners to draw any particularly 7 significant inference from them. There is a slight difference between the two experts called, but the alterations substantially are 311 altered to 302, 111 altered to 222, and 21 altered to 20. "26 Meikle's " remains unaltered, and " rams 15 " and "ram 1 Meikle's" remain unaltered. There was another alteration in one of the figures 222. There has been an Bin the last place, according to one of the authorities who was examined. But so far as the evidence of Mr. Trotter goes, it was frank enough upon the point. He was shepherd at the time in charge of the muster, and he says this is in his handwriting. Of course, he franklyenough admits he is unable to say whether or not it is a contemporary entry. He considered that it was in the examination-in-chief, but in the cross-examination we have this: — " 349. Does it not occur to you that these figures in the margin have a different appearance to the rest of the writing, and that even the figures in the text have been written over twice?— That might be. The figures in the margin correspond to the figures to the body of the page. " 350. What I am suggesting to you is really that this complete tally you put in the margin was the result of subsequent information—that you had not completed the return on the 26th October, and did complete the information you got afterwards?—l might." Of course, it has been pointed out by counsel for the Crown that the entry on the subsequent date of " 302 sheep to Sunnyside " shows no alteration, from which they ask the Commission to infer that the entry on the 26th was, at any rate, not later than the following day 7. However, your Honours, I submit that inference is not one that is properly deducible, because there is no inference to be drawn from these figures relative to the figures at the bottom there. It does prove looseness and inaccuracy in the entry, but I submit it does not prove that all the information that is contained in the entry under the date of 26th was in the knowledge of Mr. Trotter on the 27th. The most extraordinary omission in regard to this entry—extraordinary upon any hypothesis according to Mr. Stuart's evidence —is recorded on page 148, in questions 169 to 174. He says there were twenty-six rams which were found in that muster put into a paddock by themselves on the night of the 26th, and disappeared in the night and were never more heard of. I understood my friend to say in his address to your Honours that these twenty-six rams were subsequently accounted for. Mr. Macdonald: That is so. Mr. Atkinson: lam very glad he said so. It was not in the evidence, and to some extent there was another item for my client to account for. Surely it is an extraordinary thing, and goes to the root of the value of this entry, that these twenty-six rams nowhere figure in the entry of the 26th. Mr. Macdonald,: They were found some time afterwards. Mr. Atkinson: Yes, quite so; but the point is: if the entry was made on the 26th, then these twenty-six rams would clearly have been put in as something in hand. If the entry was even made on the 27th, why is there no reference to them as missing? The coincidence of this number with the number of sheep found on Meikle's is very singular. Possibly the twenty-six were written in at some subsequent date at which the whole entry was made complete, and therefore was not mentioned ; but the extraordinary thing is that in the figures relating to the muster and to the sheep actually in hand the twenty-six were never mentioned. I say " relating to the sheep actually in hand," or potentially 7 in hand, because a remarkable statement of Mr. Stuart's is this: that the
287
H.—2l.
twenty-six rams were supposed to have gone the same way as the twenty-eight sheep which Lambert said he saw stolen on the night of the 17th. Well, what 1 put to your Honours is this: If the twenty-seven sheep which disappeared on the 17th or 18th October were entered here as part of the company's assets still available, why were not the twenty-six rams which had disappeared in the night, and whose loss was attributed to the same hand, shown in the same way? Mr. Macdonald: That is explained by Trotter and Stuart, that in consequence of Lambert's report these sheep were put down as being in Meikle's. Mr. Atkinson : I quite understand that. They believed Lambert's report of what happened on the 17th, but they did not believe their own eyes as to what happened on the 2"6 th. Mr. Macdonald: The statement in the diary was of sheep they could account for on the preemptive right and sheep they knew were elsewhere. The sheep on the pre-emptive right were entered, and the sheep elsewhere, and the sheep on Meikle's land as reported by Lambert. Mr. Atkinson: That is the inference you ask the Commissioners to draw. Of course, the twenty-six rams were worth about as much as the rest of these sheep put together. Mr. Macdonald: The missing sheep would be the difference between the number entered in the diary—ss9, I think —and the number put on the pre-emptive right. That is the obvious explanation. Mr. Atkinson: The point is this, your Honours: If these figures were a record of the muster that took [dace on the 26th, they were utterly erroneous, because this extraordinary item of twentysi \ rams was never put in at all. If made on the 26th, or if it even related to what took place on the 26th, surely it is an extraordinary omission. There is an absolute silence in regard to these twenty-six rams, and if the loss of" them was attributed, as Stuart says, to the same hand to which Lambert ascribed the loss of the twenty-eight sheep on the night of the 17th, then the entry surely should have been, "26 sheep Meikle's, and 27 rams." But the difference of treatment is extraordinary, and, I submit, quite inexplicable on my friend's hypothesis. Ido submit, however, that it is reasonably capable of explanation in this way: that the total was not completed on either the 26th or 27th October —that there was no completion of that column in the margin. The total was never struck until after the police had executed the search warrant on the 3rd November, and after that, in order to complete the record of sheep actually accounted for from the pre-emptive right, the "26 Meikle's " and the " 1 ram Meikle's " were inserted. Of course, there would be nothing fraudulent or unnatural or unbusinesslike in putting the matter in in that way ; but obviously it would have been profoundly unbusinesslike to put in without explanation these sheep which had disappeared more than a week before, and might, for all they knew, have gone off into space. Now, I put it that the only reasonable alternative to the suggestion I have already made is this: that the twenty-seven sheep entered there as on Meikle's and reported as being on Meikle's were known to be there—innocently, so far as Meikle was concerned—having either strayed there, and therefore being recoverable for the asking, or else having been put there in order to trap him. Otherwise is it conceivable that twenty-seven sheep, stolen hy an expert of the very highest quality, according to the testimony of the company's witness, on the 17th or 18th October, should be treated in their entirety as still part of the company's assets on the 26th October? The absurdity being increased by this additional fact that no servant of the company had kept any watch on them or taken any steps to see that they were still there. I submit that the natural and normal inference is, at any rate, favourable to Meikle's innocence. Either they knew the sheep were strays and could be got back, or else they could not have treated them in a contemporary entry as still in the hands of the company. But the probable explanation, which I ask your Honours to accept as the reasonable one, is that the whole entry 7 was never completed until after the search was executed by the police on the 2nd and 3rd November. Taking the totals of the sheep as shown there—sB6—an important light is thrown by this calculation upon the manner in which prejudice has been heaped upon my client by the way the comrrany's servants have given their evidence. Take the 586 sheep, the total shown there—that is, including the sheep in dispute ; you add the twenty-six rams that were missing; you add the two skins that were found on Meikle's property; also one dead sheep deposed to by Mr. Wild : you have thus got to add twenty-nine to your total of 586. You have also to add a certain number for sheep killed at the hut, or sheep taken from the hut for killing at the station. Your Honours will remember that it was a period of two months since the subsequent muster that sheep were killed at the hut, and that the fat sheep were on that side of the estate and not on the other. It is therefore a reasonable inference that a considerable number of these sheep would have disappeared lawfully in this way for the purposes of the company ; and my recollection is, though I cannot find it in the notes, that Troup referred to thirty skins as having been brought in from the hut. I submit that would not be an unreasonable number under the circumstances. If that total of thirty were presumed to be reasonable and were added, we should then arrive at the fact that there were 645 sheep accounted for out of 646 that were put on—that is, without any allowance for normal losses, for stray 7 s, and for dead sheep—and surely it would mean, then, that there had only been the loss of a single sheep from the pre-emptive right during those two months, exclusive of the sheep which are in dispute in the matter now before your Honours. Does that not show, your Honours, what a cruel injustice was done to my client in 1887, and is still being done to him'by the way in which evidence was given in Dunedin by Troup and others? I refer specially to Troup's statement on page 23 of the pamphlet—the evidence given in 1887: "646 sheep put on turnips in August (559 taken off)." That, of course, is incorrect at the very start, because the 586 that appears in this entry here does not include the twentyvsix rams, which had then disappeared and were then attributed to Meikle's theft, but had since, as Mr. Macdonald has informed the Commission, been innocently accounted for. I do submit, your Honours, that the original statement of Mr. Troup in 1887, that 646 were put on turnips in August and that 559 were taken off, and his answer in re-examination, that " the difference of eightv-sevon in number of sheep could not be accounted for by natural decrease," does represent a very grave misrepresentation of the
288
H.—2l.
position in a manner that must have worked prejudicially to Meikle. We have to add to that that according to the testimony of the witnesses, I think with the solitary exception of Mr. Troup, the Waiarikiki Creek is not sheep-proof. Johnston, who had worked on Rae's property, said they were commonly on Rae's land, and Mr. Trotter had the candour to say in 1887 (page 22 of pamphlet) that Waiarikiki was not sheep-proof. Surely, your Honours, those figures on page 26, at any rate, enable us to see one way in which this case has been swollen against my client, and does it not also, your Honours, show the utter, preposterous absurdity of Mr. Troup's general assertion that a thousand sheep were lost in the twelve months preceding either October or December, 1887, when the matter is brought to practical test by the company's own figures? I submit, therefore, that Unnatural inference from that entry is that the figures " 26 sheep Meikle's " and " 1 ram Meikle's " were entered as soon as it was definitely ascertained that the company's sheep were there and they had actually been recovered. It is sought, however, your Honours, to draw the inference that that was a contemporary entry, and that the knowledge could only have been obtained from Lambert's report, According to Mr. Cameron's evidence, which was read to the Commission yesterday, Lambert was reporting every day, and he knew about them, because he had read the entries in the diary. I shall be glad to accept the statement as correct. If it is correct, it simply shows that the diary before the Court is not the station diary, because there are no such reports entered there. Mr. Justice Cooper: Many of the pages are lost. Mr. Atkinson: Yes; but I think T am correct in stating that most of the crucial dates are covered by pages that are not lost. Mr. Justice Cooper: From the 14th September to the 29th September the pages are missing. Mr. Atkinson: Yes; down'to the 14th September they are there, but from the 15th to 28th they are gone. Then, from 29th September right on—l think lam correct in saying—to the police search they are all there. Mr. Justice Cooper: Yes; right on to the 16th November, and then there is another page missing. Mr. Atkinson : It is a curious thing, your Honour, that even when the sheep are found—on the 2nd and 3rd November—there is no reference then implying previous knowledge. That is another strange feature. However, Mr. Cameron is speaking from his imagination in making that wild assertion ; but, of course, Lambert himself has done better than that, because Lambert has admitted with regard to the date of his report that he cannot even swear that that report was made on the following day, and it is proved by Mr. Stuart that Lambert did not even take the trouble to go to the homestead to make the report, Mr. Stuart is not quite certain as to the date, but he is certain of the place — namely, that he (Stuart) got it on the occasion of his next visit to Lambert's hut. Lambert thinks he reported the next day, but he will not swear to the next day. That is at question 500, on page 173 : — "Do you swear you told them the next day?—l would not swear, but I know it was as soon as possible after." Then, Mr. Stuart, on page 147, at questions 155-158, says he took charge on the 19th, and it might have been a day or two after that, or a day 7 or two before the muster—that means anywhere from the 20th or 21st to the 24th or 25th—that Mr. Stuart got the information. The first statement in 1895 is that, it might have been the 20th or 22nd October that he got Lambert's report, However, Mr. Stuart is certain in his answer to question 163, on page 148, that the report was made to him not at the homestead, but at the hut, on the occasion of his next visit there after he had taken charge. Now, I submit that, delay in a matter of this kind of even a few hours is a serious thing, and when it comes to days it is decidedly serious. Here was Lambert, if his story is true, accustomed to rabbiting at £1 a week and found. He had the opportunity of getting £50 cash i r he obtained the necessary evidence. If he got the means of doing so he would have the opportunity of catching the culprit red-handed : but he was not sufficiently eager to go to Islav and report that night nor the following day, but he hung on for a period unknown—anyway, from one or two to four or five days—until the acting-manager came along, and then he told him. Then, when that period is fixed there is further delay before any proceeding is taken. That, Lambert, by the way, explains in a very singular fashion—that it was nothing to do with him ; as long as he had seen what he had got to see, and as long as he made his report when Mr. Stuart came along to get it, his duty was done in the matter. The answer from which I draw that inference is in reply to question 500, at the bottom of page 173 :— "Do you swear you told them the next day? —I would not swear, but I know it was as soon as possible after. " 501. You did not go up that night?— No. "502. Could not the whole thing have been settled absolutely if that had been done? Could you not have had half a dozen witnesses if prompt action had been taken?—l suppose so. I told Mr. Stuart about it. That was all I had to do." As your Honours are perfectly aware, in order to get his £50 he had not merely to tell a story some days after that might or might not be of any use, but he had to tell his story in such a way and give his evidence in such a way that a conviction would be procured. Stuart is also singular : on page 149, question 237, he is asked: — " Why did you not go to the police at once?— There was a report of a horse having been stolen, and I had a feeling that I would give Meikle a chance. If he would send word that the sheep were in his paddock, or would turn them out or would say something about them, I would not have laid the information. I did not want to take the man short, because T was pretty certain he would say I had got some one to put in the sheep." I submit, your Honours, that this is a perfectly amazing story—this account of the long suffering and forbearance of the company, or what I may call its perfectly irresponsible agents. This is the position : A thousand sheep a year were being stolen. The man who was suspected of stealing
37— H. 21.
289
H.—2l.
them, or a large part of them, was seen, or alleged to be seen, stealing twenty-eight. Stuart was employed to ascertain where the sheep were going. Neither Cameron nor 1 roup were aware of that, although Stuart was better informed in 1895. He stated in his evidence m 1887 : — "I was employed to see where the missing sheep were going. Iroup took me over the preemptive right, where Lambert was living in a hut." ~,■,, io He also stated he had been formerly a policeman, and presumably he had some expert qualifications for the matter. The position appears, then, to be that both Stuart and Lambert were employed for detective purposes, and Stuart, being the superior officer and having no financial interest in the affairs of the company, benevolently waits for days before he gives information to the police, although, 1 need hardly point out, the normal effect would be the total disappearance o the sheep and the incriminating tokens. Then, the confidence of Stuart and Lambert m Merkle was so absolute that the sheep were allowed to remain on Meikle's land, and were entered in the diary as part of the assets of the company. No watch was kept on them to ascertain what was becoming o them between the date they were stolen and the date the police went m. My authority tor that statement is to be found at page 180, question 724:- _ • "When did you first see these stolen sheep, as you call them, after that night?—! nevei saw them again. ... ~ " Did you see some of them at a Court in Wyndham (—Yes, 1 did see two. So that we have it that the company's officers believed that these sheep had been stolen on the night of the 17th or 18th, and no step whatever was taken even to watch the sheep during the longdelay of a fortnight for which the laying of an information was suspended. There was every reason for urgency in the ordinary course for the protection of the company's property and the_ prosecution of the" criminal who took it, and there was the special inducement to Lambert of gaining his reward Yet there was all this delay on account of the unauthorised benevolence of Stuart, as he would have us believe. I submit it is far more reasonable to assume that the evidence was not complete, and the delay took place accordingly. Mr. Justice Edwards: In what respect do you suggest the evidence was not complete! Mr. Atkinson: I put it that there were no skins there. Mr. Justice Edwards: This is a new conspiracy with Stuart and Lambert. Mr Atkinson: I am putting it that Stuart would know about it, Mr. Macdonald: According to the Crown's theory, the skins must have been there—according to the age of the skins. Mr Atkinson: My friend, of course, puts the Crown's theory correctly. Mr. Justice Cooper: Is it not inconsistent with your case? Is not your case that the skins were brought in a bag, and that that was as nearly as possible the 17th October ? Mr. Atkinson: The Ist November. Mr. Justice Cooper: That is not inconsistent, . Mr. Atkinson: It is not inconsistent. The police were informed on the 29th October, and the information was laid later on. lam not absolutely certain of the date. Mr Justice Cooper: What were the dates when Lambert last went to Meikle s? Mr. Atkinson: Ist November. The police went on the 2nd, completed the search on the 3rd, arrested young Meikle on that date, and arrested his father on the 7th. .. Mr. Justice Cooper: Ido not know whether it helps you otherwise. The date 26th October rather suggests that the twenty-six sheep and one ram at Meikle's place were alrve. Mr. Atkinson: If entered on that day, they were treated as part of the company s assets, recoverable for the asking, having honestly strayed. Mr Justice Cooper: On the 26th October it may be suggested that there were twenty-seven hve animals on Meikle's property belonging to the company. You say that on Ist November the skms were put there. Mr. Atkinson: Yes. . Mr Justice Cooper: When the search was made they only got twenty-five sheep—twenty-tour sheep and one ram—but two days afterwards they took two more living sheep, which were afterwards returned to Meikle. Mr. Atkinson: Two more of the company's sheep. , Mr Macdonald: If you will excuse mv pointing out, the twenty-five found on the 2nd were found by themselves on Meikle's grass. The other two sheep were found on the rough ground on the following day. . ~..,.,, Mr. Justice Cooper: The twenty-five are part of the twenty-seven found at Meikle s I Mr. Macdonald: That is our case. Mr. Justice Cooper: You say that the missing two sheep are represented by the skms ( Mr. Macdonald: That is exactly our case. Mr. Atkinson: lam glad to hear that. - Mr Macdonald: And that the two sheep referred to are different altogether. They were found on the rough ground, while these twenty-five were found on the English grass. We say the twentyfive represent the residue of what Lambert saw being driven in. He saw one killed; then there were two skins. . , ~„; , ~ ~ , , . ~ Mr Justice Cooper: Looking at the entries in the diary you find, 26 sheep Meikle s, 1 ram, on the 26th October. You find on the 2nd November, " Went to Meikle's; got 24 wethers and 1 ram." 3rd November, " got 2 sheep." Then you have, " Wethers 26, ram 1, total 27." You say these two wethers found on 3rd' November were different. Mr. Macdonald: They were obtained on a different part of the farm. Mr. Justice Cooper: Then, there must have been twenty-nine. Mr. Macdonald: No, Sir. Mr. Justice Cooper: You got twenty-seven live ones and two skins; that is twenty-nine.
290
H.—2l.
Mr. Justice Edwards: You keep those two separate. Mr. Justice Cooper: 1 am only pointing out that Lambert's report was that he had seen twenty-seven driven in, minus one killed in his presence. Mr. Justice Edivards: It is necessary, Mr. Atkinson, to support your argument that Stuart was in conspiracy with Lambert. Mr. Atkinson: Your Honour, lam now putting it that he was, but I desire to point out that this is another change of front on the jrart of the Crown. The mathematical coincidence in numbers was made a jjoiut of by Dr. Findlay, and these two sheep my friend desires to include were included, and they fitted exactly. The same point was made in the Supreme Court in Dunedin, and you may remember Dr. Findlay- interrupting me in my opening address to ask where could I prove that it was any part of the case for the Crown that the skins found were any of the skins of the sheep Lambert had seen driven in. Mr. Macdonald: What I think Dr. Findlay said was that the skin of the sheep Lambert saw killed was not one of the two skins found there. Mr. Atkinson: That is possible, your Honour. Now that my friend mentions it 1 will not persist. The point is not one that I am concerned to fight very strongly, because it will assist another part of my argument. Of course, it is not an essential part of my case to bring anybody into the matter besides Lambert. The essential part of my case is, of course, to exclude Meikle from any guiity connection or any guilty knowledge with regard to these animals found on his ground. From that point of view—which is, of course, the safest point of view for me —it is a matter of entire indifference as to whether or not this report of Lambert's to Stuart came in early or late. The dates which we are allowed to select from range, according to Stuart's statement, anywhere from the 20th to the 25th October. That represents the range of possible variation. Well, of course, your Honour', the later the report is fixed the more doubt is thrown upon its genuineness by reason of the delay in a matter which, as I have put, required the utmost expedition. The earlier we fix the date of that report the stronger is the strength of the company's confidence in Meikle's innocence, by reason of the greater length of time which they allowed him to remain in possession of those sheep, unwatched and unguarded. Now, if Lambert did mention tweiitv-eight sheep on the 20th or the 25th as having been stolen by Meikle on the 17th or 18th, the only possible alternatives are either that he had seen them driven, as alleged, or that he had found them on Meikle's land, or that he or somebody had put them there. Of course, a fourth alternative might be suggested—that some of them were strays, and a certain number were added; but that will exhaust the possibilities. The question then is, assuming the circumstances to be as I have stated: Why assume that Meikle rather than Lambert had put the sheep there, or had put any sheep there, beyond what might reasonably be supposed to have strayed? Surely the fact that these sheep remained on Meikle's property for a period of fifteen or sixteen days untampered with and iinremoved in the precise number as seen at the beginning of that period, raises at the very start a strong presumption of his innocence. Dr. Findlay contributed a valuable point to my argument by the passage in his address towards the top of page 111—a passage as to the methods of the sheepstealer : — " I understand that it is the recognised method of the practical sheep-stealer to bring upon his land a number—not a large number—say, twenty or thirty sheep, leave them there, and take them in ones or twos as they were required, so that if the owner comes along and the missing sheep are found the thief may say : ' There they are, in broad, open daylight. There is no concealment about their being here. I would not have left them there if I had stolen them, and you can take them away when you like.' That, in practice, has been found to be the method followed by the expert sheep-stealer, and, so far as prima facie appearances are concerned, this is just precisely what was done here." Well, precisely that method was employed here, only with a few trifling exceptions, which I take leave to mention. First of all, of the twenty-eight sheep alleged to have been stolen on the 17th October 1 , every one would have gone by 7 the 2nd November if the normal practice as suggested by my friend had been followed. At the rate of, say, two sheep a day for sixteen days would obviously have been more than enough to account for the whole twenty-eight. As a matter of fact, they would all have disappeared in fourteen or fifteen days. Then, in order to save this approved method from affording him any protection, the very candid sheep-stealer in this case leaves the skins of two sheep belonging to the same proprietor in his barn for the police or anybody else to find whenever they chose to come in by the open door. Surely, your Honours, if my friend correctly states the approved method of the sheep-stealer, there has been a radical departure from it in this case, which can only be explained, as I submit, upon the theory of absolute innocence on the part of my client, Now, may I add Dr. Findlay's remarks relate only to the practical sheep-stealer— the average man engaged in the craft? And may I point out that the ordinary inducement for the average sheep-stealer to dispose of his booty was increased manifold in this case, assuming Meikle to have been the criminal? In the first place, another man had seen him. In the second place, though professedly friendly, that witness was under no obligation to maintain secrecy, and under a. very strong pecuniary obligation to the company to break it. Thirdly, the employers and associates of this witness were known to be hostile and to be suspicious, and, indeed, the employers of the man Lambert were known to have offered a reward either for the arrest, as Meikle believed, of Meikle himself, or at any rate —it is not denied —for the arrest of the man who was actually stealing the sheep. These, your Honours, are surely very cogent reasons, which it will need a more coercive degree of proof than has been offered in this case before your Honours to remove. I put it here in my series as another reason that if the sheep had been stolen Lambert must have watched them; but according to the quotation I have already made he did not, Mr. Justice Edivards: How could he watch them? Mr. Atkinson : There were many ways for him to ascertain whether those sheep were getting away or not. It was part of his business to do it and part of his interest to do it, because his money depended upon the result of the prosecution.
291
H.— 21.
Mr. Justice Edwards: I think the evidence is that the money was paid monthly to his wife. Mr. Atkinson: The bargain was—and it has not been disputed—that he was to get £50 as soon as there was a conviction. Mr. Justice Edwards: I think it will be found that in the evidence of Mr. Cameron, taken on commission and read yesterday morning, that the money was being paid in instalments to Lambert's wife. Mr. Atkinson: The question is as to how the offer was made, and I do not think it has been denied that it was to be a bonus of £50 after the conviction was obtained. Mr. Justice Edwards: The point is: if the money was being paid in instalments to Mrs. Lambert, the longer it went on the better for Lambert. I took it that it was being paid all the time. Mr. Atkinson: It was uot paid until after the conviction. Mr. Macdonald: Lambert, on page 179, from question 688, gives a very full explanation of this business in reply to Mr. Atkinson. He says the payments were made after the conviction in instalments to his wife. Mr. Findlay: Cameron says, on page 15 of his commission, that the bonus was to be paid on a conviction, but that, as a matter of fact, it had been paid monthly or weekly to Lambert's wife by Troup. Mr. Justice Edwards: That, then, is wrong. Mr. Macdonald: Ido not think it is inconsistent with Lambert's own testimony. Mr. Justice Edwards: At all events, it misled me. Mr. Atkinson: It is certainly an ambiguous statement. Mr. Justice Edwards: Ido not think it is ambiguous. I think he means exactly what he says —that it had been paid monthly or weekly to Lambert's wife by Troup. Mr. Atkinson: If that is correct, that certainly is the meaning; but the question as to how it was paid does not arise. Mr. Justice Edwards: If he was going to be paid in instalments, then he would not be in a hurry to get his money. Mr. Atkinson: My friend is in agreement with me on this point—that it was a condition precedent to the payment of any of this money that a conviction for theft should be obtained. So that, your Honours, in view of the offer of this money, I submit that Lambert had as strong an inducement to put sheep there as Meikle had to remove them, if stolen; and, in the last place, the presumption as to the putting of the sheep there, if improperly put there, is the same as the presumption in regard to the putting of the skins in Meikle's smithy. I proceed therefore to deal with the question of the skins, it is not disputed, y 7 our Honours, that they were found in Mr. Meikle's smithy by the police on the morning of the 2nd November wherr they entered under their search warrant, and the door of the smithy was not only unlocked, but open, and that some of the other doors were locked. At any rate, Mr. Meikle's witnesses so stated on previous occasions, and the police were unable to deny it. First of all, your Honours, 1 will direct your attention to the evidence as to the marks on these skins. It is not very voluminous, though I submit that on the side of my client it is exceedingly strong. There is, first of all, the evidence of Mr. Westacott, at page 98, question 720, and following. Mr. Westacott, your Honours may remember, was a butcher who described himself as having been dealing with stock all his life : — " 720. Were there any peculiar marks on them?— Wire-marks. " 721. Is that a distinctive mark? —A wire-mark from hanging over a wire fence, head and tail, like that [illustrating the position]. They showed the wire-mark. " 722. You were saying something particular about the wire-mark?— They were not hung head and tail down ; they were hung over this way [illustrating the manner]." lam afraid, your Honours, I cannot repeat the manner. Then he refers to the ruling of the Justices, in question 753: — " How was your attention first called to the skins at the Wyndham Court? —I was brought into the box. The skins were brought out, and Mr. Forsaith ordered me to go out of the Court. I think Mr. Harvey was in the Court at the time, and would not allow me to speak." Mr. Harvey, your Honours, was the company's lawyer. Mr. Justice Cooper: What appeared on the depositions is this: " Westacott called. lam a butcher," and all struck out, and another witness takes his place. Mr. Atkinson: He attributes it to Mr. Harvey, the company's solicitor; and, as your Honour says, a solicitor generally has the best of it in a case of this kind. The evidence to which I attach still greater weight is the evidence of Mr..Forsaith, from his judicial position at the time, and from the fact that he cannot be open to the imputation of any of these undue or illegitimate influences in view of his statement in the box that he never mentioned the matter until I put the question to him before going into Court. It is on page 76. He describes himself as a retired farmer: — " 527. You were one of the Justices who committed Meikle for trial for sheep-stealing in 1887? —That is correct. " 528. Were there any sheep-skins produced in Court on that occasion?— Yes. " 529. Were there any marks of any kind that you, as a farmer, noticed on them? —Yes; I drew the attention of my co-Justice to the wire-marks on some of the sheep-skins, as if they had been dried on a wire fence —two, I think, as far as my memory serves me." Then, a little further down we have this in cross-examination: — " 581. You told us you were one of the Justices who heard this case. When were you first asked by Meikle to say whether or not these skins bore the marks of wire? —Never. Mr. Meikle never spoke to me of the skins. " 582. Who asked you whether or not the skins bore the marks of wire?—l saw them in the Court. " 583. But you were asked about the skins before you gave evidence just now?— Never before Mr. Atkinson asked me about them last night."
292
H —21.
Then we have this evidence:—■ " 588. What was the nature of the mark which led you to infer that they had been on wire?— No one accustomed to sheep-skins could have any doubt at all about It. A skin is often thrown on a wire, and across the inside you will see a black stripe when it has been hanging, say, a month. " 589. You are charging your memory with an event of nearly nineteen years ago. Might not the mark have been produced by the skin having been folded and pressed ?—No; that would be a different mark altogether. " 590. Do you not agree with that suggestion?— No." I submit, your Honours, the authority of that witness would be exceedingly hard to displace, and impossible to displace under the circumstances. There was one other witness called at Lambert's trial in 1895, whose evidence appears on page 41 of the panrphlet: — "Alexander Grieve, manager, Pine Bush Station. If sheep-skins are dried on a wire fence they show the wire-mark, I inspected two skins produced at Police Court at Wyndham in connection with this matter. They had indications of having been dried on a wire. The wire-mark was on them." On the other hand, your Honours, as against that exceedingly strong body of testimony, there is no independent witness produced at all. Mr. Trotter did refer to the skins in the trial of 1887, I think it was, as having the appearance of having been hanging on something, and Mr. Stuart stated in the report of Lambert's f riai, page 42 :— " The skins presented a dark, sooty appearance. They hadn't a fresh-looking appearance. 1 noticed no other peculiarity about them. I believe there was a sort of mark. I think they were pulled down from hanging on a. stick." I submit, your Honours, this Commission will have little difficulty in arriving at the conclusion that these skins had that wire-mark and had been dried hanging on a wire, and that they 7 would not have got this mark if dried where they were found. An attempt was made, although it was not touched in the argument, by the line of Dr. Findlay's examination of Mr. Stuart and Mr. Trotter to suggest that these skins had been marked; that there was some appearance on these skins to conclude that they were smoke-marks—that they had been dried in the smithy rather than in the open. I venture to suggest that matter would not have been allowed to be overlooked up to this late period if there had been anything in it. Of course, the skins themselves were produced in the" Courts in 1887, and the suggestion made then is not likely to find any weight with your Honours when it comes at this very late stage and from the mouth only of the company's servants. Then, a complementary part of this case is concerned with Mr. McGeorge's evidence as to giving Lambert certain skins some short while before the date of the alleged theft. Take first of all Mr. McGeorge's evidence as he gave it before this Commission. I regret that one or two unnecessary and rather unkind aspersions should have been thrown by my friend Dr. Findlay upon this witness, who, I submit, will have impressed your Honours as a thoroughly honest and conscientious man. He is an old man now —sixty-four he said he was in the box—and Dr. Findlay has referred to him more than once as though he was an old man, at the time of the events under consideration and at the time he gave evidence in 1895. Of course, he could hardly be called an old man either in 1887 or in 1895, and I submit there is every reason to suppose his memory was quite clear then. I hardly need remind your Honours he shared the hut on the pre-emptive right with Lambert, and, of course, the date of this witness's departure is one of the great bones of contention in this case. On page 81 we find this evidence: — "712. Who had charge of the sheep-skins on the station?—No one in particular, you might say; because any sheep that died or that we killed we skinned and put the skins at the back of the hut. "713. Had there been any talk about skins between you and Lambert?— Not particularly. He said he would like to have one or two to take home for mats, if I remember properly. " 714. How long was that before you left for the station?—lt might have been a week or so. " 715. Did you get one or two skins for him? —No, I did not get them for him. He could help himself to them. They were at the back of the hut." Then there are these three last questions put to him in the examination-in-chief:-— " 723. Were there any 7 skins hanging about the hut or fence when y 7 ou left?— Not that lam aware of. " 724. Do you remember the evidence you gave in Lambert's trial in 1895?— Indeed, I cannot tell you that now. I suppose it is there in print, and I know that what I said was right. " 725. You do not want to alter anything you said? —No." Then his cross-examination was not concluded before the Commission rose on the Friday 7, and McGeorge's examination was resumed on Monday. The question was put to him then—the last question in his re-examination, — " Are you aware of having made any mistakes in your evidence at Lambert's trial in 1895?— Not that I know of." Of course, the remarkable fact about this evidence is that he omitted one essential or, at any rate, very 7 important point from the evidence as given by him on the prosecution of Lambert. His evidence is given on page 39 of the pamphlet, and there he states, — I know Lambert. He was in employ of company also. He slept in same hut as me. He would know I had gone. Before I left —maybe a week or a fortnight—Lambert said he wanted a couple of sheep-skins for mats. I left them for him on the fences. I expect it would be last trip I went to station on Saturday." ' Then in cross-examination he says, " I left two skins hanging on the wire fence alongside of Lambert's hut." I submit, y 7 our Honours, that in the case of an obviously truthful witness, and one who has every appearance of being an older man than usual at the age of sixty-four, the rule " the earlier the better " applies with special force. The passage from forty-five years to sixty-four
293
H.—2l.
is a considerable distance for such a man to travel. This at least, I submit, your Honours, is clear from this omission in the witness's evidence: It will not fit in with the theory of subornation of perjury or other illegitimate infiuencewhich has been so freely advanced. In his weak physical condition it is quite clear that he would be an easier subject for such influence now than he was ten or fifteen years ago Furthermore, your Honours will see that notwithstanding the examination of the witness being intercepted by the adjournment there has been no coaching in the interval. 1 do submit that the natural explanation of such a fact as that is honest foss of memory, and there is no ground whatever for any base imputation. The candid acknowledgment that there rs no desire to correct the evidence of 1895 confirms the reasonable inference that he had forgotten the circum--1 Mr. Justice Cooper: He was clear on these points—that what he said in 1895 was true, and that he had forgotten what it was. ...... v \ * Mr Atkinson,: Yes. I leave that point to your Honours, submitting that it is an absolute demonstration of bona fides in that matter all round, and that my client is entitled to the benefit of the statement made in 1895. Then, of course, your Honours, so far as my case rs concerned the fact which at any rate the witness is still clear about remains-that Lambert did make such a request In answer to that it has been alleged by Lambert and other of the company's witnesses that there was no occasion for Lambert to make a request of anybody for those skms; he could get I hem for himself. He was put before this Commission as a sort of distinguished stranger from Scotland Yard, who conferred a distinction on the estate by residing on it for awhile. We do not know whether he wore dress clothes in the evening, but, at any rate, he was subject to none of the ordinary regulations of a sheep-iain, and he could pick up these skins where he Irked. Now, that was a plausible enough explanation as it was put before the Commission, but it is entirely blown to nieces by the admission that Lambert himself made when he was pressed upon this very point on his own'trial in 1895—page 45 of the pamphlet, Lambert's examination-in-chief : " It is not true I asked McGeorge for two skins before he left. I could have got them from Mr. Stuart or Mr. Troup without asking McGeorge for them." I ask your Honours to note that point particularly, because it is entireh consistent with the story as told by McGeorge in 1895, and it is absolutely inconsistent with the evidence that was produced before this Commission, that Lambert had practically carte blanche in (he matter to help himself as he pleased. Why should he have needed to give this explanation of an elementary fact of this kind in 1895 when it could not have escaped his attention.' Why should he need to give the explanation that he could have got them from Stuart or Troup, when as a matter of tact he could have got them from anybody? The explanation will not hold water, and the inference is that lie did ask McGeorge and that McGeorge gave him the skms. It was put by somebody by way of objection when this Commission was sitting in Dunedin that McGeorge was in no position of authority with regard to these skins. Of course he was not, except that we have il undisputed that it was one of McGeorge's normal duties when he was going up to the homestead to carry along the skins, and to that extent he had a limited authority over them. The temporary custody of them which lie would have for that purpose might reasonably have constituted the occasion for this demand. That is the second substantial point with regard to these skins. The matter of the age of these skins is not so material, though it has a certain amount of bearing on the point. I understood Mr. Macdonald just now to state that it was part of the Crown's theory that these skins were skins taken from the sheep which Lambert saw driven up on the night of the 17th or 18th. That, your Honours, was certainly Mr. Lambert's theory in 1895, because he was questioned—it is on page 46:— " I saw skins produced in Court, They were good skins. Merino ewes. Ihey were butcher s skins. I should say they might be ten or twelve days old." Then in cross-examination he said, — ■' The skins were not six weeks old. I say they were not older than fifteen days. They were just nicely dry." , , ~ • i Well, Mr. Stuart, who was called to give evidence on Lambert s behalf at that trial, took a different view. On page 42 he says, — " I did not think the skins were newly taken off. If they were taken off a week or two before they would be fresh skins. These skins did not look like skins that had been taken from sheep on the' 17th of October. They might." It is clear that Lambert was struggling to have these skms represented as corresponding to the skins of sheep that had been killed about that date, and he did not get very much support from the only witness called on the point on his own side. Then Constable Leece, on page 43, said, — "The skins seemed old. The two skins did not seem to tie so old. They were a sort of a yellow dirty colour." There is nothing in the cross-examination of him. Mr. Harvey's evidence on the point in the depositions of 1887 is very vague: — " The skins produced looked as though they had been killed some time." Mr. Macdonald: The suggestion is that after a certain time it is difficult to ascertain the age. Mr. Justice Cooper: There is one important point in his evidence which you will recollect, Mr. Atkinson —that it was his opinion that the skins were not taken off killed sheep but sheep which had died. Mr. Atkinson: Yes. Mr. Macdonald: That is contradicted, your Honours. Mr. Atkinson: I cannot recall at the present moment what other evidence there was in support of the statement. At any rate, the position now stands that we must amend Dr. Findlay's statement of the practical sheep-stealer—not the ordinary sheep-stealer, but a highly expert and cunning sheep-stealer who knows that he is being carefully watched and that a reward is out for his conviction. We must amend that, for it is stated in the first place that he leaves for fifteen days the
294
H.—2l.
sheep that he has stolen on his own property without removing any, and also that he leaves the skins of two sheep that originally belonged to the same proprietor in his barn for anybody to see who came along. The next point with regard to this branch of the case is as to Meikle's statement to Detective Ede, which, I submit, is of considerable importance and cannot possibly bear the construction which your Honours have been asked by Mr. Macdonald to place upon it. Page 10 of the depositions of 1887 Mr. Justice Cooper: He gave evidence at the trial, did he not? Mr. Atkinson: Yes. It does not appear on the notes; the question was put and disallowed. It appears on page 11 of the depositions of 1887 at the beginning of the cross-examination by the accused : — " I saw you at Invercargill on the 3rd or 4th of last month " —he is speaking, of course, in November—" We had a conversation. You told me you expected there would be a spree, arrd that 1 would have a job. You said you had been informed that sheep and sheep-skins were to be put on your land by the company. You told me that two men were to get £50 each as soon as you were arrested." I argued that matter at some length in my opening address. The argument will be found on pages 21 and 22, and Ido not propose to repeat it now. I regret particularly that my friend's indisposition the other day- did not permit of his elaborating his argument on that point a little more fully, but his broad contention was that the evidence was to be rejected as the evidence of a man who had made the statement as self-serving evidence, with the express view of its being brought forward in his own favour if he got into trouble afterwards. Of course, the suggestion must mean that he was contemplating theft at the time, and he thought this would be to some extent a shield against the consequences of theft, What I would put to your Honours without undue repetition of my previous argument is this: that such a procedure can only apply where a man is aboirt to commit a crime of which some obvious traces must remain ; but that there can be no reason whatever for its being applied by an intending criminal to removing ordinary inferences to be drawn from the traces of the crime which could be removed in a few minutes. To keep stolen sheep for a day or two en route to the market might be necessary sometimes for the most accomplished sheep-stealer, but how could the same argument apply 7 to keeping stolen skins for weeks when they could have been removed in half an hour, and expecting to be in a stronger position with these normal evidences of crime in your keeping? Surely that is stretching improbability too far. If they were fresh skins it would be quite different; but to retain traces of crime for a long time on the strength of bogus statements to the police would be absolute madness. The statement to the police could only at the best raise a probable, possible, or plausible defence to the charge, whereas to put. the skins out of sight would have cleared even suspicion away. I submit, y 7 our Honours, that the communication with Ede confirms my contention of Meikle's innocence, and, furthermore, has a highly important, bearing upon another aspect of the case, which I admit was surrounded with difficulties for both sides. It does show that as long ago as the 3rd or 4th October Meikle had got into his head from some source the identical statements he now attributes to Lambert, and which Lambert now denies. I submit that my client's case is improved by that. It was stated by my client that his first call to see Ede at Invercargill was on 22nd September, which was still nearer to the date of his first conversation with Lambert. Then, the last point with regard to the skins, that Lambert had the motive to put them there, is sufficiently obvious in view of his impecunious condition—he had only £1 a week, and he was getting. £50 if he could secure a conviction. He had the temptation and he had the kind of character to succumb to it; but what I want to put to your Honours at this part of the case is that he also had the opportunity 7 and that the circumstances of the occasion are capable of no other rational interpretation, but that he sought it for the purpose of completing the plant. lam referring to the visit of Lambert to Meikle's house on the night of the Ist November. Of course, if the story of Meikle and his witnesses is to be believed, the matter is as plain as daylight, f have given reasons this morning why you should not reject that testimony on the arguments of my 7 friends. lam not going to repeat that, for if the credibility is established the case is absolutely clear on that evidence. lam now going to assume the rejection of that evidence, and to prove on Lambert's own statements that the Commission cannot still come to any other conclusion but that which I ask them to draw. Mr. Justice Cooper: You mean that he had the opportunity? Mr. Atkinson: Yes. Mr. Justice Cooper: Can you ask us to draw from Lambert's evidence that he put the skins there? Mr. Atkinson: I shall ask you to draw from the opportunity, the temptation, and the character of the man that he put them there. Mr. Justice Cooper: You say they were put there on the night of the Ist November. Where is the date fixed of his going in to sharpen the knife? Mr. Atkinson: Most of the witnesses refer to it as the day before the police came. Ido not think Lambert disputed the date before this Commission. He stated in his evidence at Meikle's trial,— " Last time I was at Meikle's, about 6 p.m., was before Arthur's arrest, one or two nights." Then, again, in his evidence before the Commission he was asked, — " Can you recall when you were last at Meikle's before the police searched?— Yes; I think the last time I was there I went to sharpen a knife." Then, again, he states (page 178, question 646), — " Had you any reason for getting the knife sharpened?— Yes ; I was going to kill some sheep at the station." He fixed the time by questions 640 to 642 : — " What time of the day was it? —It was about 6 o'clock, after T had tea.
295
H.—2l.
" Or even a bit later? —I do not think it was much later. " What time do you have your tea? —Somewhere about 6 o'clock." Mr. Justice Cooper: His evidence is vague as to the date. He says, — "It might have been the day before. Was it the night before? —I do not think so." Harvey says it was the night before. Mr. Atkinson: We have Lambert's first statement on the point on page 21 of the 1887 trial, where he says it was one or two nights before Arthur's arrest. It cannot really refer to any otherdate than the Ist November, because young Meikle was not arrested until the 3rd. The Ist November was the night before the police came. In 1895 it is fair to say he denied it was the night before the search; but it is impossible, I submit, to get away from the statement made in 1887. He could not put it further back than the Ist, and obviously you could not put it further forward. He fixed the hour. He was asked, "What time do you have tea? —Six o'clock." It appears that he travelled a mile after tea and went to Meikle's. Mr. Justice Cooper: There must be some mistake in the Judge's notes, because I see he says there he had to go ten miles. Mr. Atkinson: It is a most extraordinary statement, and very helpful to my case. Lambert gives it as his excuse for visiting Meikle's house, and for going two miles out of his way to do so; that it was to sharpen his knife, which was for the use of the station seven miles away in the opposite direction. Having got it sharpened, and this being towards 7 o'clock, instead of going to the station, he goes off in an opposite direction to his home in Mataura, ten miles distant. lam taking his own statement of the distance as ten miles, although we have evidence before the Court which makes it rather longer. Why should he .go to Meikle's at that time of the evening to sharpen his knife? Are we to suppose that Islay Station was so hard up that there would be no grindstone at the homestead, or that there was none at Mataura, or that his need was so great that he must add two miles on to a ten-mile journey to sharpen a knife which he could not possibly be using until the following day? On the face of it that is no reason, and we must search for another. Dr. Findlay saw that evidently. If you will look at the bottom of page 178, question 669: — " Was it not a little bit out of your way to go to Meikle's to get a knife sharpened if you were going on to Mataura, ten miles, the same night?—No, I do not think it was. " Was Meikle's on the way to Mataura?—No. "Was it not ten miles [which clearly should be, "Was not the ten miles"] exactly in the opposite direction?— Yes." He does not consider it is out of the way although it is in the opposite direction. We have got it that he was adding two miles to this long journey, which he could not finish until a late hour of the night, all to sharpen a knife, when he could have done so at the place he was going to that night or at the station, which he professed to be his ultimate destination. Following that is question 646: — " Had you any reason for getting the knife sharpened ?—Yes; I was going to kill some sheep at the station." That fixes the ultimate destination he had in his mind when he formed this idea of getting his knife sharpened at Meikle's. Now, my friend Dr. Findlay saw the difficulty, because at the foot of page 178 voir will see his interjection, " He did not say he came to get his knife sharpened." Well, of course Dr. Findlay had spoken too late, because Lambert's first answer when the question was put was this —No. 618 : — "Can you recall when you were last at Meikle's before the police search?— Yes; I think the last time I was there I went to sharpen a knife." So that, putting questions 618 and 646 together, it was quite clear that it was impossible for Lambert to withdraw from the position. In this respect he had been consistent, because on page 46 in the evidence given by him at his own trial he states, " I went one night to get a knife sharpened. Ido not think the night before the police came." Then he adds, "We used to kill sheep at the hut sometimes." Now, may Ibe allowed, though I am not dealing primarily with Meikle's evidence, to mention this point, which appears to me to be a substantial one": Your Honours will remember that it was part of the story told by Meikle's witnesses that Lambert explained with regard to that bag he had with him that "there were blankets in it, and that he was bound for the station ; and some unfavourable comment was .assed upon the absurdity of Meikle accepting such an answer, and it was pointed out among other things that he would be carrying this swag a considerable distance out of the road he would have traverse, and Meikle and his son must have seen that that was not an answer they could accept, because it would have been so unreasonable an answer. I desire to point out that we have herein Lambert's own statement an incidental confirmation of the truthfulness of that evidence of Meikle's—namely, Lambert's statement that he wanted his knife sharpened in order to kill a sheep at the station. Surely that would have fitted in naturally with the statement that the station was the place for which he was bound that night. I suggest that that is a very important corroboration of what appeared to be an improbable circumstance in the minds of those who listened to these events as narrated by Meikle to this Commission and by some of the witnesses in the previous proceedings. Then there is this important point, which I was not in a position to make when the discussion took place while Meikle was in the box: We have the statement of Mr. Johnson, who was called here last week, that going from Meikle's you would not go via the hut; that Meikle's was about as near the station by the ordinary road—for anybody not driving —as it was from the hut to the station. Johnson's knowledge of the district is exceptional, as he has known the place from the year 1881 and onwards. I'do submit therefore that Lambert's statement as to getting his knife sharpened for use at the station does confirm that statement of Meikle's which has been questioned. Then, following on Dr. Findlay's remark, "He did not say he came to get his knife sharpened," comes my question, No. 672, "What did you come for?—l do not know exactly I took the knife up there." Now, I ask your Honours' most careful attentron to
296
H.—2l.
this point, which is obviously very vital to my case. In 1894 his memory appeared to be a complete blank with regard to this night, because he stated then, "I do not remember anything about a grindstone." Now that his memory has been refreshed he is able to tell the story at length, and I am surely entitled to say, in view of these various statements—the statement that he wanted to kill a sheep at the station, followed by the statement made in the box in 1887 that he went home to Mataura that night, a distance of ten miles—that taking these two things together with his utter inability to give any other explanation of his visit—l submit it is perfectly clear that the sharpening of the knife was a cock-and-bull story, and that there was some reason in his mind for that visit which he has not disclosed and which could not conceivably have escaped his memory. It is not disputed that the knife was ground in the smithy, or that the police next morning found the door of the smithy open, while some of the other doors were probably shut. They went inside and found about a dozen skins altogether, two of them bearing the company's brand, and, as they all said, with no attempt at concealment. Excluding all testimony of Meikle or of any of the witnesses of his, excluding any reference to the bag, any reference to the " furtive look " which Dr. Findlay suggested as a highly suspicious element in Meikle's evidence —an element due, however, to the imagination of Dr. Findlay, and not of Meikle, because it was Dr. Findlay's expression, and not the witness's—excluding any reference to the clock striking 10 and the other elements, I put it at once to your Honours that Lambert, being unable to explain at all why he went there and gave this, on the face of it, extraordinary and absurd story of why he went ten miles in another direction, furnishes the most rational explanation as to the presence of the two incriminating skins when the police called the following morning. The man had the the combination of the opportunity with the inducement-is proved beyond question. He goes to Meikle in this remarkable way, and though it is conceded now that the excuse for his presence there was really a bogus one there is an absolute incapacity 7 to suggest anything else. I put it to your Honours with confidence that the only explanation which your Honours will reasonably draw is that he was there that evening to complete the chain of evidence against my client, and that he put the skins there, and that is how the police found them when they came along the following morning. Now I come to another very important branch of the case, and that is as to the fixing of the date on which this alleged crime took place. It is a somewhat serious position for my client after the lapse of so many years— after what I may call his second and even his third trial has begun—that he should find the indictment amended, and that it is the 18th October instead of the 17th October on which the crime is alleged to have taken place. It is a serious difficulty for a client or his counsel to have to face after the lapse of nineteen years; but we have asked for the inquiry and, of course, we have got to face it. One reason for my particularly regretting Mr. Macdonald's indisposition the other day was this: that, of course, he had to shorten his treatment of the case to make it proportionate to his physical powers. He did state with regard to this matter of the date that the conviction of Lambert had been procured by false evidence, and what I should have liked to hear him elaborate was as to where the false evidence came in, and as to how much was perjury and how much mistake. There was a general charge of false testimony which does not explain itself clearly, even to one who is anxious to get at the truth. However, I shall deal with the matter so as to leave as far as I can no hypotheses unmet. The Court adjourned at 4.15 p.m.
Thursday, 10th January, 1907 Mr. Macdonald : Before my friend resumes his address I wish, in reply to Mr. Justice Cooper, to supply information in regard to the course of the trial of Meikle in December, 1887. The trial began on the morning of Friday, the 16th December, the case for the Crown closed, and defendant's counsel opened and called Templeton, who was the last witness examined on Friday evening. On Saturday morning the case was resumed by the examination of Harvey, and permission was granted to call rebutting and according to my account Mr. MacGregor, after the evidence closed, admitted Templeton had made a mistake in regard to the date of his conversation with Lambert. Mr. Atkinson : You are speaking from the newspaper report. Mr. Macdonald : Yes, and from my notes as well. Mr. Atkinson: What I rely upon is Mr. Justice Ward's report in any case, and the statement of the witness Templeton that he told Mr. MacGregor about his mistake on the way to the Court in the morning. Mr. Macdonald : He may have, but Mr. MacGregor did not tell the Court until after the rebutting evidence had been called and the case was closed. Mr. Atkinson : Would your Honours allow me to put in the time-table which one of your Honours said would be the proper evidence in regard to the trains on October 16th, 1887 ? I have shown it to Mr. Macdonald and he agrees. [Time-table handed in.; In regard to the evidence of Mr. Westacote, T just wish to refer quite briefly to one point, because it was mentioned in Mr. Westacote's evidence, both in the Court in 1895 at Lambert's trial and before this Commission in Dunedin, that he was supplying meat regularly to Mr. Meikle, and that he had supplied him shortly before the date of this alleged theft. But he was unable to produce the original evidence, because it had been put in as an exhibit at the trial of Lambert and he had not been able to recover it. As I mentioned to your Honours the other day, it was actually in the possession of this Commission though the Commission was not aware of it, and I was not aware of it until Friday last, when looking through the papers that came up from Invercargill. Mr. Justice Cooper : These depositions and the exhibits which were attached to them were not actually in the possession of the Commission until they were handed in from the Justice Department at this sitting. That is how y 7 ou were not able to "see them before.
38— H. 21.
297
H.—2l.
Mr. Atkinson : The question was put to Mr. Westacote at page 98, question 710, which showed the items of meat amounting to £2 6s. or £2 ss. had been supplied to Mr. Meikle in the early part of October, 1887, and the account is much more satisfactory than that statement, partly, of course, because it is a contemporary 7 memorandum, but also because it covers a much wider period than the mere week or month in which this alleged crime is supposed to have been committed. Mr. Justice Cooper : This is the account. [Account handed to Mr. Atkinson.] Mr. Atkinson : The witness's recollection, your Horrour, then, was remarkably accurate. His answer at question 701 was, — " How much would his account with you average for the year ?—The average would be about £60. " 702. Ha\e you got your books ?—I am sorry that I have not. As I said, I was burnt out — books, plant, and all. There should be one account here for £26, but it was left at the Supreme Court." The actual amount of this account is £26 Is. lid., and it runs from 19th July to 26th November. There is a balance carried forward of £1 Bs. 3d. from the previous quarter. I cannot profess to decipher all the items. Westacote stated that it was bread and meat he supplied. The actual items referred to, taking the month of October, are : " October Ist, 66 beef and L beef ; 12th, 22 beef, mutton 3L ; 31, beef and mutton." It is beef and mutton all through. I cannot decipher all the items. It is a small point to be wrangling over. Mr. Justice Edwards : You do not suppose we are going to decide the case uporr a minute, analysis of what was on Mr. Meikle's table ! Mr. Atkinson : I do not desire to turn a m ; -)roscope on to these items, but in view of the fact that Westacote was speaking of a long time back from his recollection and that the actual items he deposed to were almost in the week of the crime, it was obviously desirable to show that this was a bona fide business, and that it was not merely his invented recollection of that particular week. It is not likely Meikle would have been killing that sheep in a frantic hurry if he had bought all that meat from Westacote on the previous Saturday, as the account shows. I dealt yesterday with what Dr. Findlay called the crux of the case —that is, the presence of these sheep-skins in Meikle's smithy. It seems to me that for him the question of the date is of at least equai importance. Of course, if he now succeeds in establishing his new date, the utmost he proves is that it was possible Lambert saw the sheep stolerr on the night which it is now sought to fix. Lambert fixed the 17th originally 7 by reference to McGeorge's departure Mr. Macdonald : And the statement of Gregg. Mr. Atkinson : And the statement of Gregg. It is now sought to show 7 that this fixing of the 17th was an error, that the true landmark was McGeorge's departure, and that McGeorge's departure actually took place on the 18th October. In the first place, your Honours, I submit that a change of this kind at this time is a priori not to be looked upon with indulgence. There was surely a strong reason for fixing the date accurately at the time when it could easily 7 be done —the date of this momentous transaction. Lambert was not an independent and irresponsible ignoramus. My friend has had a good deal to say as to his qualifications—he speaks of his expert qualifications. I dare say they are not quite as great as my friend suggests ; but, at any rate, he was the agent of a company of considerable importance, which believed it was losing a large amount of property by the theft of a neighbour, and was endea\ 7 ouring to get its hands upon that dangerous neighbour, and as soon as Lambert's storycame along there was a very 7 bright prospect of success. There was surely 7, therefore, strong reason in the first instance for fixing the date accurately. Then there was a still stronger reason after the question had been raised before the Justices. The date, I submit, must have been discussed among the station authorities and fixed from their knowledge—fixed long before the witnesses reached Invercargill. It had not been left, as my friend —no doubt, inadvertently—suggested in his address, to be fixed in the Supreme Court. The point was actually raised in the cross-examination of Lambert before the Justices, and it was fixed then. The event at the time the point was raised before the Justices was only a month old, arrd if there was an entry in the station diary then to fix it by, I submif»that if there was any doubt at all about the point it could have been ascertained by reference to that. Of course, Lambert now endeavours to fix the responsibility for the chronology upon Gregg. Gregg is not here ; he is dead, or away from the neighbourhood, at any rate ; but Lambert's statement to this Commission, that he fixed the date by Gregg's statement to him at Invercargill, is demonstrably incorrect, because Lambert had already committed himself in his statement to the Justices, and Gregg was not a witness before the Justices. So that Lambert had certainly fixed it before a casual conversation with Gregg while they were awaiting the Supreme Court proceedings in Invercargill. Mr. Macdonald : Before the Justices he said about the 17th. Mr. Atkinson : Before the Justices he said about the 17th ; and then he made it definite in his crossexamination. Then, your Honours, this curious change has taken place. Adopting my notation, which has some points of convenience about it —the notation I employed in my opening address to the Commission, as reported at the middle of page 25—taking the events which were to be brought into relation, as Lambert's call at Gregg's for matches, which I noted by "G " ; taking "C " for the perpetration of the crime, and " MeG " for McGeorge's departure—the equation on which the prosecution went to Court, and which they established to the satisfaction of the jury on Meikle's trial in 1887, was : 17 = G=C=McG. As I pointed out to the Commission then, that chronology was accepted by the defence. Waters's sale having fortunately been on the same day made it a very easy matter to fix the events of that evening, and young Meikle's illness on the same night also made it easy to fix a date so noted. But what I pointed out to the Commission on that occasion was that Lambert's defence in 1894?and<U895; l eonsisted of smudging or blurring one term or other of that equation, and I indicated it in the same table on that page. In April, 1894, it was 17=G=C (abt.) = MoG(abt.). Then in 1895 it was 17(abt.) = G=C=McG(abt.). Now we come, back —and Ido submit that in view of these
298
H.—2l.
changes in the interval it is a suspicious circumstance —now we come back to arr absolute equation of the last three terms of the series, but we have 18 substituted for 17 in the first place. So that the case now on which the Crown ask for your Honours' finding is that 18=G=C = McG. lam going to point out, in the first place, with regard to the evidence of Gregg, that my friend Dr. Findlay was mistaken in his remark that Gregg was admitted as a witness of truth by Meikle. What I did state —I thirrk I stated it to the Commission; I certainly intimated it to my friend—that Meikle had made endeavours to find Gregg, and had not succeeded ; but there is no suggestion that Meikle believed Gregg to be speaking the truth, as will appear from the report of his evidence on Lambert's trial, second line, page 35 : " I know Gregg gave false evidence at the trial." So that there was no admission. And I submit that Gregg cannot be treated now as supporting Lambert as to the 18th. Of course it is possible, for instance, if Gregg came along now and swore to the 18th—it is quite possible that we might be able to prove an alibi for Gregg for the 18th. It is perfectly clear that it alters the line of attack, and we should be entitled to alter our line of defence accordingly. However, passing on from Gregg :in 1894, before Mr. Rawson page 32 of the depositiorrs, Mr. Lambert's statement was this : " About the date McGeorge left the hut. I kept no account of dates. I was up at Gregg's to borrow some matches." That shows that twelve years nearer to the event than we now are Lambert refused to make the identity, which he has sworn to with great precision. The interview with Gregg arrd the departure of McGeorge were not orr the same day ; they were only approximately orr the same day 7. Then, your Honours, on Lanrbert's own trial irr 1895, page 45 of the pamphlet, he said, " I fixed date irr the Court as about the time that McGeorge left the hut." There, again, is another instance of the blurring of this equation, which, as I say, constituted his defence previous to this Commission. Then there is the remarkable fact that he made a note of it (page 167) : — " When you speak of making a note, it appeared you made a note of the date on which the sheep were stolen : can you explain what was in the note ?—I did not say I made a note of the date ; I said note of the day. " Tell us what was in it ?—The day 7 McGeorge left the hut and the night I was at Meikle's, that was the day Arthur Meikle took the sheep. " I ask what the note was ? —That is how I fixed this day. " Mr. Justice Edwards.] Do you mean you wrote down the day ?—I wrote it dowrr in a little book I had. " Mr. Atkinson.] Was it a diary ?—No, it was not. " Tell us as near as you can the exact form of the entry." Their the witness wrote out and signed a memorandum, the terms of which arc mentioned in question 299 : — " Arthur Meikle took sheep the day 7 McGeorge left the hut and the night I was at Gregg's. About when was the note made ?—The day after. " There was no reference to the calendar irr it at all ? —No." Well, your Honours, I submit, in the first place, that the memorandum is absolutely absurd on the face of it as a contemporary memorandum, whether made by a literate or illiterate person. Nobody could have made such a note who had education enough to write at all. Further, it does not correspond with the description he gave at the time he had the note. He produced some memorandum to the Court, but its terms were never read, and they are unknown. Before the Justices in 1887, page 2of the depositions, he states, " I remember the 17th October. I was at Gregg's. I made a note of it." Then again, " I took a, note of the date McGeorge left the hut." Curious that he says it was not the date but the day ; but neither day nor date was in the memorandum he described. A highly significant point is that, although there is no reference to the calendar, there was no mention of McGeorge when he originally made the statement to the Justices irr 1887. The note was produced in both Courts (page 46 of the pamphlet), but McGeorge was never mentioned until the cross-examination irr the Supreme Court at Meikle's trial. So that the memorandum, in addition to being absurd on the face of it as a contemporary entry, is inconsistent with the first statement Lambert made with regard to it when it was in his hands. And, furthermore, it absolutely contradicts his statements in 1894 and 1895, when the two events described in it as contemporary were only approximately contemporary. It was stated, in the course of my cross-examination of Lambert on this point (page 175 of the report, question 537) : — " When first taxed with this after Meikle came out of gaol, this is your statement, ' About the day McGeorge left I was up at Gregg's to borrow some matches ' ? —Yes. " Does that not at orrce shew you that McGeorge's departure was not on the day on which you fixed the theft ? —McGeorge's departure was orr the same day as I was at Gregg's. " Then, when you said it was only about the same day, that was not correct ? " Dr. Findlay : My learned friend knows that Gregg says the same thing. " Mr. Atkinson : The poirrt is what the witness has sworn to. It is not a question of fact. " Mr. Justice Edwards : What difference does it make if he said ' about' on one occasion ? " Mr. Atkinson : I should think all the difference irr the world. It is a question of what is in his mind. If he has fixed the, real event by the date of McGeorge's departure " Mr. Justice Edwards : He fixed it positively by goirrg to Gregg arrd sayirrg that was the date that McGeorge went away. There does not seem to me to be arrything in it. Ido not take the slightest notice of it at all." I would submit, your Honours, .that the discrepancy is a matter requiring the very gravest attention, not on the question of fact, as fixing the date, but as determining the veracity of the witness as to what it was by which he fixed the date. If he made that contemporary note which he is able to reproduce in precise terms now Mr. Justice Edwards : Of course ho cannot. Nobody could.
299
S.—2l
300
Mr. Atkinson : I think we may take it so, your Honour. If that be so, we are thrown back on the inference in regard to it in the cross-examination before the Justices and the examination-in-chief in the Supreme Court. Mr. Justice Edwards : We certainly cannot take that as being equivalent to a copy of a contemporary entry. Mr. Atkinson : I do not want to raise any quibbling about the calendar dates, but if it was definitely irr his mind that the date of the crime was the date of McGeorge's departure, he cannot be regarded as a truthful witness, seeing that he said on both occasions in the interval it was " about " that date. Of course, it cannot be verbatim and literatim. The equation was absolute in 1887. The equation became blurred in 1894-5. The equation becomes absolute in 1906 again for the purpose of acquitting himself. It was blurred in 1894 and 1895, when it would have had awkward consequences for him. Now 7 that another theory has been set up by his own side, he is able to go back and remember what existed at the time. I say that is a deliberate discrepancy. Although the calendar date or the day of the week may have got blurred in his mind, that could not have got blurred. I submit that the question of chronology has a distinct bearing on the veracity of Lambert, and the way he is able to fit his date to his convenience. With regard to McGeorge's departure, as to whether it was 17th October, I intimated yesterday that one embarrassment that was entailed upon me by the embarrassment of my learned friend in addressing your Honours was that the general objections he was taking to certain points of my case were not made specific enough to enable me to reply to them as I should wish. He said in a general way that the conviction of Lambert was procured by false evidence. It was stated before by Dr. Findlay. Seeing that the question of dates was the most complicated point irr Lambert's trial, it would have facilitated my task had it been poiirted out by either of my learned friends where this falsification conres in. It is conceded now by counsel for the Crown that originally the basis of the attack on Lambert was made by his own mistake in fixing the calendar date. What I desire to point out is this, that a general charge of fabricating evidence in Lambert's trial appears to be particularly unjust, seeing that the nature of proof of the date which was offered at Lambert's trial was almost irr itself of a kind to repel the theory of concoction and perjury 7. It would have been so simple a matter if it was desired to do so, and Meikle was unscrupulous enough to do so, and he was possessed of this mesmeric power of his —it would surely be an easy thing to have produced one or two witnesses to swear positively to matters which would have put the evidence beyond a doubt, and the evidence would have been hard to shake. What was done ? There were four independent witnesses produced to the Court, three of whom have been produced to this Commission, but one, Mr. Barclay, is dead. These four were produced, and the overwhelming proof of their bona fides was that each was only able to testify to a particular circumstance of slight importance, which, when pieced together, constituted a fabric of great weight, Those who are fabricating a case do not take such tedious and risky methods, and I say the character of Mr. Barclay, of Mr. Waddell (who was unchallenged in the box), of Mr. Fraser, and of McGeorge is certainly of a kind to rebut the charge of deliberate concoction arrd perjury. Now, what is the nature of the proof with regard to this date as put before the jury at Lambert's trial in 1895, and as repeated before this Commission in Dunedin ? First of all, there was Mr. McGeorge himself, who had shared the hut with Lambert, and the date of whose departure is the question at issue. Dr. Findlay refers to him more than once as an old man, as I mentioned to your Honours yesterday in dealing with a different branch of the case. He is an old man now, but he was only fifty-three in 1895 ; and I put it that his demeanour was that of a respectable and scrupulous witness, and at that time there would have been no infirmity upon him. He was satisfied, in the first place, that he left the hut on the Monday. It is quite clear that if a witness of that kind came along and swore that he remembered it was 17th October, some strong evidence would have beerr needed to show that he was speakirrg by memory and not by inference or coaching. His statement in 1895, on page 39, is, " I know I left the hut on Monday." That is just towards the close of his examination-in-chief. He would, of course, be leaving Islay Station for Waicola, another station of the same company's. The event was therefore something beyond what might be called the ordinary routine, and he said positively in 1895 that he remembered that he left on Monday. His statement orr the point to this Commission is on page 80, question 696 : — " Can you remember the day of the week ?—I think it was on a Monday morning. "In which direction did you go when you left on Monday morning ?—I came down to Mataura and fed the horses, and went on to Mr. Hay's, at the Half-way Bush. " How did you travel ?—I had the team with me." Then Dr. Findlay cross-examined him two pages later on, questiorr No. 18: — " You do not remember whether he [Meikle] gave you a date. Did he tell you he saw you driving the team away on a Monday ?—I cannot say as regards that, but I know it was on a Monday I left." Then, your Honours, he was also positive that it was from the hut that he left. I would refer you to page 81, questions Nos. 704, 705, and 706 : — " 704. Was there anybody else on the pre-emptive right with you ?—There was a young chap who was supposed to go out occasionally and look at the sheep, of the name of Robert Cooney, I think; and I think William Lambert was there too. " 705. Was it from there you started this morning ? —Yes. " 706. That was from the hut on the pre-emptive right ?—Yes. " 707. Did you see Lambert that morning ?—No." Then the other important point was this : The question has already been cited in the extract I gave your Honours on Monday. Question 698 : — " How did you travel ?—I had the team with me." As to his visit to the homestead, he said on page 82, in answer to questions 23 and 32, — " 23. Do you remember going toj|the Islay Homestead on any occasion about this time ? —lf I remember aright I think I was there on the Sunday."
301
H.—2l
" 32. When you went from the hut on the Islay Homestead you drove over ?—I think, if I remember right, I rode over on one of my draught horses." Then he gives an excellent answer to question 37 :— " What you have told us is what happened to the best of your recollection : andjjif I produce the diary entries of Mr. Troup —and Mr. Troup will swear to them —you would not like to contradict them '( —I do not know that I would believe him altogether, either." I submit there is better reason now for doubting Mr. Troup as regards any statement he makes than appeared in May last. Well, these points, your Honour, I submit, are clear : that he left about 8 o'clock in the morning, that it was a very wet day —all the witnesses agree that it was a very wet day, that he met Barclay on that day, and that he met Fraser about mid-day on that day at Mataura. Those points are all included in McGeorge's evidence. Then, coming to Mr. Fraser, I may say there is the further point with regard to this meeting with Mr. Fraser —that these men had been old friends, and it was about fifteen years since they had met, according to Mr. Fraser. Ido not think Mr. McGeorge gave any estimate before this Commission. When he was asked, " Had you seen Fraser lately ? " he said, " No, I had not seen him for a long time before that." Mr. Justice Cooper : You want to establish the 17th as the date % Mr. Atkinson : Yes, I am endeavouring to show the date was correctly fixed, that there was no mistake in the chronology in 1887, and that it can be proved that McGeorge did leave on the 17th. Mr. Justice Cooper : That is that he left the hut on the 17th ? Mr. Atkinson : Yes, your Honour. Mr. Justice Cooper : The entry in the diary, which appears to be a contemporary entry, gives 19th October as the date: " William McGeorge left Islay for Waicola. R. Troup went North." That is in Mr. Troup's handwriting, and it is an entry made on that date. Mr. Atkinson : I shall give reasons for supposing it is not. Mr. Justice Cooper : It was made before the trial in 1887. Mr. Atkinson : I shall give reasons for supposing it was not there at the time of the trial. It certainly was not in the month of November. Mr. Justice Cooper: It looks a genuine entry. I say nothing further in view of what you say you have to bring forward. Mr. Atkinson : I may say I am not limiting it to this lirre at all. Mr. Justice Cooper : What you want to establish is that he left the hut on the 17th. There is only twenty-four hours difference, because Troup says it was the 18th. Mr. Atkinson : And I wish to put it that it is only a matter of irrference so far as the diary is concerned. Mr. Justice Cooper : Mr. Troup says he left the Islay Station on the 19th, arrd that he left the hut the day before. At the trial of Lambert he says, " I know I left the station on Monday." Well, how far was the hut from the station ?—nine or ten miles, is it not ? Mr. Atkinson : Yes, your Honour. Mr. Justice Cooper : Troup says he came from the hut on the 18th arrd left for the station on the 19th, and I think you will find that McGeorge does not know whether he went from the hut to the station at all. Mr. Atkinson : The position is this, as shown in question 23, page 82 : — " Do you remember going to the Islay Homestead on any occasion about this time ?—lf I remember aright, I think I was there on the Sunday." Then, question 32,— " When you went from the hut on the Islay Homestead you drove over ?—I think, if I remember right, I rode over on orre of the draught horses." So that Mr. McGeorge's impression agrees with Mr. Troup's in that he was at the homestead the day before he left the station, but he is not satisfied that he rode up for his orders. - Mr. Justice Edwards : He says, " If I remember right." Mr. Atkinson : His memory is obviously not clear on the point. My difficulty is that this issue was not argued in 1895. Mr. Justice Cooper : The date—the 17th—was not considered by Mr. Justice Williams to be material except in one respect, arrd that was that if the jury were satisfied that Lambert had knowingly and deliberately sworn falsely to the date, that threw a doubt on the rest of his evidence, which was really material to the taking of the sheep. His Honour was very careful in his summing-up to the jury. Mr. Atkinson : The question as between the hut and the homestead was not, I think, raised in 1895. Mr. Justice Cooper : Mr. McGeorge says, " I left that particular station of company and went to another station in 1887. I would not like to say I know the date I left that station." Then he says, " I know I left the station on Monday." Mr. Atkinson : As Mr. Justice Edwards poirrted out, he was frankly a little vague as to his previous visit to the homestead ; he was pretty well satisfied it was Sunday, but he was definite he left from the hut, that he went away on the Monday. Mr. Justice Cooper : McGeorge was not examined at all in 1887 ? Mr. Macdonald: No. Mr. Atkinson : Then the weather, as I put it to your Honours, is a matter of the utmost importance in determining this chronology, and is perhaps an element as to which it is least likely that a man would be mistaken if there was anything out of the ordinary in the weather. We have Mr. McGeorge's statement in 1895, at page 39, — " The night I left station was very wet. I was pretty well wet through. It was a very dark night." Well, then he remembers also, your Honours, that he got to Mataura. At page 80 :—
H.—2l
302
" 699. Do you remember meeting anybody orr your journey ?—Yes, I met Roderick Barclay just near the paper-mills. Then afterwards I came down to the Mataura and fed the horses, and I met Frank Fraser. SSPi" 700. About when ?—At Mataura about 12 or 1 o'clock. r ;e -*" 701. Had you seen Mr. Fraser often lately ? —No, I had not seen him for a long time before that." Then Mr. Fraser was very specific as to the period since they had last met. Proceeding orr to Mr. Fraser's evidence, which appears at pages 90 and 93 of the proceedings of this Commission, starting at question 382 : — " 382. Did you see Mr. McGeorge when the case was before the Magistrate at Gore ?—Yes. " 383. He was a witrress there ?—Yes. " 384. When had you last previously met him ?—I met him on a very wet day while I was doing the. contract at Mataura. " 385. And where exactly was it that you met him ? —He came in with a team to Cameron's Hotel, and he left his team at the stables. " 386. When had you last seen Mr. McGeorge before that meeting ?—lt was when I was a very young fellow, and he was a young man too. I was at that time at Morton Mains, and McGeorge was at the same place in the early days contract ploughing. " 387. How marry years, roughly speaking, intervened between then and the time you met him afterwards ?—I could not say. I have not looked up anything to remind me, but it must be fifteen or sixteen years." Now, I submit, your Honours-, these questions are of very great importance, as entirely upsetting the theory which was suggested by Dr. Findlay both in his address and in his cross-examination of this witness —the theory, namely, that this discrepancy as to the chronology of McGeorge's departure could be accounted for by supposing two visits of McGeorge to Mataura about this time. It was, of course, put that if he went to Mataura orr the Monday he must have gone on his own account on a draught horse to get a drink/md enjoy himself. It was too wet to work, but not to travel twelve miles to get a drink. Mr. Justice Edwards : Of course we know a man will travel a long way to get a drink. Mr. Atkinson : Of course it would be twelve miles or a little more there, and the same distance back. Mr. Macdonald : And not merely to get a drink your Honours, but to spend the afternoon at the hotel, the hut being empty, Lambert not being there. Mr. Atkinson : No doubt it would be a very dull place without Mr. Lambert, That may have operated as an inducement too : I will concede that. It obviously would have been possible under ordinary circumstarrces that McGeorge might have taken a draught horse and gone on the Monday on his own business or pleasure, and oir the company's business orr the following day or even the day after, which is where the Crown now desires to fix it; but the poirrt is this, orr which both of these witrresses are quite clear, that they met orr this wet day, that they had not met for years before, and did not meet again until they met when Lambert was before the Magistrate at Gore for committal. So it is clear if these witnesses were not deliberately committing perjury-and I think I am correct in saying that no suggestion of the kind was made in the cross-examination, aird I submit it would be an absolutely unjust imputation in view of the candour with which both men gave their evidence—if lam correct in assuming that your Honours will not find both of them guilty of deliberate perjury, then we have at least this absolutely certain, that there was only one visit of McGeorge to Mataura in which he met Fraser about this time, and it is fixed in the manner that I have described to your Honours. Fraser's statement, as I have already mentioned to your Horrours, is that it was about fifteen years since they had last met, and that he had not seen him again until they met before the Magistrate at Gore, in March, 1895. McGeorge's statement at page 39 of the 1895 evidence is to a similar effect. Threfore, I submit that theory of the Crown's must be dismissed—l mean as to the possibility of tw 7 o visits of McGeorge to Mataura about this time. Then, further, your Honours, we have absolute proof that Mr. Fraser could not have been mistaken as to McGeorge's errand in his answer to question 385 at page 90, — " 385. And where exactly was it that you met him ? —He came in with a team to Cameron's hotel, and he left his team at the stables." Therr he was cross-examined by Dr. Findlay at page 92. He was subjected to a very close crossexamination from which I submit he emerged with perfect credit. I will give the evidence. " 425. You told Mr. Atkinson this morning that ' McGeorge came irr with a team to Cameron's hotel ; I met him.' Is that correct ?—Yes. " 426. Then you told us afterwards that McGeorge had the team with him. Did you see the team at all on the day you saw McGeorge ?—I could not swear to it. " 427. You could not swear you saw the team at all on that day ?—Yes, I think I can now. " 428. You are quite sure you saw it that day ? —Yes. " 429. Then perhaps you will tell us why you said when the case was heard by Mr. Justice Williams, orr page 40 of this printed book—l give you an opportunity of recollecting it more carefully : Do you swear that you saw McGeorge's team at all on that day in Mataura ?—Excuse me, I said already I was never asked that question. I went to the stable and saw McGeorge's team. " 430. Do you swear that you saw McGeorge's team or any team with McGeorge ?—I could not swear that. McGeorge showed me the horses and the horses he was driving. " 431. Then you did see the team ?—I did see the team. " 432. Why did you say on oath in 1895 ' I did not see him with the team' ?—That is perfectly right. What I meant was that I did not see McGeorge coming in or going away with the team. " 433. Then I take it by this statement,' He came irr with the team to Cameron's hotel; I met him,' you did not mean to say that you saw him coming in with the team ?—No.
303
H.—2l
" 434. You did not see him go away with the team ? —No, I went to the stable and saw the team of horses. " 435. Afterwards you saw a team which McGeorge said was his team ?—Yes. We were always very much inclined to go and see horses. " 436. Where were the horses ?—ln Cameron's stable." I submit, your Honours, that is perfectly natural and straightforward, and that as to McGeorge's destination we have it in answer to the question I have already cited, — " McGeorge told me he came from the Islay Station arrd that he was making for Halfway Bush, the actual name of the place was Dacre —Mr. Hayes's place." So there again there is another very definite mark to upset the theory of a casual visit of McGeorge to Mataura for his own purposes. Mr. Justice Cooper : What I wish to clearly understand is whether the Crown now give up the position that this alleged sheep-stealing took place on the night of the 17th October. Mr. Macdonald: Yes, your Honour, we do. Mr. Justice Cooper: Their you no longer allege it was on the 17th. Then I should like also to clearly understand this : the alibi which was attempted to be set up by young Meikle was limited to the night of the 17th October. Mr. Macdonald : That was so. Mr. Justice Cooper : It was that alibi which broke down for want of evidence at Meikle's trial. Mr. Macdonald : Yes. Mr. Justice Cooper : It was.upon the breaking down of that alibi for want of evidence that we may assume the jury came to the conclusion that Arthur Meikle's statement as to what took place orr the I7th October was untrue. Mr. Macdonald : I do not know. Mr. Justice Cooper : Was not that the position at the trial of Meikle—Meikle's defence practically ? First of all the contradiction of Lambert's statement by Arthur Meikle, because Meikle himself was not there, arrd Harvey, and the alibi. That is the evidence which tended to show —and it is admitted now to be correct —that Arthur Meikle could not have taken the part which he was said to have taken in the removal of these sheep to his father's station on the night of the 17th, because he was in bed ill that night. Mr. Macdonald : That part of the defence no doubt is now substantiated. Mr. Justice Cooper : It broke down for want of evidence. Mr Macdonald : I do not know. Mr Justice Cooper: I gather this from Mr. Justice Ward's reports. Mr. Justice Ward is emphatic that it was on the night of the 17th October that Lambert detected this crime. Mr Macdonald : That is so. Mr Justice Cooper : Arrd that for the defence, among other things, Arthur Meikle swore that he had gone to bed ill on the night of the 17th, and stayed in bed and did not get up again till the next morning, and according to the Judge's notes that was untrue. Mr. Macdonald: Yes. Mr. Justice Cooper : I am not expressing any opinion on the matter, but you have admitted definitely now that it was not on the 17th October. Mr. Macdonald : The Crown gives up the position that the offence took place positively on the 17th October. We admit it did not take place on the 17th; but at the same time, so far as the jury were concerned, it was perfectly competent for them to find Meikle guilty although that alibi was proved. Mr. Justice Cooper : That is another thing altogether. Mr. Justice Edwards : For ought we know the jury may have believed the alibi proved. Mr. Justice Cooper : I only want to know whether this alibi was not a material part of the defence set up. Mr. Macdonald : Yes, it was a material part of the defence no doubt, but so far as we were concerned we did not attach much importance to it, because although Lambert swore it was on the 17th we took the view that if it were shown that they were satisfied —the jury may have been satisfied Lambert was mistaken, and may have rejected the whole of Lambert's evidence. As a matter of fact— I do not know whether I am right in saying it —the foreman of the jury has stated that when the jury came to the conclusion they did not decide on Lambert's evidence. Mr. Justice Cooper : All I want to know is that you definitely 7 give up the 17th October. Mr. Macdonald: Yes, we give up the 17th October. But I wish distinctly to emphasize the position that Ido not admit for a moment that the alibi broke down. The jury may have believed the alibi was true. Mr. Justice Cooper : They may have done so. Mr. Macdonald : The main thing of course was the finding the skins there, and the inference to be drawn from them. Mr. Justice Cooper : At the trial of Lambert in 1895 Mr. Justice Williams very clearly pointed to the jury that the date of the 17th was immaterial, that really what they had to consider was the question of the circumstances. Mr. Macdonald : Yes, the circumstances that Lambert deposed to really took place. Mr. Justice Cooper : We must therefore assume that in 1895 the jury found the circumstances did not take place. Mr. Macdonald : Upon the evidence that was then produced, Mr. Justice Cooper : Yes.
H.—2l
304
Mr. Macdonald : But your Honour will remember that Mr. Justice Williams pointed out that the evidence as to the 17th not being the day on which the offence was committed was evidence upon which they could resort to assist them in the conclusion that Lambert had been incorrect in his cviMr. Justice Cooper : Because it was proved before Mr. Justice Williams in 1895 that Lambert had committed himself to the 17th. Mr. Macdonald : That was the trouble in the whole case. Mr. Justice Edwards : The fact is that, supposing Meikle satisfactorily proved Lambert gurlty of perjury, it would not rrecessarily follow that he (Meikle) was innocent. I can give an instance from my own knowledge in which an ex-warder at a lunatic asylum had sworn positively to certain things which took place in the asylum. One jury disagreed. After the first trial it was ascertained conclusively by records that the man had left the asylum six weeks before the occurrence really took place. The occurrence.did take place, and on the second trial the jury found it was satisfactorily established; but that this man was committing perjury on the first trial—but was not believed at the second trral— was beyond all question. Mr. Macdonald : I should like, if your Honour will permit me, also to remark that m these cases, as far as my personal experience is concerned, that the Judge generally tells the jury—and as a matter of practice I always tell them —that the date is immaterial. Mr. Justice Cooper: Of course, if it is proved that it is totally untrue that Lambert saw the sheep driven in, and that he saw the sheep killed, then, seeing that he was the material witness for the prosecution, Mr. Atkinson may argue with great force that the whole substance of the prosecution has fallen to the ground. Mr. Justice Edwards : I think Mr. Atkinson does. He says that Lambert put the skms there. Mr. Macdonald : That is what he says. Mr. Justice Edwards : If that is established then there is an end of it, Mr. Macdonald : That is the whole question. Mr. Justice Cooper: And the first step, of course, in establishing that is to satisfy the Commission that Lambert's evidence that he saw this is perjury. Mr. Macdonald: No doubt, your Honour. To come back to the point, I wish to emphasrze what I said, that it did not at all follow that the attempt to prove an alibi at Meikle's trial on the 17th failed. Mr. Justice Cooper : I have had a great deal of experience in criminal cases, and my experience is that the most dangerous defence to set up is an alibi, because if it fails the jury almost always convict the prisoner. Mr. Macdonald : I quite agree with your Honour. I remember a case when an alibi was set up. It was difficult to break it down, but it was broken down, and the whole thing went by the board. Mr. Justice Edwards : Probably it was the only defence there was ? Mr. Macdonald. —That is so. Mr. Justice Edwards: Then, of course, it must go by the board. Very often, m cases that we have had over and over again of indecent exposure of the person, or some indecent act wrth regard to a young girl, half a dozen witnesses have been brought to prove that the man was somewhere else. Well, that is the whole case, really, because you get the girl identifying the man, and if the alibi breaks down the whole thing is gone. ~,••*, j Mr. Justice Cooper : In my practice in defendmg crrmmals I never set up an alibi it the accused had any other defence. However, we are wandering from the point. We are quite clear now that the Crown has given up the 17th. I was not quite clear about it till now. Mr. Atkinson : It was practically conceded by Dr. Findlay, in his address in Dunedin, that that, was a true alibi of Arthur Meikle's—page 126, the second paragraph :— " What did my learned friend and Mr. Solomon do ? First they established an alibi— or they thought they had—for young Meikle ; they established that the night was rough to drive sheep about, and probably if it be trite that Lambert had fixed the 17th, or the date on which young Merkle was ill, the conclusion might have been reasorrably taken as correct." Then further, Mr. Fraser, of course, swears to seeing Lambert that evenrng at an hour which rendered it impossible for him to be on the pre-emptive right that same evening to see young Meikle driving the sheep. . "It was between 8 and 9 o'clock Lambert parted from me m Humphrey s that day. Ihe wet day I met McGeorge." That was at the hotel at Mataura—some twelve or thrrteen mrles from the scene of the alleged crime. Now, with regard to these two men Fraser and McGeorge, they both agree as to the place of meeting. They both agree that it was extremely wet weather ; that they met at Mataura, that they had not met for years, and that they did not meet again until March, 1895, when Lambert was before the Magistrate. I would submit that irr those parts, at any rate, of therr narratrve rt rs absolutely impossible for them to be mistakerr; and I submit there is no sensible suggestion whatever that they were deliberately stating what was false. So that we have, at any rate, the wet weather definrtely established, and the place of meeting at Mataura, and that there was a single visit only of McGeorge to Mataura at about this time. Now, your Honours, the next link in the chain is Barclay, who rs dead. His evidence was very brief. It is contained on page 39 of the report of Lambert's trial :— " I remember the year Meikle was charged with sheep-stealing. I cut for Waddell that year a yearling and a two-year-old. Ido hot know the date. September, October, November, and December are the months I travel. This was about middle of season. I remember the day. I remember meeting McGeorge that day. He was an old chum of mine ; had not seen him for years. Cross-examined by Macalister . . '. It was a fine forenoon. It came on fearfully in the afternoon. Lambert was at Waddell's that day. I went to Otaira that night. I could not say what time I left Waddell's. We had lunch there. Otaira is fifteen miles away. I was riding. It was a wet and boisterous nrght, It was raining when we started,"
H.—2l.
Lambert does not admit —he absolutely denied — seeing Fraser in Mataura on that Monday in 1895. The date having become immaterial, he put on an appearance of candour, as I suggest, before this Commission, and said in answer to Dr. Findlay that he was not prepared to dispute Fraser's statement now. That is on page 165, question 191 :— "If McGeorge left the hut about 8 o'clock to go to Mataura with a team on a bad day 7, at what hour would he be likely to arrive at Mataura ?—lt would take him all day to get there." This is important, not on this precise matter of chronology, but it can be conveniently taken now, nevertheless. It is important as to Lambert's veracity. " Could he be there by mid-day, with his team in the stable and himself having dinner ?—No; it is twenty-five miles from the hut to Mataura. " 193. It would be impossible for him to be with Mr. Fraser at dinner at mid-day if he had gone with his team on that day ?—Yes. " 194. If he were at Mataura that day, can you explain how he must have got there ?—The only one way would be by taking one of his draught horses and riding over. " 195. So you say if he left that morning and was in Mataura at dinner-time he must have gone without his team ?—That is so." In the printed copy that word at the end of question 195 is " tea " ; it should obviously be " team." My friend promised in his opening to lead evidence to show that if McGeorge left at 8 o'clock from the hut he could not possibly be in Mataura at mid-day. Of course, it would put McGeorge out altogether if he made the preposterous statement that he had travelled in four hours with a dray this distance, which was really twenty-five miles. Mr. Justice Cooper : Referring to this question of date again. The Crown gives up the 17th, but. positively asserts it was the 18th. Mr. Macdonald : I would not say that. It would probably be the 18th or the 19th. Mr. Justice Cooper : No ; because Lambert says now that it was the day that McGeorge left the hut. Well, he left the hut, according to Troup's entry, on the 18th. So it must have been the 18th. Mr. Macdonald : That is so. Mr. Justice Cooper : Well, we may take it that you now give up the 17th, but assert it was the 18th. Mr. Macdonald : That is so, your Honour, about the 18th. Mr. Justice Cooper : Not about, it must be either the one or the other. Mr. Macdonald : It is perfectly plain that we give up the 17th. Mr. Justice Cooper : Then you cannot say about the 18th, because you fix it by the event Mr. Macdonald : No doubt. Mr. Justice Cooper: And as to the event of McGeorge leaving the hut, your evidence is that he left the hut on the 18th. Then it must have been the 18th. Mr. Macdonald : I suppose I must accept that. I admit we give up the 17th. Mr. Justice Cooper : You must give up the 17th. Mr. Macdonald: No doubt, that is so. I should just like to say, to enable my friend to meet it, that the theory of the Crown with regard to McGeorge's visit on Monday is that if he was there at all on that day he went there to pass the afternoon. Troup's statement —and it is one that will commend itself to your Honours —is that, having to take a long journey to Waicola, which would take him a couple of days, or perhaps more, it is absurd to suppose he would commence it on a pouring wet day, that it was not necessary for him to go, that he went to the station to take away the skins because he had the only team of horses on the station, and that he left on the 18th. Mr. Justice Cooper : Therefore, it was the night of the 18th orr which the crime was committed. I simply wanted to know whether the Crown, in giving up the 17th, fixes a specific date, and it does fix specifically the 18th. Mr. Atkinson : I was dealing incidentally with the only evidence that my friends led to show that if McGeorge left the hut at 8 o'clock he could not have been at Mataura at midday to dinner. The only evidence was that of Lambert, who made this extraordinary statement. Of course, it is absurd on the face of it. I was able to get definite evidence on the point from men who knew the country well, the most important of whom was Mr. Joseph Johnston. This is in the eyidence taken on the 2nd January : " Taking the journey from Killoe's to Mataura," and you will remember that Killoe's was a little further than a mile on the other side of the hut from Mataura. Mr. Johnston gave, the following evidence (J 6) on the 2nd instant : — " Taking the journey from Killoe's to Mataura, how long would it take to do that with a team ? —I carted a lot of fencing there. I used to leave Killoe's after dinner, and get to Mataura about 5 o'clock—that is, with an empty dray. " How many hours would you allow from thefhut to Mataura on a dry day ? —Say, two hours and a half. " Is there any occasion to travel twenty-five miles going from the hut to Mataura on a dray ?— None whatever. " Was there any occasion in 1887 ?—None whatever. I should say the distance is about thirteen or fourteen miles." So that in regard to Lambert's twenty-five miles, of course he was going to take him right away round by the homestead. Then there is the evidence of Ebenezer Forsyth, 2nd January (F-2) : — " Do you know the road from the hut on the pre-emptive right to Mataura ? —Yes. " What distance is it from the hut to Mataura ?—I should say twelve'miles. I have not been in that district for some years. " How long would it take a team to do the distance ? —I should say four hours, because it is hilly country."
39— H. 21.
305
H.—2l.
So that this twenty-five-mile journey which was going to take a day is refuted. Mr. Macdonald : That is the view he took of the roads. Mr. Atkinson :As if Lambert did not know the dray-road from Mataura to the hut! They did not say positively the way, but to suggest upon that that McGeorge and the other witnesses are committing perjury is monstrous. I mentioned Barclay's testimony. He met Lambert that day. Lambert was at Waddell's at lunch-time. This is still Monday, as I submit. Lambert, on page 165, says, — " Mr. Fraser says he saw you at Mataura on the 17th : do you remember that ?—No. " Are you prepared to contradict him ?—I am not prepared to contradict him, but Ido not remember seeing him." The contradiction was absolute in 1895, arrd I was able, in cross-examination, to make it absolute still. There was, of course, an appearance of candour in the admission he made as to Fraser, but we must remember the fact that it was material to him to deny the 17th when everything depended upon it; and now, of course, when the date is changed it is easy 7 to be candid. At page 177 in Lambert's cross-examination, questions 592 and the following : — " Mr. Atkinson.] Do you remember in which direction you went with Waddell that day ? —Yes. " Which way ?—Out the Dunedin Road. " In the direction of your hut, or the other direction ?—Right towards the station. " Then you clearly agree that you went both in the direction of Dunedin ?—Yes ; that is the day we were castrating the colt. " How far did you go ?—I think I went as far as Perry's. Barclay went in there, and I went on. " How far is that ?—From -Waddell's ? " Yes ? —I suppose nearly four miles. " And then from there ?—On to my hut ? " Without calling into Mataura ? —I was the opposite way to Mataura. " Then it should be quite clear to your mind that you could not have seen Fraser that night ? — Quite so ; the night I was castrating the colt I did not see Fraser. " Have you any recollection of the weather that day ? —Yes, it was not very good." Now, your Honours, the position as I put it is this : The only line of cross-examination attempted with regard to Fraser was to put the day on to the. Tuesday instead of on to the Monday. Fraser adheres to it that it was the Monday. Assuming that doubts are cast on his recollection of the day of the week, which he had no written entry to support —it is changed from Monday to Tuesday — how does that affect Lambert's testimony ? Lambert is not prepared to swear that he did not meet Fraser about this time, but he is prepared to swear that he did not meet him in Mataura on the 17th. What is the result ? My friends have changed the dates and have proved the alibi for the new date. That, I submit, is a perfect cleft stick in which we have got Lambert: and if his testimony is correct, and he is positive he did rrot see Fraser on the day of the, operation on the colt and the interview with Barclay and Waddell, then surely the only alternative is that the date of the interview at Mataura was the 18th and not the 17th, and we have got the alibi proved for a new date as completely as it was proved for the original date in 1895. Still, the question, of course, as to fixing this date for the calendardate of the I7th has been left to the last link in the chain, Mr. Waddell, who gave evidence at Lambert's trial and also here (I refer you to the pamphlet, page 46). At my friends' suggestion I really led him to give that evidence. I was not then sure the date was being changed. Your Honours will see there is no attempt to shake Waddell's evidence, which was based upon the fact that when Barclay was there to operate on his colt there was a payment made, and Waddell found an entry in his diary 7 of the 17th October, and he remembered also that Lambert was there with Barclay at the same time. Lambert is also clear that he saw Barclay. You will find that on page 177, question 596 and following. Your Honours will see that, so far, I have not gone a step beyond the case as proved in 1895. It is something more than a chain of a single thickness, because I will put it that there was sufficient for my case in the evidence of Fraser, McGeorge, and Barclay, a.nd that when this is read in with Waddell, who is unchallenged, I submit the certitude as absolute. It is now, of course, sought to move the date from the 17th to the 18th. I have already suggested the dilemma in which that will find Lambert on his own evidence taken in connection with absolutely proved facts. My friend has asked for the reference to these interviews with Barclay. They will be found at the top of page 177. What is now sought to be done is by means of this entry in this station diary, or alleged station diary, because, as I maintain, it is not the one which Cameron is alleged to have perused, and where he found daily entries of Lambert's reports. The entry here of Wednesday, 19th October, is " William McGeorge left Islay for Waicola." I submit, your Honours, that a diary is one of the trickiest things in the world if it is not entered up with the utmost regularity from day to day. Take your Honours' experience of a busy solicitor who has allowed his diary to go into arrear for two or three days. What a conflict he has to fix when a certain interview took place, more especially if there were two interviews with the same client. He could not tell what took place on, say, the Tuesday or the Wednesday, nor could he tell how far the proceedings had got on a particular day. Mr. Justice Edwards : He would have a clerk, I presume, whose duty it would be to keep an attendance-book. Mr. Atkinson : Yes, your Honour, the clerk would have down " Jones, Tuesday; and Jones, Wednesday," but he could not say what Jones said on Tuesday, and even clerks sometimes are not infallible. ' Mr. Justice Edwards : There is no doubt that a man who allows his diary to get into arrears would find it difficult to write it up from memory without the aid of his attendance-book. I find it easy enough to remember matters which it is my duty to remember. In such matters one acquires an artificial memory; but, at the same time, I might be quite unable to say what happened outside on a particular day, if it was not my duty 7 to remember it
306
H.—2l.
Mr. Justice Cooper : Did not Troup say he entered up that diary irr the railway-train after he arrived in Dunedin ? Mr. Atkinson : Yes, that is so ; but I shall give reasons for disbelieving it. Assuming that it was not done there is an interesting parallel in the diary of John Evelyn, which covers roughly the last half of the seventeenth century. It is one of the curiosities of literature, that though he correctly records Cromwell's death: " 1658, Sep. 3, died that arch rebell Oliver Cromwell, cal'd Protector," and minutely describes the State funeral which he attended, he puts the latter in October, though November 23rd was beyond doubt the correct date. The explanation there is no doubt the same explanation as in Troup's case here. If you are away from home, and the diary has to be entered up afterwards, I assume such errors will creep in. Mr. Troup's entry in regard to this was not made upon that date. Mr. Justice Edwards : A mistake in the month is a very different thing from a mistake in the day. A mistake in the month is quite a common thing, while the mistake in the year is more common still. Only yesterday I found I had sent away letters hearing the date January, 1906. Mr. Atkinson : The remarkable fact is that Evelyn's entry 7 is October 22nd for Cromwell's funeral, and the real date is 23rd November. Mr. Troup, according to his own story, left about 10 o'clock in the morning, at any rate, to catch the train at Mataura, the time of which was fixed by the time-table just handed in as an exhibit. Yesterday I received from the General Manager of New Zealand Railways the following letter : — " With reference to your letter of the Bth instant, in regard to the number of through trains from Mataura to Dunedin in October, 1887, I have the honour to inform you that there was only one through train at the time referred to, vdrich left Mataura at 12.13 p.m. and reached Dunedin at 7.15 p.m." So that Troup must have left pretty early to catch that train, and it was late at night when he got in. It will be remembered that the only witnesses on this point were Meikle and Johnston, and they put the arrival of that tra'n an hour or two hours earlier—that is, that it would be between 5 and 6. It shows a conscientious error, however, because it is against our own. interests. Troup must have left somewhere about 10 o'clock, and as it cannot be assumed that the train was ahead of time he would have arrived at 7.15, or soon afterwards. Your Honours will notice orr looking at the diary that the entries appear in another handwriting from the very next day 7. Mr. Justice Edwards : When he went away 7 he would give up the diary. Mr. Atkinson : He says he took the diary with him to Dunedin, and it is perfectly clear that the entries for the 19th and 20th are not both contemporary 7 entries. Each is in a different handwriting, and they cannot possibly have both been written on the 19th and 20th respectively, if Troup's story is true, and I have just as much right to ask your Honours to presume that the 20th is a contemporary entry as that the 19th is. Mr. Justice Edwards : When do you suggest the entry was made ? Mr. Atkinson : I suggest that he made that entry after he came back from Nelson. Mr. Justice Cooper : That is not what he said. Mr. Macdonald : He made the entries on the 19th October, and he left the diary 7 with the accountant of the company to go through. In ordinary course it would be returned by the accountant to the station. Mr. Justice Cooper : He left for Nelson on the 19th. Mr. Macdonald : He left the station on the 19th, calling at Dunedin en route. , Mr. Justice Edwards : You may be pretty 7 certain he would not be long in Dunedin. Cameron would not have had him hanging about there. I understand he had nothing to do with the station afterwards. Mr. Atkinson : Yes, he came back. There are entries in December in his own handwriting. He stayed arrother twelve months, roughly. Mr. Justice Edwards : How long was he away ? Mr. Atkinson : He was back irr time for the trial. ■Mr. Macdonald : I think he was back about fourteen days before the trial. It would be at the very beginning of December. Mr. Justice Edwards : Then if he did not make that entry when he says he did, he would have done it with the deliberate ntention of using it at the trial. Mr. Macdonald: Nobody connected with that case that I know of knew anything about the diary. Mr. Justice Edwards : Is it not rather far-fetched to say that he made the entry when he came back ? If it had been used at the trial one might have said that a man who was scoundrel enough to have been a party to the conspiracy suggested was scoundrel enough to have done so, but as it was not used at the trial I do not see how that can be suggested. Mr. Atkinson : I am not suggesting it was a dishonest entry, but I am. saying that the entry was not made at the time, but was made after he came back. Mr. Justice Edwards : Where was the necessity for his writing it up afterwards ? The proper thing for him to do was to do what he said he did —that is, make the errtry and hand the book over to his principal. Mr. Macdonald : He did hand it over. Mr. Atkinson : What he said was that he took the diary up with him to Dunedin, and that he left it there with. Mr. Cameron —that he made the entries in Dunedin when he got there. I put it to your Honours that it is improbable he madfe those entries on that date. Take the long entry at the foot: — " Troup showed J. Reid, sen., Dunedin, tenders for fencing and cartage. Mr. Reid was quite satisfied, and remarked that he thought that the contract price—4s. per chairr to re-erect the fence—a sixpence too high; but as it was let to parties who were not strangers, it was best to accept a tender near market value than to take one altogether too low."
307
H.—2l.
I submit it is highly improbable that after the train had arrived at 7.15, and when all ordinary business was done, he could have got a business man back at his office arrd have rushed business of that sort through straight away for which there was no special urgency 7. My suggestion is that he was in the same position as Mr. John Evelyn, whom I have quoted, when he was away from home. Mr. Justice Edwards : Do you suggest he took the diary to Nelson ? Mr. Atkinson : I suggest the diary was left at the station; that Troup, having arrived in Dunedin late at night, would have done no business there that night; that he would have seen Mr. Reid there the next morning, but that he did not put the entry under the 20th as to seeing Mr. Reid, but that he made this entry when he got back in December under the date the 19th November. Mr. Justice Edwards : Why should he ? Mr. Atkinson : I only say there are a series of improbabilities about the entry being a contemporary one. Mr. Justice Edwards: Of course, if we believe the man to have been committing wilful perjury, there is an end of it. You cannot believe a word he says. Otherwise, what he says seems to be natural enough. Mr. Atkinson : What is the inference with regard to the entry on the 20th ? That it was not made on that day. Mr. Justice Edwards : That is obviously so. Mr. Atkinson : I submit the other would be in the same category. Mr. Justice Edwards : I should think there was nothing wrong about it if the account is true. He arrives in Dunedin, makes his entry, and hairds it to his prirrcipal, who sends it back to the station, and the man who gets it the following day 7, or even a week afterwards, adds a little narrative of what has occurred in the meantime. No doubt, if you had the man who made the entry on the 20th to swear it was made on the 20th, Troup would be on the horns of a dilemma. Mr. Atkinson : I need not pursue it further, your Honour, if I may just be allowed to sum up my contention in this way : So far the presumptions in regard to these entries on the 19th and 20th being contemporary are equal. The presumption against Mr. Troup's entry being contemporary is that he made a journey to Dunedin, and was not likely to have had a business interview with Mr. J. Reid sen., having arrived by train about 7.15 p.m. Mr. Justice Edwards : What is the entry about Mr. Reid ? Mr. Justice Cooper :Ishe a Dunedin man ? The diary says the interview took place in Dunedin. Mr. Atkinson: Reid represented the adjoining property. The firm was Reid and Son, landbrokers and money-lenders. They 7 were interested in the adjoining estate, but not as fencers. Troup says in the diary, —■ " Troup showed J. Reid, sen., Dunedin, tenders for fencing and cartage. Mr. Reid was quite satisfied, and remarked that he thought the contract price—4s. per chain to re-erect the fence —a sixpence too high ; but as it was let to parties who were not strangers, it was best to accept a tender near market value than to take one altogether too low." J" That presumption, and the fact that Mr. Troup could quite honestly have made his summary after he got home and made a mistake in the day, is what I put to your Honours ; and the extraordinary difficulty —the impossibility, as I shall submit to your Honours —of Mr. Troup's chronology as stated here may possibly lead your Honours to attach more weight to this suggestion than it bears prima facie. I should like to add, also, that after the evidence that has been led as to Mr. Troup's admissions of knowledge of evidence that would exculpate Meikle and Troup's denials of these statements, I do submit that though, of course, any entry that would be contemporary would be entitled, to weight, there is not very much weight to be attached to Mr. Troup's extrinsic statements, especially when they have a direct bearing on the outcome of these proceedings. I desire next to point out that the diary does not touch the question of McGeorge leaving the hut. The normal practice, according to Troup, was for the carter to spend the night at the homestead before he got away. At page 133 Troup states :— • " 106. Where did McGeorge come from ? Can you tell us from memory 7 what the circumstances were % —He came from the hut on the 18th, and left the station on the 19th. He brought some things with him, such as skins and suchlike. We had no team at that station ;we took the team fronr place to place. " 107. You are quite satisfied that he came from the hut on the 18th ? —Yes, he was just there one night," What I am submitting to your Honours here is that Troup's statement in reference to the 18th must really be taken as an inference rather than as a recollection of actual fact. We have this evidence — " 251. You referred to Mr. McGeorge, I think, as going to Islay on the IBth ? —Yes, that is right, " 252. How are you able to fix that ?—He would require to come to the station with things— sundry skins and what-not. " 253. How do you fix it for the 18th and not the 16th or the 17th ? Because he came to Islay and went away on the 19th. There was no work for him at the homestead. He would therefore come on the 18th, and would start away from the station for Waicola on the 19th. " 254. But you have no recollection yourself of it ?—I am certain of it. " 255. You are certain that he would be at Islay the day before he started on his journey ? —He would come in the night before. " 256. You are simply fixing that by what happened on the 19th, according to your entry ? — lam fixing it by the fact that he would not come in before he was required. We would not keep him doing nothing." Now, I submit that these statements are the statements of Troup's inference from normal practice. If this practice was varied in that particular case for some special reason, now forgotten by Mr.
308
H.—2l.
Troup, therr the 17th, despite the diary, would remain as the date of McGeorge's departure from the hut. Now I submit, your Honours, that unless the evidence as such men as McGeorge and Fraser, and practically all that band of independent gentlemen whose statements I have been reviewing, is to be put aside as not merely mistaken but as deliberately perjured, then the 19th as the date of McGeorge's trip is an absolute impossibility. It is made absolutely impossible by a certain statement of Mr. Troup himself at page 137 : — " 219. What time of day was it that you left Islay Station orr the 19th October ?—I left to catch the express for Dunedin." " 220. What time was it ?—I do not remember the time-table of the express at Mataura, but I usually left to catch the express there. " 221. Dr. Findlay.] The Invercargill express ?—Yes, coming from Invercargill. The time-table is not the same as now. " 222. Mr. Atkinson.] You cannot attempt to fix the hour ?—I could not attempt so far back. If I knew the time the express was to be at Mataura I could tell you. " 223. So really you have no recollection of it ? —Perfectly well. My recollection is fresh. The part I remember is in connection with my dogs, when I went to put them in the railway it was a good, clear, sunshiny day." Now, your Honours, Mr. Troup, putting the calendar out of the question, fixes a fine day for Mr. McGeorge's journey, and as I put it to your Honours already, whatever doubt there may be as to the recollection of these witnesses as to the day of the week, or the day of the month, or even the month of the year, one thing an honest man could not possibly go wrong in is as to the nature of the weather in which he travelled if there was anything out of the ordinary about it. McGeorge agreed that he was wet through; Fraser agreed that" it was a wet day; they all agreed that it began with a fine morning and came on fearfully afterwards. All the witnesses are agreed as to that having been a remarkably wet day, and that evidence, your Honours, as to weather is in exact accordance with the evidence of the witnesses nearer to the scene of the alleged crime, as to the state of the weather on the day of Waters's sale, which was fixed beyond dispute as the 17th. Mr. Justice Edwards : Can you explain why he started on a long journey on a wet day ? Mr. Atkinson :He did not start on a wet day. When he started it was not absolutely a bad day, but it came on wet afterwards. Mr. Macdonald : Meikle said it was wet about half-past 10 in the morning. Mr. Atkinson : Yes, they are all agreed. Fraser and McGeorge, for instance, are agreed as to how it was coming down about the time McGeorge got as far as Mataura. So Ido submit that it must be taken as beyond question that it was a, wet day —not so wet as to prevent him starting, but wet enough afterwards to be memorable in the recollection of a man who had to travel a long distance in the wet, and to live in the recollection of Mr. Fraser as the day on which he met his old mate the first time for fifteen years, and the orrly day on. which he saw him between those fifteen years ago and their meeting some years later, when summoned as witnesses in the proceeding against Lambert at Gore. Then I do submit, therefore, that the honesty of these witnesses being beyond impeachment, the possibility of a mistake in such an item being beyond impeachment, the fact that Mr. Troup fixes the 19th for a fine day, absolutely upsets his chronology. As to the intrinsic testimony 7 of Mr. Troup as to seeing McGeorge—he could not recollect seeing him at the homestead—as to his statement that he saw him on the 19th, I simply ask your Honours to reject it on account of the overwhelming balance of testimony we have against it, and on account of the more than serious doubt, the absolute disproof that has been shown, especially before the Commission, of Mr. Troup's veracity. Now, I have taken your Honours historically through the evidence as led in 1895, then the change in the Crown's case, and the inferences that are sought to be deduced from this diary. I have now to deal with the new witness that I was able to produce here last week, Mr. Johnson, to whose testimony I ask the Commission to attach the highest value. Mr. Johnson's evidence is to be found orr page 58 (.11), of the 2nd January —Mr. Joseph Johnson's. I submit that that witness's evidence was given in a clear and candid fashion, and that there was nothing thrown up against his character, and nothing suggested by his demeanour irr the box which would cast any doubt upon his truthfulness. I submit that that evidence is absolutely conclusive as to the date of McGeorge's departure from the hut, and practically conclusive as to McGeorge's destination ; but the first point, which is the one most conclusively 7 pro\ 7 ed, is sufficient for my purpose. Johnson was in the employ of Mr. Rae, who had a property on the other side of the Waiarikiki Creek—the creek forming the boundary between his property and what is known as the company's pre-emptive right. The evidence is on Jl, .12, and ,13. Mr. Johnson had been over to see Mr. MeGeorge on the Sunday. He fixed it as the day before Waters's sale. He saw McGeorge on the Sunday 7, and ascertained from him that he was leaving on the following day 7 for Waicola. He accompanied him part of the way to the homestead, McGeorge riding one of his draught horses. He did not see him to speak to on the Monday, but he waved his farewell to McGeorge across the creek when he saw him starting with his team of three, a few chains away on the other side. McGeorge was driving with his team up the road along the creek, which, at that part of it, was common to the road either to Mataura or to the Islay 7 Homestead. He never saw 7 McGeogre again in that neighbourhood. He also, your Honours, on that occasion remembered the weather. He swore that he was driven irr from his ploughing on that Monday 7. It is at the bottom of J2, and is important, in view of the importance of the nature of the weather as fixing the date : — " How long were you able to work that Monday morning ?—Some time before dinner I had to stop through the rain, but I am not sure what time it would be. " What sort of weather was it when McGeorge went along ?—Fine, or I would not have been ploughing. " Did you see Mr. Rae that day 7 ?—I saw him in the morning before I went to work.
309
H.—2l.
" Where was he when you came back I—He1 —He was away at Waters's saie. " What time did he return ?—I am not sure—perhaps 7 or 8 o'clock. " Was there any conversation w 7 ith reference to McGeorge ?—He asked me if McGeorge had left for Waicola, and I said he had. " Did he make any remark ?—He said he would have a wet drive. " Where is Mr. Rae now ? —I think he is dead. " Were you able to work on the following day—Tuesday ?—Yes ; I was still ploughing in the same place. " For how long during that day ? —I was ploughing both morning and afternoon. I could not say whether I was there the whole day or not." Then a few questions lower down, after describing that the hut stood there without any outbuildings at all, and that it was a very small hut: — " What distance was it from the nearest point where you were ploughirrg orr the Tuesday to the hut ? —I suppose 150 yards at the outside. " What direction were you ploughing relatively to the creek ?—I was ploughing the ridge coming up the creek, along the side of the creek and going up the other side. " So that you were constantly to and fro alongside the creek ?—Yes. " Did you see McGeorge on the Tuesday ?—No. " Or did you see his horses about ?—No. " Nor his cart ?—No. " Did you see him again about Islay ? —I do not think I have seen him since at Islay. I cannot recollect. " Where may you have seen him ? —At Mataura or Edendale, but nowhere in the neighbourhood of Islay. " Did you see Lambert on the Sunday or Monday ? —No. But I saw him on the Tuesday afternoon going towards the hut. I had no conversation with him. I was not close to him. " Which road was he going ? —Coming from the direction of Mataura. " Can you say about what time that would be ?—Some time in the afternoon." Here again, your Honours, the two suggestions made by my learned freinds with regard to this witness's testimony are both, I submit, untenable. The line taken by Mr. Findlay in his cross-examina-tion was to suggest that it might have been Tuesday, and the line your Honours were asked to take by Mr. Macdonald was that Johnson did not know the difference between a draught horse and a dray with a team of three. I submit there is no foundation for either of those suggestions; and, as to the obvious difficulty which your Honours may 7 feel as to the accuracy of this man's recollection of events so long afterwards, I put it in the first place, with regard to the day of the week, that Sunday is the landmark, and, as Johnson very properly put it, a Sunday or a Monday would be an easier day to fix than any other. He remembers his conversation with his friend on the Sunday, the day they would be* off work. He remembers his departure the next morning. He remembers the wet weather. He remembers Rae's return from the farmer's sale —a farmer's sale being a red-letter day in an agricultural neighbourhood—and the departure of his friend from the adjoining property would bulk more largely in the eyes of a person living in a neighbourhood not very populous than the town mirrd can easily grasp. I put it that all those circumstances put together, added to the candour and straightforwardness of this witness, entitle me to ask your Honours to find that he is a witness of truth, and that he did see McGeorge going, as alleged—a statement which exactly accords with the statements of the witnesses who gave evidence at Lambert's trial. Now, lam asking your Honours to take Johnson, plus the chain of witnesses produced in 1895, as against this diary ; but, assuming that your Honours will not find irr my favour on my suggestion as to the possibility of error in the entry on the 19th, I can still suggest this possibility of reconciling Johnson with the diary 7 —imd Johnson only—and it can be done in this way : Troup's recollections as to McGeorge arriving orr the 18th are evidently, as I have put it already, a matter of inference from ordinary practice, and from Troup's recollection or inference from the entry in his diary on the 19th, but, of course, his inference as to the 18th was expressly based upon the statement that they would not keep a man knocking about there for two days. Supposing, your Honours, that McGeorge made a start on a fine day, and had got on a certain part of his journey when the weather got too bad for him to continue ; then he might, on being driven backto port, make for the homestead instead of for the hut, which, as I admitted to my friend, was a very gloomy place in Lambert's absence ; and he might accordingly, though his destination, as he told his friend on the Sunday, was Waicola—he might have given that up and sought refuge at the honrestead instead. That, I submit, is a possible solution, and a method of reconciling Johnson with the diary ; but, of course, your Honours, Mr. Johnson was perfectly frank. If he had been making evidence it would have been easy for him to have interviewed McGeorge on the Monday, and made quite certain there was no change of instructions in the interval. That was suggested by Mr. Findlay in his crossexamination. The witness made no attempt of the kind. I put that as a possibility of reconciling Johnson with the diary ; but it would reconcile Johnson only with the diary, and it would cast aside that large amount of testimony which was adduced at the trial of 1895—testimony in part resting upon and absolutely confirmed by the memorandum made by Mr. Waddell on the 17th October, upon which iro doubt whatever has been cast. Mr. Justice Edwards : What is that memorandum ? Mr. Atkinson : It was a memorandum of payment to Barclay. Mr. Justice Edwards : It had nothing to do with the matters in issue ? Mr. Atkinson : No. Mr. Justice Edwards : The memorandum to which you refer in itself proves nothing. lam not saying it is so ;I am asking you if it is not so. In itself, as I understand it, that memorandum proves nothing. The man merely says, " This happened on the same day." The memorandum is only a
310
H.—2l.
means of identifying a date. Well, you see, this other memorandum proves a fact, if it be true, and you are confronted with this : this man Waddell may have been quite mistaken irr supposing that the particular events to which we wish to fix a date happened on the same day as the payment was made, but Troup cannot be mistaken about the other matter. Either that entry of his is false and his evidence is perjured, or it records the actual fact which we have to deal with, and there is all the difference in the world between the two. Mr. Justice Cooper : I see Waddell's entry is in reference to Barclay's visit, and fixes the date of the 17th October because Barclay visited him on that date and the colts were then gelded, and he has an entry to that effect. Lambert says he was present with Barclay when the colts were gelded. Mr. Atkinson : And Barclay says the same. On this branch of the case my submission therefore is that dealing with the whole evidence with regard to the date now before your Honours, it is just as great an impossibility that Lambert saw the sheep stolen on the 18th as it was proved to be with regard to the original date in 1895. Assuming, however —of course, the extent of the Crown's case there simply goes to prove the possibility of Lambert having seen the theft arrd nothing more —assuming I am not successful in that part of my argument I shall have to deal with the value of the direct testimony as to the commission of this crime on the 18th October, 1887. I will put it that in 1887 it rested practically on Lambert only. Of course, there was the extrinsic evidence of the sheep on Meikle's land and the skins in the smithy. Such corroboration as he had on that in 1887 was taken from him in 1895, when the presence of the skins was accounted for in the manner that tainted his testimony. How far has his position been improved ? Mr. Justice Edwards : That assumes that he committed perjury. Mr. Atkinson : What I ought to have put perhaps is that the skins were practically bracketed to stand or fall with Lambert, and no longer remain as an obviously extrinsic fragment of testimony independent of him. Before proceeding to deal with Lambert I wish to deal with what additional testimony was before this Commission apart from 1895. So far as legal evidence goes I think there is none. There is—under the benevolent rule which your Honours have extended to both sides— other evidence relating to statements made by Lambert to other persons with a view to establishing the truth of the story he told in Court. I refer to the conversations with Stuart and Leece regarding which I desire to say that they do not prove the statements were true, but only that he made statements out of Court similar to what he made in Court; also, that he made one of the very first importance directly antagonistic to his evidence—l mean that he had seen the brand on the night of the crime and had seen it combed out with a knife. There is also the evidence of Troup as to the authority 7 to deal with his grass-seed. Here the position is the same. It proves the truth of nothing as to what Lambert said regarding the grass-seed. We were promised one piece of very important corroborative testimony which would be worth having if the Crown could have procured it. At page 63, question 136, Dr. Findlay stated in his examination of Meikle : — " Scott will swear that he stopped at your place on the 18th October, 1887, and your son bears it out that Scott stayed at your place on that day that you altered the brand, and that while he was there he saw your son bringing in sheep from the station." That was the first announcement that was given of the direct corroboration that was to be produced, and it was enlarged in Dr. Findlay's address, page 127 : — " In a letter written by Scott to the authorities —he left for the North Island after he got out of gaol, and went to live somewhere away in from Napier. He did not know of the conviction of Lambert for perjury, but curiously enough he writes, ' I was there on the 18th, quite independently fixing the date so definitely on which he saw the theft of the sheep. He will be called in Wellington, and he will tell your Honours that he was there, and obviously he was there if we take the admissions of young Meikle. Young Meikle says, in his evidence on Scott's trial, ' that he brought the horses about a month before and came again about a fortnight later.' That would place Scott's visit just about the date he assigned for this theft. It is no new feature ; if you look at the evidence on Meikle's trial you will find he was there. He was a fellow-criminal apparently, and probably would be in the confidence of these men. in the same way as Lambert was. Scott will tell you he was present and what he saw. In the letter he has written to the authorities I believe he states he saw a number of sheep being driven by young Meikle on the 18th October on to his father's laird. ' Magna est Veritas et prevalebit.' " That quotation really belongs to the next sentence, but I am very glad to be able to put it in its appropriate place along with Mr. Scott's alleged testimony. Mr. Justice Cooper : Dr. Findlay said after he came to Wellington that Scott was not called because his statement was too vague to put him into the box. Mr. Atkinson : Lambert has sworn on page 171 : — " How did you know then that Scott was there ? —I know that Scott was waiting until Meikle came back again. " How do you know ? —I saw Scott myself, and Arthur Meikle told me he was waiting. The night the sheep was killed I went in for a stick Harvey had given me, and I saw Scott." I submit, your Honours, that the non-production of Scott is just arrother proof of Lambert's imaginative powers. Who briefed Scott for the Crown in 1887 ? My learned friend, Mr. Macdonald, told us here that Lambert had interviewed him and he thought also his own clerk. All we have for absolutely certain is that it was Lambert who conveyed the information that Scott could give evidence. Mr. Macdonald : My clerk interviewed him. Mr. Justice Cooper : What Mr. Macdonald said was, " I said Lambert and I think my clerk, and Lambert made certain statements." Mr. Atkinson : He was sure that Lambert went, but not his clerk. I put it that the instructions from which Dr. Findlay was cross-exam'ning were, supplied by Lambert,
311
H.—2l.
Mr. Justice Cooper : This is what Dr. Findlay said : — " I desire to say that since I came to Wellington I have had an opportunity of seeing Scott. Scott, as you will remember, was sent to gaol in 1887. He has not given evidence as the other witnesses have in 1895. Consequently he has had no occasion during these nineteen years to recall the events of the night he was there. I asked him for his evidence. So far as it refers to anything not personal to himself it to some extent supports all our case ; but what I feel about it is that his eviderrce is too vague, in my judgment, to be of service to us. Scott is here in Wellington, and my learned friend if he wants to put him in the box can have an opportunity of doing so. But Scott is applying now and very vigorously to follow the same course as Meikle in regard to his case—to have his case investigated with a view to the same end." I hope we shall not be appointed Commissioners, that is all. Mr. Atkinson : It takes twenty years to get as far on as that. Dr. Findlay having announced to the Court that he believes that Scott states he saw Arthur Meikle drive a number of sheep on to his father's land, I am asking you to draw the natural inference that he would not be misrepresenting any official instructions, but that they would have come from the same man. Mr. Justice Edwards : I do not know how you can draw any inference at all, because you see Scott, was offered to you, and if you wanted to get anything from him you could have had it. Mr. Atkinson : From what we had heard I was not anxious to be in the same room with him. But I will leave it this way : that Scott saw nothing wroirg on the 18th or he would have been produced. Now, coming to the credibility of the witness Lambert, as I put it to your Honours yesterday, he was represented as a certain distinguished official personage, who was down on the run there, not subject to the ordinary rules of the station. He was a kind of distinguished Sherlock Holmes who had come down to pounce upon the criminal. Put in a less imaginative way he was something of a drunken rouseabout, whose ordinary wage would be £1 a week and found. He was actually getting that wage on the run, and he was to get the equivalent of a year's salary if he secured a conviction. Now, I have asked my friends repeatedly for that official list of Lambert's convictions. Mr. Macdonald: The Justice Department have been asked to furnish it, and I am expecting it every moment. Mr. Atkinson : I should like to refer to it for the reason I shall explain presently. I think I have a right to complain of the piecemeal fashion in which this man's record has come out. As I was pointing out to your Honours yesterday, the maxim " Set a thief to ca*ch a thief " has been put into actual practice by the employment of Lambert by the company. I did apply long ago for his previous convictions, but my request has not been granted, but I understand from Mr. Macdonald's statement that the official list will be before your Honours before long. Mr. Macdonald : My friend has omitted to state that I telegraphed to the police authorities and with some trouble got a statement from them which I handed to Dr. Findlay. Dr. Findlay in my presence showed the telegram to my friend, and I understood that my friend was satisfied with that. However, since I came to Wellington Mr. Atkinson has repeated his request to have the official record of the convictions, and the Justice Department has been communicated with. Mr. Atkinson : I have very good reasons for asking that this matter should be put on a definite official basis. By the way, looking at the top of page 119 of the report with reference to the witness Ryder, who was called in 1895, there appears the following : " Mr. Justice Cooper : He admits he was convicted of perjury." This should have read " larceny," according to the record. Then Dr. Findlay speaks about the record of this man, which he says was now in his hands, and that it should be made known. I interject " You should give the records of your own people." Then — " Dr. Findlay : If you ask me for the record of Lambert I tell you I did apply to the police, and there is not one conviction against him. You will have him in the box presently and you will see how far that is true." Then the next reference to the matter is on page 129, still in Dr. Findlay's address— " Now, I said yesterday that there was no blot of any kind against this man Lambert. Last night, however, he came to me and informed me that that statement required this small correction : Over twenty years ago he was fined ss. or 10s. for some minor assault in some publichouse, I believe, and twelve or thirteen years ago there was a second assault for which he was fined in all, including witnesses' expenses, £1 10s. With that exception this man Lambert stands without a blemish on his character." That was the next statement. Then there was this telegram which Mr. Macdonald has stated was shown to me in Court, and which proved that the man had also been convicted of larceny. Dr. Findlay did not leave these facts to be elicited in cross-examination, but his own tender treatment of the subject appears on page 167, starting from question 268, which his Honour Mr. Justice Edwards not unnaturally mistook at a glance for my cross-examination: — " 268. For how many years have you given up taking drink % —Eleven years. " 269. You came out of gaol, when ? —I had a remission of one year and eleven months. " 270. You were two years and eight months in prison, and you had a remission for helping to rescue some people at the Heads ?—Yes. " 271. That is, for over eight years you have been a voluntary abstainer ?—Yes. " 272. Before that time it is true that you took occasionally too much drink ?—Yes. " 273. I understand you admit there were two minor assaults committed by you when you were under the influence of drink ? —Yes." Then passing on to question 277, — " And there was another small assault for which the fine and expenses came to £1 10s. ?—Yes. " 278. Twenty-three years ago next month, you were then twenty-three years of age, dotyou remember getting in the company of some men in Ashburton ?—Yes. " 279. Do you remember getting drunk ? —Y'es.
312
H.—2l.
" 280. Do you remember that the outcome of that was that a bottle of whisky was stolen by you and your drunken comrades ? —Yes. "281. And you and another man had to put in seven days for that ?—That is correct." Then comes my interjection, " That is not very fair examination. You are putting statements into the witness's mouth." Your Honours will contrast the treatment of that witness with the way in which witnesses on the other side were treated by Dr. Findlay. Larceny becomes almost a virtue in a Crown witness when he is in the hands of the able counsel for the Crown who has since become Attorney-General. Notwithstanding the gloss which Lambert has put upon that conviction he stands on the records of the colony as a convicted thief, and I am surely entitled to ask that his full record shall be put in the plainest way possible before this Commission. And Ido suggest that the tender and almost fatherly manner in which that witness is handled with regard to those offences shows that the Crown has not kept itself altogether as clear from bias and passion of a partisan as in accordance with its best traditions it is expected to do. But your Honours are not a jury, and therefore the impression sought to be conveyed is not likely to have weight with your Honours. Mr. Justice Edwards : We would like to know what the offence really was. In Auckland recently there were three men indicted for breaking and entering and larceny, and I let them out on probation, and I did not think very much of it. The three men were bushmen who were staying at a publichouse. The course taken by the publican was very reprehensible. He allowed these men to drink until all their money was gone —some £50 or £60,1 think, went in a very short time —and then these men, being probably more thirsty than on the day of their arrival, went downstairs at night, opened the bar-door, and abstracted some whisky. Legally 7 it was breaking and entering and theft, but it was more like a drunken transgression against the man who was morally a greater transgressor than they were. Still, of course, the stealing of the bottle of whisky may 7 have been a very bad offence or it may not. Mr. Atkinson : I put it that the evidence of the witness himself is hardly the class of evidence— evidence put in a leading statement of this sort —that it is usual for the Crown to rely upon in an investigation of this nature, the witness himself having been guilty of a breach of the law of the same kind as is the subject of investigation now. Mr. Justice Edwards : Is it of the same kind ? Mr. Atkinson : It is stealing, your Honour. Mr. Justice Edwards : It may have been a drunken trespass such as the one I have described. Mr. Atkinson : In that case, of course, the allowances would have been made by the Court before which he appeared. This man was convicted of theft, and it is to be assumed that it was proved to the Court that he had a knowledge of what he was doing. Now, I desire to say also that the suspicion naturally attaching to the man in view of that criminal record is enormously increased by the bargain which was entered into with him —a bargain of a highly objectionable nature, and a bargain which would produce the worst kind of informer—the informer who is paid by results. He is to get nothing unless he secures a conviction. Well, even that condition of Lambert's employment was denied when the proceedings opened, for at the top of page 3 of this report in my address I say,— " It was really the, payment of £50 to secure a conviction for a crime which had not yet taken place. That, was in substance the bargain made with Lambert. Now, £50 is a very big consideration to a man in that position. Of course, the force of any 7 inducement is obviously 7 in proportion to the resistingpower of the person to whom it is offered, and the resisting-power is proportionate to the man's character and his earnings and means.". Therr Dr. Findlay interjects, — " I desire it to be distinctly understood that the company did not give £50 to secure the conviction in the case of an offence which had not yet been committed. All the evidence taken in the Courts shows that the £50 was offered in order to secure a conviction for an offence which had already been committed." Well, we know that the appointment was somewhere about the 25th August, and that the alleged crime, for the conviction for which he or his wife received the reward was committed on the 17th or 18th October. Further instances of the persistent denials of Lambert are his denial of having received payment. I shall not trouble your Honours with the quotation, but will simply refer you to the pages of the different documents on which they may be found. And this Court is asked to believe that this sum of money, which he had lawfully if not righteously earned, and which would represent a good deal to a man in his position, was not paid to his wife or anybody else so far as he knew, and that he took no further interest in it. Now, it will be seen that Lambert had every 7 inducement to send in his report with the utmost promptitude, and that there was upon him every 7 obligation of duty and interest to take immediate steps; but we have it from his own statement that he did not even go to the homestead to report to his superior, Stuart, on the night he saw this alleged theft take place, though if he had done so, if true it would have resulted in the conviction being made a certainty. He did not even go to the station next day —he did not even go away from his hut, but he made a report within the next few days to Mr. Stuart on the occasion of one of his visits to the hut. Now, coming to Lambert's demeanour as a witness, your Honours have had the advantage of seeing him in the box, which I put it to your Honours is a very great advantage, and I think I am correct in describing his character as a witness as distinctly quiet, cautious, and circumspect; there was no embarrassment, no giving of rash or unconsidered statements, and I think I am entitled also to add that there was no " goading " on the part of adverse counsel which might have induced him to say things which he did not mean, and answer questions of which he did not know the purport. Mr. Justice Edwards : The witness was before us early in May 7 last, and it is useless for you to ask me to remember his demeanour. There have been hundreds of witnesses before me since then, and' I cannot be expected to remember the demeanour of all those witnesses. The parties have themselves to blame for the delay.
40— H. -21.
313
H.—2l.
Mr. Atkinson : I was not to blame. I did not ask for that Commission. Mr. Justice Edwards : You had full notice that if you persisted in putting forward this man Sutherland they would ask for this Commission. Dr. Findlay gave you very fair warning of that. Mr.' Atkinson : Your Honours, at any rate, will recall my demeanour to that witness. Tt was emphatically mild and well-disposed. I think your Honours will bear me out there was no quarrelling or hustling at all : there was nothing calculated to disturb the equilibrium of a gentleman like Lambert. I also desire to call your Honours' attention to this point: it was ruled by your Honours that Lambert, being practically on his trial to the same extent as Meikle, it was proper Lambert should remain in Court, Lambert did remain in Court in pursuance of your Honours' ruling, and he heard certain questions put to witnesses for the Crown as to conversations they had had with Lambert. At that point I called Dr. Findlay's attention to the fact that I did not keep Mr. Meikle back until he had heard all his own witnesses said about him. I put him in the box straight away. Kelly and Wardell were called first, neither of whose testimony bore on the events of that night. ] expressly put Mr. Meikle in at once', so there should be no ground to complain that he heard what other people said and then confirmed it My friend resented my reminder, and said Lambert had a perfect right to remain—as, of course, he had in view of your Honours' ruling, and T wayiot disputing it; but I did say it would be a matter for comment when the occasion arose, especially in view of this extraordinary class of evidence—the evidence of Troup, Stuart, and Leece, who were put into the box to say what Lambert said to them on certain occasions. Dr. Findlay declined to put the witness out of Court, and Lambert declined to go, and he had the great advantage of having his memory revived by hearing the statements made about him, and he went into the box shortly afterwards and confirmed them with remarkable exactness. In view of the terms of Lambert's employment, and the normal scale of payment, and such evidences of his character as are contained in these admissions, I do submit that either very strong corroboration or else evidence from him of a very clear and cogent character was needed in order to make his testimony sufficient to convict a man of such a charge as this. The story is, as T put it to your Honours, in itself intrinsically improbable, and as to the manner in which he told it, it was contradicted even withm a month after his first recital. There were new inconsistencies on every subsequent occasion—inconsistencies and contradictions relating not merely to what I may call accessories or externals, but to the very heart of the proceedings. I say, on behalf as much of my own witnesses as for the witnesses of the Crown, that the utmost indulgence must be allowed for a man forgetting small circumstances after all that lapse of years ; but that any of the principal actors in that scene in Meikle's yard and smithy on the 17th or the 18th October, if it ever took place, should ever have forgotten the essential and most dramatic elements in that transaction is clearly impossible ; and that, in judging as to the probability of a man's having invented or having spoken the truth, the accuracy with which he will remember and repeat the essentials of these proceedings will be an excellent test, even after this lapse of time, of his credibility. To pass very lightly over two matters that do not really relate directly to the crime itself, there is Mr. Lambert's testimony as to seeing Meikle doctoring the brand of the horse. That is affirmed by Lambert and denied by Meikle. The wild improbability of an astute criminal, without having first made sure of his man, allowing him to come in without conditions to witness the perpetration of this rascality is sufficiently obvious. Mr. Lambert urges it as the ground of the future confidence which Meikle displayed in him. I put it on the contrary: there must have been 100 per cent, confidence on Meikle's part in Lambert before he would have given him such a chance, and that the story is obviously a cock-and-bull story, and utterly unworthy of credit. I think the matter was just mentioned in the proceedings at Lambert's trial in 1895. A matter that has a closer bearing on the alleged theft is with regard to the grass-seed which Lambert says he induced Meikle and his son to steal, as they supposed, from the company with his sanction in order to win their confidence. Lambert affirms, and Meikle denies it, and Arthur Meikle is not here to deny it; and as I put it, the supposed corroboration of Lambert as produced before this Commission proves absolutely nothing. The officers of the company have declared they authorised this use of the company's property, but it does not at all prove ■it was so used. The only thing it does prove is that if he so used this property to tempt a lad of fifteen years to steal, it was done with the approval of the highest officials of this eminently respectable company. But it does not prove it was so used. .411 still rests upon Lambert and upon Lambert only. Now, your Honours, I stated just now the grass-seed incident was not mentioned at the trial of 1887, but I put it to your Honours that what really is the foundation of this grass-seed romance of Mr. Lambert's was told by a truthful witness for Meikle's defence in 1887. Here is a remarkable feature with regard to Mr. Lambert's testimony on this very point, He mentioned it in his own trial in 1895, the reference being on page 44, and your Honours will remember from Dr. Findlay's opening and from the first part of|his examination of Mr. Lambert, that this action of his with regard to the grass-seed was regarded as absolutely essential to his success in order to clear the way for him into Mr. Meikle's absolute confidence. Therefore, his opening with regard to the grass-seed represented the first great strategic move in his campaign ; and it is not a matter, if the incident ever happened, the details of which would ever escape his memory. What does he say about it in 1895, eleven years nearer the event than when he was examined about it in Dunedin ? We have it on page 44— "It was not at his house the first time I saw him. He was picking stones off where he was sowing grass-seed. I forget now what he did say." That statement was not in cross-examination, but in his examination-in-chief, and his mind in 1895 was an absolute blank with regard to this master stroke of his diplomacy, which was to pave the way into Meikle's complete confidence. Then, your Honours, he tells the story with detail now, and at the end of it I put this to him, on page 169 : — " 349. Do you remember that you were questioned on the point in 1895 ?—No, I cannot remember. " 350. You cannot remember what you answered in 1895 ?—No. " 351. At page 44, about one-third of the way down, you say, 'It was not at his house the first time I saw him. He was picking stones off where he was sowing grass-seed. I forget now what he did
314
315
H.-21
say.' This has been brought back to your mind since ? —I do not know whether it was or not. I think I remember that. " 352. Do you remember saying irr 1895 that you had forgotten ?—Forgotten what ? " 353. Forgotten what took place in regard to the conversation with Meikle regarding'the grassseed ?—No, I do not remember. " 355. He says ho did not remember what he had said. ' I forget now what he did say.' That clearly being the introductory conversation is the first conversation. There can have been no conversation about it. [Evidently this should be ' before it.'] (To witness) : You cannot explain that, Mr. Lambert, except that you had forgotten, and somehow remember now ?—(No answer)." I submit, your Honours, that entirely disposes of Mr. Lambert's title to any credit whatsoever in regard to this detailed story as to how he won his way into the confidence of Meikle and his son. What I put to your Honours, therefore, is that the true basis of the story is to be found irr the evidence of George Davies, at page 26. He said he was approached by Lambert irr regard to trapping Meikle, and in his evidence this appears :— "He said there was three or four coils of barbed wire lying in gully. I said he had better leave it alone or barbed wire is likely to stick to any one. He said, ' I have 100 lb. of grass-seed in hut. You might do something with it.' He asked how much per pound. I said, ' I know nothing of grass-seed.' He said, 'If y 7 ou take that with you, you might get a quid for it, and you can give me half when I see you.' I said he had better do it himself. I would have nothing to do with it." Davies was to steal it, and they were to share the profits. I do put it to your Honours that Lambert thought he had found in Davies a customer from whom he would get value for the company's grass-seed, while he would be able to tell the company's officials that it had all gone in pursuance of their irrstructions in order to win his way into Meikle's confidence. Now, taking another point more directly bearing on the charge of sheep-stealing. A most extraordinary story has been told by Mr. Lambert with regard to a letter written by Meikle in which they were to arrange to get £5,000 with Lambert's help, out of the company, and they were to share the spoil—they and some others. Of course, your Honours can see the immense difficulty under which a man labours who has been found guilty of a crime like this when matters of conversations between hostile witnesses are allowed to be brought up against him, and he has no possible check upon them so long as they remain vague. It is an exceedingly difficult position he is put in by the relaxing of the ordinary rule in such a case. But, of course, that only applies so long as these allegations are verbal only 7. But in this case fortunately there is a letter alleged, and there are circumstances which will enable your Honours to test the veracity of the witness who swears to such a story as Lambert has told irr this respect. Both in the Suprenre Court in 1887 and before the Justices Lambert mentioned that he was asked to keep his mouth shut. It appears at the top of page 20 of the pamph'et:— " Prisoner followed me, said if I kept my mouth shut about this matter he would summon company for £5,000, and would share it between four of us." And he was good enough in his depositions before the Justices to give the names of the gentlemen who were to get this money, and it is satisfactory to know two of them were lawyers : — " Meikle said the £5,000 was to be divided between yourself (Mr. Wade), Mr. Finn, Meikle, and myself." Well, your Honours, so long as a compact of that kind is confined to oral statements it is difficult to check, but what is Meikle supposed to have done according to Lambert's statement in 1895 and his statement before this Commission ? Irr 1895 he first alleges there was a letter written by Meikle to a similar effect. Now, if Meikle, within a week of his arrest for sheep-stealing, had written in such a way he might just as well have put his name to a declaration that " I, John James Meikle, do hereby so'emnly and sincerely declare that I stole twenty-eight sheep of the company's on the 17th or 18th October." Is it conceivable that " a very cunning man," as Lambert declared Meikle to be, would have written such an insane letter or that such an astute private detective, as Dr. Findlay represerrted Lambert to be, would have been insane enough to lose it ? Surely, your Honours, it is an absolute impossibility. The letter was worth a fifty-pound note to Lambert without putting his credibility to the test orr a single question. Ho did not lose the letter, he told me irr cross-examination. " I did not lose it, somebody got it." And the result of somebody getting it was that it was not produced before the Court at Invercargill in 1887, and never has been produced. Your Honours will remember that he believed that he gave it to Troup and that Troup had rro recollection of it. So this extraordinary loss of what would have beerr an absolute proof up to the hilt of Meikle's guilt was lost, arrd the sole evidence is Lambert's statement, to which he first swore in 1895. Mr. Justice Cooper : Are you quite correct there ? lam speaking from recollection, but did not Troup say something about Mrs. Lambert showing him the letter ? Mr. Atkinson : No ; lam quite clear about it. It was the second time Troup was recalled, page 181, question 765 : — " Dr. Findlay.] I want to ask you about a letter from Meikle to Lambert—rrot the one orr 14th November —in which reference was made to the sharing of £5,000. Do you remember it being said that Lambert received a letter from Meikle in which an offer to divide £5,000 was made ?—I remember well the letter beirg spoken about. " 766. Was that at the first trial ? —The trial of 1887. That was the only trial I was at. " 767. Lambert says that his recollection is that the letter was handed over to you ? —lf it was handed over to me I do not remember it. " 768. You do not remember receiving it ?—I am almost certain I did rrot receive it." Mr. Justice Cooper : The letter is said to have been handed over to the rrran, and its existerrce should either have been confirmed or denied by Troup when he was called. Mr. Atkinson : The question as to Troup's actual knowledge is put by Mr. Justice Cooper, on page 183, question 803 : —
316
EL—2l
" Do you recollect whether you ever saw the letter that Meikle is said to have writterr to Lambert ? —I never saw it. " 804. Mrs. Lambert says she rrot only showed it to you but gave it to you ? —I never saw it," Mr. Justice Cooper : That is what I was thinking of —Mrs s Lambert's evidence at her husband's trial. She says she gave the letter to Troup. Mr, Atkinson : That is so. Mr. Justice Cooper : 1 knew that in some way the letter' had been traced —I do not say by witnesses whom we must believe, but it had been traced by witnesses —to Troup. Mr. Atkinson : Yes. Mr. Justice Cooper : She says, " Arthur Meikle brought me a letter. I handed the letter over to Troup." Mr. Atkinson : Yes. Mr. Justice Cooper : That is why I say that the letter seems to have been traced to Troup, and that its existence should either have been confirmed or denied by Troup when he was called. Mr. Atkinson : Then His Honour Mr. Justice Edwards put a further question : — " Mrs. Lambert spoke in 1895 ?—Mrs. Lambert must have made a mistake, because if it had been shown to me I would have remembered it. I have a good memory." Of course, it is not a letter that anybody could conceivably have forgotten or mislaid in the course of the hunt against Meikle on which the company- and its servants were engaged. Coming, your Honours, nearer to the scene of the crime, it has been stated by Troup, and I think it was stated by Lambert at the trial of Meikle with a view to showing that the sheep could not have wandered from the preemptive right notwithstanding that gap of a chain or more, that there were dogs about which would have stopped them. There were dogs about the hut, as Lambert stated in 1895, page 44, and Troup, at page 131, question 31, made a similar statement recently. A number of Meikle's witnesses have sworn that they were familiar with the place and never saw a dog there, but I only desire to call Lambert's testimony as evidence of the effectiveness of the watch that was kept, It was, as I say, that they could not possibly have got through that gap owing to the dogs, and the question is put to Lambert at the top of page 172—this is in relation to Arthur Meikle's driving the sheep off the turnips : — "Do you remember whether the dogs at the hut barked when he went round ? —I do not remember." It is an indication of the effectiveness of the alleged guard that was there, and of the truthfulness of some of the company's witnesses. Clearly if they were prepared to stop the sheep innocently trespassing off the place they would have made a fuss when a whole mob came along driven by a lad with a dog. Your Honours will also remember the fact that Arthur Meikle had a silent* dog. It made some impression on the Judge who tried Meikle, and he refers to it in his report, That was based solely on the evidence of Lambert, Even Lambert has not repeated the statement now. No witness for the company has sworn to it, and it has been contradicted by half a dozen witnesses on the side of Meikle, of whom perhaps your Honours will be disposed to attach the greatest weight to Mr. E. Forsaith, who took possession for the second mortgagee, and who remembers the dog very well. There were two dogs. One was short of one or two legs and had one eye, I think, and the other one was what he described as not a strong forcing dog, but a yapping dog that looked after cattle as well as sheep. Mr. Forsaith's statement is on folio 3of his evidence. I mention the incident of young Meikle getting the sheep round the corner there without any trouble from the dogs that were supposed to make the passing of sheep impossible as a small point, but as one of those small things that go a long way to test credibility. Lambert could not have forgotten, of course, if anything had taken place. Coming from a snrall point to a very large one, I will take Lambert's conflicting statements on the question of date, and with regard to those of course I am not now confusing the two issues—the issues as to what the actual date was —but I am dealing now simply with what Lambert's knowledge in regard to the actual date was, as contrasted with what he has sworn from time to time. I submit that the undisputed fact, that he has sworn falsely as to what he knew quite clearly in this matter of identifying the day is established without raising any quession whatever as to what the actual date really was. P'irst of all, did he or did he not swear to the 17th as the day ? This is, first of all* regardless of what he based his statement upon. In 1894 he said—page 34 of the depositions—" I never said it was the 17th. It was on or about." Then before this Commission, at page 164, question 176, he said in answer to Dr. Findlay,— " Do you remember what date you swore to in examinatioii-in-chief before Mr. Justice Ward on Meikle's trial ?—The 17th. " 177. You were cross-examined by Mr. MacGregor on that trral. Do you remember whether you qualified your definite oath that it was the 17th ?—Yes, I did. " 178. It does not appear in Judge Ward's notes that you did ?—I did qualify it. " 179. I want to know how you came to definitely fix the 17th October ? —By the night I was at Gregg's, and the night McGeorge left the hut." I do not quite understand what my friend meant by putting it that Judge Ward's note contains no reference to a qualification of that sort, because the qualification does appear there : " I remember the night by McGeorge going away." The point lam getting at here is rrot as to whether or not his inference was wTong, but as to whether or not he did not swear to the 17th—a more important point, because it does not touch the accuracy of the calendar date at all, but it touches the event, which is the real thing in the mind of a witness of this kind ; it tests his statement with reference to the event which really establishes his knowledge. What really was his statement with regard to McGeorge ? In 1887, cross-examined by Mr. MacGregor, he said, " I remember the rright by McGeorge going away." In 1894, on page 32 of the depositions, he said, " About the date McGeorge left." In 1895, at page 46 of the
317
H.—2l
pamphlet, " I fixed date in the Court as about the time McGeorge left the hut. I did not know what date it was ; Gregg told me it was the 17th. Ido not think I swore it was 17th." Then, your Honours, he comes along in 1906, and the 18th having been fixed by the Crown instead of the Nth, he now goes back and declares that it was actually the day that McGeorge left, and that there is no question of approximate estimate about it at all. So I put it that he swore in 1887 that it was the day McGeorge left, in order to. convict Meikle, but that in 1895 it was about the day McGeorge left, in order to acquit himself; and in 1906 he reverts to the statement of 1887 with the double object, of course, of clearing himself and confirming Meikle's conviction, although he was able in 1906, and therefore able at any moment in the interval to reproduce the terms, or at any rate the substance of the memorandum, which fixed originally in his own note-book and subsequently in his own mind the date on which the sheep were supposed to have been stolen as the very day and no other on which McGeorge left the hut. Before I pass from this question of his statements with regard to the date, may I refer to a remark of His Honour Mr. Justice Cooper's, on page 176, when I was cross-examining Lambert relative to his alleged conversation with Fraser on the night of the 17th October : — " Mr. Justice Cooper :Ifit is the circumstance he denies, and not the date—if he says he never met Fraser—that is another thing. It may be a lapse of memory." Now, your Honours, the statement of Fraser which I was cross-examining him about is referred to in question 582 of the same page : — " You do not remember a conversation with him or Constable Leece of which he speaks, which you prefaced by saying, ' For Goodness' sake, keep me away from that constable ' ?—No, I had no occasion to say that to him." That statement is contained on page 46 in the report of Lambert's trial. " Nothing as to what Fraser said about Corrstable Leece. I did not see Fraser the day Barclay was castrating the colt unless it was in the morning " I put it that that is the case distinctly of a denial of a circumstance which the witness could hardly have forgotten and which stands orr an entirely different footing from a chrorrological error. Irr the same page (176) will be found a remark by Mr. Justice Edwards : — " You do not seriously suppose, Mr. Atkinson—you have beerr a Judge's secretary—that the Judge's notes represent all that is said in Court by a witness. The witness is very likely asked half a dozen questions, and, ultimately, after the goading of counsel, he is quite sure he did not, and the Judge very probably writes down the last answer." What I desire to say, your Honours, is that this camrot be a question of " goading," because it is elicited in his examination-in-chief by his own counsel. I desire to say in reference to the records of both trials that I do not think I have to complain of a single omission as vital to my client's case, but your Honours are aware that that plea has been put forward with regard to Lambert. Seeing that there was no shorthand-writer, it is extraordinary the accuracy with which these notes have beerr taken so far as I have been able to test them by a very careful process. What I desire to put is this : that Lambert's denial now with regard to that conversation comes in answer to my second question : — "Do you swear there was no such conversation ?—I do not remember any such conversation." His qualified denial now gives an air of candour to the evidence, but when it was vital to his own case then he was absolutely confident that no such conversation had taken place. Now, coming to a point that is even of greater importance than the question of time or date, I come to a matter which I would submit is one about which no honest witness could have made a mistake—that is, as to the place at which this remarkable event is supposed to have taken place on the 17th or 18th October, and which first attracted Lambert's attention. I opened very fully on this question in addressing your Horrours in Dunedin. Of course, I was perfectly aware of the risks that I ran in showing my whole hand in ad\ 7 ance, but I took the risk, threw dowrr the challenge, and did so in the confidence that these absolutely contradictory statements which Lambert had made with regard to the place he first saw young Meikle driving the company's sheep could not be reconciled by the utmost ingenuity of the wit of man. They were, as I put it to you, absolutely contradictory, and whether he elected to stand by one or the other or steer a middle course he was hound to fail. I may be allowed to remind your Honours that it was an exceedingly dramatic incident, the first sign or sound of this young Meikle appearing through the darkness in charge of his booty, especially in the case of a man lying around there for six weeks, drawing his £1 a week, and waiting to get £50 if he secured a conviction. Seeing that he was employed in his professional capacity 7 and at such attractive terms, surely it is not a matter that he could ever have forgotten. The first statement is on page 19 of the 1887 evidence, about ten lines down, and that is supplemented by 7 his cross-examination orr page 21: — " Left Gregg's between 9 and 10. He left me half-way between hut and his house. Shortly after —I had just got across fence and on to road-line —I met Arthur Meikle with mob of sheep. It was rrot very dark. I spoke to Meikle. He had dog with him. I asked him where he was taking the sheep. He said he was taking them home to get a fat one." That is a remarkable way for the conversation to start. Lambert makes no challenge arrd asks no explanation. However, on page 20 of the 1887 trial we have the following from Lambert in crossexamination :— " Met Arthur Meikle 300 or 400 yards from hut, He was off turnips into road-line, goirrg towards his house 300 or 400 yards from junction of roads. I could recognise him ; spoke to him and passed on. ; then turned and followed him 30 y 7 ards behind." That is a pretty definite fixing of the place. It was about 300 or 400 yards from the end of the ferice which ran up to the junction of the roads and probably half-way across the pre-emptive right. It would be somewhere about half-way. It could be scaled from the map that has already been put in. That was the statement on which Meikle was convicted. Now, here is a statement on page 32, when Lambert was first brought to trial, and supplemented on page 34. At page 32 of the 1894 depositions, in his examination-in-chief he states, —
H.—2l
318
" I met Arthur Meikle on the company's ground, on the turnips. It was a large paddock close to road-line. Arthur had sheep with]him. I spoke to him. He was on the company's ground. I asked him where he was going with the sheep. He said he was trying to get a fat orre. I left him then and I went through the ferrce orr to the road-line and waited till he came up with the sheep going orr to his father's place." That is as definite andjprecise a statement as you could wish for in examination-in-chief. Then we have this at page 34, in his cross-examination : — " The first conversation I had with Arthur Meikle was when he said he was going to get a fat orre. I suppose his father had told him I was all right. He had to drive the sheep about 300 yards to get to the road. I waited till he came up with them —-about half an hour. He did not ask me what I waited for." Well, I put it to your Honours, was I not justified in my opening statement that it would be impossible to reconcile these two statements. The critical point of the journey was rounding this fence by the southern side of the pre-emptive right, at the cross-roads, close by the hut. Young Meikle had to drive them roundfthat corner and oomefback in the same direction, by the. southern side, towards his father's boundary. On the first occasion'd.ambert met him 300 or 400 yards from the hut, and they were both on the turnips. The conversation which in 1887 was described as having taken place on the road-line is declared to have taken place on the, turnips and on the road-line 300 or 400 y 7 ards from the end of the fence in 1894. In 1895 the version of 1894 rs repeated. Then you find, on page 44 of the pamphlet, in the report of Lambert's evidence-in-chief at his own trial he states, — " Coming away from Gregg's I met Arthur Meikle with some sheep. When I baw him first 1 was on the turnips. I think it was in "October, anyhow. It"'was the.night I'was at Gregg's. I think I went to borrow matches. I did rrot know who it was till J got up to him. I spoke to him. I asked him what he was going to do witir the sheep. He said he was taking them home." That, your Honours, is precise confirmation of the evidence he gave before the Magistrate in 1894 —the meeting that took place on the turnips, the conversation on the turnips ; then the young fellow drove them round. Now, in 1906, before this Commission, he took what was probably the safest course. There have been some ingenious attempts to reconcile and smooth awayr his contradictions, but apparently 7 this contradiction is considered too glaring to attempt any such correction, arrd he simply elected to go back Mr. Justice Edwards : What do y 7 ou want us to infer from these discrepancies ? Mr. Atkinson : To show that his evidence is not true —that a man who had seen these incidents would not have forgotten them. The error in date is venial; but the error as to place, under the circumstances which I have already described, is, I submit, a very 7 strong indication of want of credibility on the part of the person testifyng to it. Mr. Justice Edwards : I should have thought that, having given his account at the earlier date, and knowing perfectly well there was a record of it, if he wanted to perjure himself he would have gone and looked up that record so as to get the same thing. Mr. Atkinson : The remarkable thing is that the notes were rrot accessible, unless Lambert was in a better position than my client. Mr. Justice Edwards : There must have been newspaper reports which would have given some information. Mr. Atkinson : He seems to have spoken from his recollection. But I understand the poirrt of Mr. Justice Edwards's inquiry is this : whether a perjurer would not have been likely to take particular care to find out what he said before, and have said the same thing again, Mr. Justice Cooper : Minor, arrd even to some extent major, discrepancies between statements made by 7 a witness at one time and statements made by him at another time are not always indications of untruthfulness, but sometimes of truthfulness. Mr. Justice Edwards : What was the major fact in all this—was it not the stealing of the sheep ? Mr. Atkinson : The major point was the £50; and I put it to your Honour whether you regard Lambert as going in to win £50, or as acting solely in the interests of the, company or in the interests of justice. Mr. Justice Edwards : Suppose a man to be honestly anxious to relate what he has seerr, what was the essential part of what he saw in this case ? The driving of somebody-else's sheep upon somebodyelse's land. The exact position, of course, is comparatively immaterial. Mr. Atkinson: I only 7 put it to your Honour as a matter of every-day experience that an error in the place of conversation is a serious matter, whereas an error as to the date of a conversation takes place every day. Mr. Justice Cooper : If a man says a conversation took place in Wellington, and afterwards says it took place in Auckland, that is a serious discrepancy. Mr. Justice Edwards : But suppose a man says a conversation took place on Lambton Quay when it really took place in Grey 7 Street, would that be a serious discrepancy ? The point would probably be non-essential. Mr. Atkinson : Is it possible that the man who had conceived arr event of this kind, which would so impress his imagination, could have made such an enormous difference as stating in one of his narratives that they met on the turrrips and that they had their conversation on the turnips, that the young fellow had to drive the sheep about 300 yards around the corner of a fence, while he himself took a short out and waited for the young fellow to come up ; and stating in the other narrative that he went along the road-line about 300 yards and met the young fellow there ? Then they have some conversation, as is described irr the other narrative, which takes place on the company's field. Mr. Justice Cooper : A man might honestly after a lapse of years make such a nristake. Of course, he could not make a mistake upon the major event —as to the driving of the sheep; but, considering
H.—2l.
the uncertainty of the human memory and the lapse of time, I do not myself 'on this point see that there is anything more than an apparent contradiction, which might be explained by an inaccurate memory. You point out the contradiction, and there is no doubt there is a contradiction. Mr. Atkinson : As Mr. Justice Edwards says, the circumstance in one sense might be unessential; but I put it as a matter of psychology that the most impressive moment in the whole business for Lambert was when he heard the young fellow coming along—when he heard that silent dog barking— and when he saw the sheep coming along in the dark of the night. We will imagine the young fellow arrd his booty looming through the darkness, and I say that the event would be impressed upon the mind of any man who saw it, more especially if he were watching for a crime and for his money as well as for the interests of his employer. I say that the circumstances would be impressed upon his mind almost as indelibly as the act of young Meikle afterwards in passing the knife through the fleece or cutting the throat of one of the sheep. Mr. Justice Edwards : I think you attribute a good deal more imagination to Lambert than I should be inclined to do, having seen him in the box. He appeared to me to be more of a stolid sort of person, to whom what would appear to a sensitive person striking events would be Y,ery much in the nature of ordinary phenomena, and would pass him by altogether. There are many persons who are absolutely incapable of seeing the beauty of a view, and I do not think Lambert would be impressed by what might impress your imagination. It would not be likely to impress a person who has been described as a drunken rouseabout. Mr. Atkinson : The Queen's head orr the back of a sovereign would lend beauty to the scene, especially as there were fifty of them waiting for him. Mr. Justice Cooper : The major circumstance was the driving of the sheep. The minor circumstance was the place where he met young Meikle. There are circumstances in every one's experience in which one can quite honestly make a mistake. As an instance of this, Mr. Justice Wills, in his work on Circumstantial Evidence, speaks of a dramatic incident in his life where his brougham was upset, and where he believed that he had observed the details of the accident, but he was conscious afterwards that he arrived at the details only by reasoning upon the little that he did see. The major circumstance was that he met with the accident. He could not be mistaken about that; but as to the details he was relying only orr the major circumstance. Mr. Atkinson : Your Honour appears to be reducing the ordinary procedure of the law-courts to futility. One set of witnesses has to prove an affirmative and the other a negative, and often the only way to prove the truth is to test their accuracy as to the circumstances. Mr. Justice Cooper : I was referring to minor points. Mr. Justice Edwards : I can quite conceive that if I had an important conversation with any 7 body in the year 1888, and I was asked where it took place, and I said " Brandon Street," and then on my being asked nine or ten years afterwards I said " Featherston Street," it would be absurd because of that to impugn my credibility. Mr. Atkinson : I submit, your Honour, there is no parallel. The man was out upon a professional errand, with a special inducement to observe accurately. It was one night in a thousand irr that man's career, and it is in the nature of memory that where something particularly impressive happens, that the memory should be impressed with the surroundings. Mr. Justice Edwards : Of course he was there to be accurate; but it is most astonishing how inaccurate people can be. You get two detectives giving evidence almost immediately after an occurrence, as in a case which took place recently in Auckland. Both detectives were respectable persons and were skilled detectives. One was the Chief Detective and the other, I think, was Detective McMahon, neither of whom I can say from experience would be capable of swearing falsely with a view of obtaining a conviction, and yet there were striking discrepancies in their evidence. Mr. Atkinson : As a good example of the way in which a man's memory works, I would mention the answers given by the witness Johnson to questions put by Mr. Justice Cooper. He was asked what two events he remembered on the same day, and to test his memory, among other questions, he was asked where he spent his birthday. He replied that his birthday was not much to him. Mr. Justice Cooper then asked him, " Can you remember anything that happened on the day of Meikle's arrest ? " He replied, " I was in Mataura with a team of horses." I say that is the w 7 ay in which an honest memory works. It marks an event certainly no more impressive to him than Lambert's experience o{ that event, if ever he had it. Mr. Justice Edwards : Memory works differently with different people. A great astronomer who discovered a new star would date his memory from the time of his discovery. He might not have the least idea of when or where it was he made the discovery, but that would be the date from which he would start. Mr. Atkinson : But a shepherd would know the difference between a turnip-bed and a road-line. Mr. Justice Edwards : Ido not know. I should think that ninety-nine out of a hundred men would not care a straw where they were going. They would simply go through their day's work. Mr. Atkinson : Of course, in this case it was not a mere matter of continuance along the same line or the witness merely remaining passive. In the one case young Meikle met him on the turnips, Lambert took a short cut through the fence on to the road-line and waited there half an hour while the young fellow drove the sheep round the corner and along 300 yards, and then along they went. In the other case they met on the road-line and went on together. Mr. Macdonald : My friend 'has inadvertently misquoted the passage he relies upon. He just now stated Lambert met "him on the turnips first. That is not what Lambert says. On page 44 of the pamphlet Lambert says, "When I saw him first I was on the turnips." "Saw him first " may mean what my friend says, or may mean he was on the turnips when he saw Meikle some distance away.
319
H.—2l.
Mr. Atkinson : We have the depositions of 1894, and you may make a third version if you like, but there is the version in 1894 that he was on the turnips and held the conversation on the turnips. However, Lambert, before this Commission, reverts to the 1887 version, and, notwithstanding your Honour's intimation, I still believe the discrepancy is very 7 material in view of the importance and impressiveness of the event to Lambert. Let me put it to your Honours also, if the same indulgence is to be allowed to Mr. Lambert on the ground of bad memory and other points, that undoubtedly. under ordinary circumstances, it is much more easy for a man to remember what he has seen than to remember what he has invented. It is the nature of a vision of reality to leave a deeper impress than an ordinary 7 invention, whether impromptu or more deliberate. Mr. Justice Cooper: As Lord Chief Baron Pollock says, "We are frequently mistaken in what we see, and still oftener mistaken as to what we are supposed to hear." Mr. Atkinson : Yes; even able Judges make mistakes. Mr. Justice Cooper: Mr. Justice Wills made a mistake as to the details of his accident, and he quotes it against himself. He said he was prepared to go into the witness-box and swear to the facts as impressed on his mind, and on careful inquiry he found he was wrong. Mr. Atkinson : Which proves—your Honour will not carry the ruling as far as this—that an inaccurate witness is as worthy of credit as an accurate one ? Mr. Justice Edwards : The mere circumstance of a discrepancy of that sort does not, to my mind. of itself indicate perjury, and that is all that has been suggested to you. It may be one of a number of matters that may be taken into consideration in determining whether a witness is truthful or not. Mr. Justice Cooper : Of course, if there is a continuation of inaccurate and contradictory statements a man's evidence goes. In-fact, you might, apply the test we have suggested to some of your own witnesses in order to set them up. One or two of them require that benevolent interpretation. Mr. Atkinson : Of course, discrepancies between witnesses in non-essentials is always rather evidence of bona fides. Then, take the discrepancy relating to statements which were separated by a much briefer interval of time—take Lambert's statement while the thing was still fresh in his mind, with regard to what he saw of the marks on the sheep when they were put into Mr. Meikle's smithy in the manner in which he described. His statement before the Justices was on the 18th November ; his statement in the Supreme Court was on the 16th December. I think lam right in saying it was less than a calendar month. Now, he states on page 4of the 1887 depositions,— " I did not, notice the ear-marks " —referring to one sheep he saw killed that night—" I thought it was the company's sheep because it was in the mob he took off the turnips." Now, in the Supreme Court, just as I said, about four weeks later, he said, — " After sheep dressed he returned ; told his son to cut fire brand and ear-mark off, and to cut them up into small pieces. That was done. Ear-mark was two notches, either back or front. That was company's ear-mark." Then, in cross-examination, on page 20 he said, — " I saw sheep killed. Saw ear-mark. Did not say before that I had noticed ear-mark." I put it to your Honours, not only did he not say before that he had noticed ear-marks, but he said before that he did not notice ear-marks. Well, there was only a four-weeks interval. Now I will take his explanation of the discrepancy, which is indeed a triumph of ingenuity, although I can hardly believe it was his own ingenuity. He was asked this at page 165 of these proceedings : — " 198. In your cross-examination in the Court below you were pressed, and you said the sheep killed might have been one of Meikle's. What have you to say about that ?—lt might have been. I only saw the ear-mark that was cut off was very like the company's ear-mark." Th Q n he is pressed upon that explanation in cross-examination, and at page 174 we have this evidence :— " 507. You had already stated to the Justices that you did not notice the ear-mark ?—I saw the ear-mark on that sheep, but could not swear positively 7 whether it was the company's ear-mark or not, and then I told them what the company's ear-mark was. I did not say that that was the ear-mark of the company on that sheep. " 508. 'He told his son to cut fire brand and ear-mark off, and to cut them into small pieces. That was done. Ear-mark was two notches, either back or front. That was company's ear-mark.' Do you mean to say that you were simply telling the Court what the company's brand was, or that you did not know whether it was the company's ear-mark or not ?—That is what I meant. " 509. At page 20, in cross-examination, you say, ' Saw ear-mark. Did not say before that I had noticed ear-mark.' You did state that you did not notice ear-mark ? —Yes." I think that clears up the doubt we had as to his reference in his remark to Mr. MacGregor that he did not say before he noticed ear-marks. Now, surely that is an ingenious but absolutely incredible explanation of Lambert's different statements as recorded in the depositions and in the Judge's notes : and this story of his in describing the ear-mark, and the suggestion that what he saw was merely very like the company's ear-mark, is, I would suggest with all respect, " very like a whale." To the Justices he said he did not see the ear-mark. To the Supreme Court he said he did see the ear-mark, and he describes it. To this Commission he says, " I meant that I was merely saying what the company's earmark was for the purpose of abstract information, but I did not see it clearly on that sheep." I submit, your Honours, it is absolute proof of disingenuousness and an attempt to reconcile an absolutely irreconcilable contradiction, and one that has taken place within four weeks of his first statement on the subject and within two months of the alleged event. Then we have another extraordinary statement of his with regard to the marking of this sheep. In my opening address to this Commission I drew attention to the extraordinary procedure attributed to Meikle of getting his son to remove the fire brand and ear-marks, while leaving the major and more conspicuous mark unobliterated ; and, with a note of triumph, Dr. Findlay informed the Commission in his address that he was now in a position to say
320
321
H.—2l
that that essential had not been overlooked by Meikle, though Lambert had overlooked it in giving his evidence. Lambert told his story in 1887, 1894, and in 1895, and after my challenge the truth came out at last, and we then learnt for the first time that he had really seen it, though he had forgotten to mention it. Now, when I was examining the witness upon this point;—at page 173—Mr. Justice Edwards remarked as follows :— " The witness only answers what he is asked in any case. He goes into the witness-box to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, but immediately he goes beyond the answer to the question put he is told by counsel, ' I wish you would keep yourself to the question, and if my friend wants any more from you he will get it by-and-by.' You are making a point of something not being there, and Ido not attach any importance to the fact of its not being there. Of course, if it is something clearly inconsistent with what the witness says in the box previously, that may or may rrot be of importance, according to the time that has elapsed ; but the fact that the thing is not, there is not material." Of course, your Honours, I have already pleaded for a certain indulgence to any witness who testifies after a lorrg interval of time; but I submit that I can- satisfy the test which His Honour lays down here—the test of providing a statement which is really contradictory to the statement that is under consideration. It was stated by Lambert that he believes that he made this statement to the Justices. It was stated by Constable Leece that Lambert had referred to this remarkable process in the conversation outside of the Magistrate's Court at Wyndham before his examination was taken. Turning to page 173, question 489 and following, there is the cross-examination as to this process :— " Mr. Atkinson, (to witness) : -He combed the brand out with a knife : were any chemicals used ? —No. ",489. Did the wool come out ?—Some of it. " 490. Did all the paint come out ?—Very nearly. I could not see much from where I was standing. " 491. Did enough wool come out to spoil the fleece ?—No. " 492. Had you ever seen that process done before ?—No. " 493. How is it that you forgot such a striking circumstance as that 1 How is it that you forgot to inform your company's counsel of such a striking circumstance, and that it would only comeback to your mind nineteen years afterwards ?—I do not know. I mentioned it before. lam positive of that. " 494. Yes, we have it that you mentioned it to two gentlemen before the proceedings; but you cannot explain why you did not mention it in the subsequent proceedings ? —No, I cannot." Mr. Justice Cooper: Where is his statement in his examination-in-chief on that point ? I think you mentioned it. Mr. Atkinson : It is on page 166, at question 257 :— " It is suggested by Mr. Atkinson that while you told the Courts that you saw the ear-marks cut off, and you saw the fire brand cut out, you never told any one that the paint brand was combed out ? —Yes, I did. " 258. Who did you tell first ?—Stuart." Mr. Justice Cooper : Where does he give evidence as to the combing ? Mr. Atkinson: On page 164, question 151 :— " When the elder Meikle came back, what did he do or say ?—He told Arthur Meikle to cut the ears and fire brands off the skin. " 152. Was that done ?—Yes. "153. Was anything else done by Arthur Meikle ?—The skins were turned over on the bales, and, with a knife, he ran through the brand to take the paint off." Mr. Justice Cooper : Is there any evidence that the brand was taken off the skins that were discovered ? Mr. Atkinson : No; they are admitted to have been untampered-with. Mr. Justice Cooper : This was the skin off the sheep killed, as Lambert says, in his presence ? Mr. Atkinson: Yes. Mr. Macdonald : This was not one of the skins that were identified as belonging to the compary. Mr. Justice Cooper : Why not ? Mr. Macdonald : Because the brand was not there. Mr. Justice Cooper : Because of this combing-out ? Mr. Macdonald: Yes. The two skins that were found—it is common ground between the prosecution and the defendant that those skins bore the company's painted brand. Mr. Justice Cooper: Of course, if the brand was combed out of the sheep which was killed on the night of the 17th or 18th October, then it was not one of those two skins. Mr. Macdonald : That is so. Yes. Mr. Justice Cooper : Then, there must have been three sheep killed ?, Mr. Macdonald : Yes. Mr. Justice Cooper : But you only want two to account for. Mr. Macdonald: No ; I have stated that there were three sheep killed, Mr. Atkinson: That is the change of position now, your Honours. They did not go to trial on that evidence. Mr. Macdonald : We went to trial upon this evidence: that they were the sheep found in a paddock of Meikle's, which Lambert had seen, arrd that the sheep found in a paddock of Meikle's by themselves, minus three, were the number that Lambert had seen. The three short were represented by the two skins found and identified irr the barn or smithy and the skin of the sheep that Lambert saw killed. We went to trial upon that ground. And, as far as this question of the non-identification of the sheep
41— H. 21.
H.—2l.
that was killed in Lambert's presence is concerned, we have it in Lambert's own evidence given in the Supreme Court at the trial that Meikle made the remark, " Now we can defy the company or any one else." Obviously, he could not have said that if. the brand was on it. Mr. Atkinson : I pointed that out in Dunedin, and we have had the evidence since. Lambert had told his story repeatedly. It was told in the Supreme Court, and before the Justices in 1887, and in 1894 and 1895, and we had nothing about this combing of the brand. Mr. Justice Cooper : It is singular, to say the least, why, if Meikle combed out the brand on the sheep that he killed in Lambert's presence, he did not comb out the brand on the two sheep. Mr. Macdonald : He was in the presence of a third person, your Honour. Mr. Atkinson : He was in the presence of a third person, and he was doing a thing that would allow a fourth person, who was not there, to see who had committed the crime. Mr. Macdonald : There was no evidence as to the identity of the skins. You are making a mistake in your statement that the evidence has only been brought out since you pointed it out in Dunedin. Mr. Atkinson : The evidence had not been produced until I made the statement. I made it iir Dunedin. I said it was an absurdity to remove the minor marks and leave the others in. Mr. Macdonald : It was known before. Mr. Justice Edwards : It is quite apparent to anybody that this would have to be accounted for in some way or other. Mr. Atkinson : The thing was a farce either way, because, supposing the brand was combed out 1 might pursue that question in the cross-examination a little further. Question 496 : — " Did it seem to you a wise precaution for a sheep-stealer to get the brand off ?—I do not know. Different men have different methods, I suppose. " 497. As a matter of fact, I suppose, on the face of it such a tampering with the mark would show to anybody who knew anything about sheep that there had been a theft committed ? —Yes, it would. " 498. It was after all this was done that Meikle said he would defy the company ?—Yes. " 499. Suppose you had gone to the station straight away, could you not have had half a dozen witnesses down at once, and have had the police on the scene soon after daylight ?—Excuse me, I told them at the station next day." That statement is qualified in the next few questions. Well, now, apart from the intrinsic and a priori improbability of this statement produced after this lapse of time, I desire to show that statements which Lambert made irr 1887, and to which he still adheres, absolutely preclude the possibility of his having seen the process of which so much is now made. He told the Justices in 1887, on page 4of the depositions—and I would ask your Honours to note that this report is in the first person, arrd is an exceptionally full one : — " There was no secrecy. The sheep was killed irr my presence. I cannot say what brands were on it. For all I know, it might have been one of Meikle's. I suppose it was one of the company's sheep, but I did not look at the brand. I did not notice the ear-marks. I thought it was the company's sheep because it was in the mob he took off the turnips." I put it that the exceptionally clear and explicit nature of those statements precludes the possibility of any such incompleteness as has been suggested by your Honours as sometimes cloudirrg the full meaning of a witness's words; but, fortunately, that statement is not one of the statements which. it is now proposed to qualify. Mr. Justice Edwards : If Lambert committed this crime of conspiring to fabricate evidence against Meikle, and placed the skins there, is it not somewhat peculiar that when he gave his evidence as to seeing a sheep killed he did not give full details of brands and everything else ? Mr. Atkinson : I do rrot quite understand your Honour. Mr. Justice Edwards : To complete the evidence against Meikle of having killed a sheep on the 17th October it was necessary to show that it was the company's sheep, and the ordinary way of showing that would be to establish the brand. Mr. Atkinson : So he did. Mr. Justice Edwards : 1 am speaking of the prosecution of Meikle. Mr. Atkinson : I am, too, your Honour. May I quote from near the opening of his examination-in-chief ? " When they came with lantern I saw brand, A (with bar above, in red). That is the brand the company have on their sheep now, and had on the sheep then on turnips." Mr. Justice Edwards: But from what you have just read to us, as I heard it, it might have been Meikle's sheep or anybody else's. Mr. Atkinson : The one sheep that was killed ? Mr. Justice Edwards : That is what I mean. Mr. Atkinson: Yes. Mr. Justice Edwards : Is it not peculiar that he did not swear to the brand on that sheep ? Mr. Atkinson : I should have thought it was about enough if he had sworn to the driving. The killing, of course, was not the crime ; the driving was the crime. He saw them driving, and he saw the brand on a number of them in the smithy there, but the one that was killed he was not sure about. Going back to what you said about essentials, he swore to all the essentials and to everything that was needed. Mr. Justice Edwards : Driving off other people's sheep might be quite an accident, of course. Mr. Atkinson : This evidence refers to the sheep inside—to what he saw when Meikle produced the lantern inside the smithy. Mr. Justice Edwards : I know. I might drive other people's beasts into my yard in the dark without having the slightest intention of doing anything but finding out which" were my beasts and turning out those not mine.
322
H.—21.
Mr. Atkinson : When I referred to my neighbour's fowls in my place I was not given the benefit of the doubt yesterday. Mr. Justice Edwards : It was intimated to you that, as far as the fowls were concerned, you ran a risk. Mr. Atkinson : Yes, your Honour, if they were found killed. Mr. Justice Cooper : If you killed them. Mr. Atkinson : I only put it to your Honours, if they were found killed. The presumption would be that I had done it. Well, your Honours, I desire to point out that this last extraordinary statement, which I have quoted in detail from the depositions, is still repeated by Lambert in 1906, at question 198, page 165, in his examination-in -chief before the Commission : — " In your cross-examination in the Court below you were pressed, and you said the sheep killed might have been one of Meikle's : what have you to say about that ? —lt might have been. I only saw the ear-mark that was cut off was very like the company's ear-mark." Now, your Honours, that is point No. 1 in his examination-in-chief. A few months before the* witness had answered another question in his examination-in-chief as follows :— " 159. Did you notice at all what brarrd was on the sheep ?—I noticed a red brand on most of them. " Did you rrotice the brand on the skin that Arthur Meikle was working at ?—lt was red. I know that." I would ask you how these two statements can be reconciled. He did not know but that the sheep was one of Meikle's. It is not merely a question as to whether or not this was a sheep of the company's ; but one statement says " I do not know that the sheep was not one of Meikle's," and the other says " I know the brand was red." Now, Lambert knew that the brand of the company was red and that of Meikle black. How, then, can he come forward with this story that he saw the painted brand on the sheep ? I was not concerned at the discovery of this fact, or supposed fact, because when it was put alongside his admission before the Justices it was perfectly obvious that there were absolute contradictions that could irot be reconciled ; but I did not expect that these two contradictory statements could be elicited from the witness in examination by his owrr counsel. The statement he made not only in 1887 but in 1906 is in absolute conflict with it, and can be reconciled by no process of ingenuity. Apart from these two statements, there is, of course, the absurdity —which Lambert admits in cross-examination —of anybody treating the skin in a way that would reveal to any other person that it was stolen ; and there is this difficulty : that the skins found in Meikle's barn had not been so treated. It is stated that Lambert had mentioned this matter to others outside the Court. This is orre of the pleasing surprises of the Commission which the rules of evidence do not affect. Lambert states that he mentioned it at the time. His statement is that he mentioned it to the Justices. I put it to you that such a statement is ludicrous. Meikle would never have lost sight of such a point, and Lambert's whole evidence shows that he had not committed himself to any such statement. Possibly, when it came to the time it seemed to him it would be too ludicrous to repeat, and he changed his mind. Further, I am entitled to put this : that it conflicted with the theory, which was quite clear in Lambert's mind, that one of the skins in the barn was to be identified as that of the sheep he saw killed. I gave the reference in treating the subject of the skins yesterday. Lambert was in conflict with Stuart as to the probable age of these skins. Stuart thought they would not correspond with sheep killed on the 17th October, and Lambert thought they would " fill the bill." Of course, that is a matter of theory and not of evidence; but, if that was in Lambert's mind, he had good reason not to embroider his evidence by the addition of circumstances which would have given it an air of improbability. Is it possible that in his statements to the police, to the Justices, to Mr. Macdonald or his clerk —in all the statements he has made since—he would forget it ? Mr. Justice Cooper : You must say that Constable Leece's evidence is not true. He states that Lambert did make that statement. Mr. Macdonald : Stuart also. Mr. Justice Cooper : Before Meikle was committed for trial. Mr. Atkinson : I was dealing with that argument on the basis that he made the statement but that it was too ludicrous to make in Court with these skins before him. Mr. Justice Edwards : It must be clear that he was not asked in Court. You have got no negative there. Mr. Atkinson : We have it in the 1887 depositions : " The sheep was killed in my presence. I cannot say what brands were on it." Mr. Justice Edwards : I do not think that is the point. Mr. Atkinson : " I supposed it was one of the company's sheep. I did not look at the brand." Mr. Justice Edwards : I should infer that he saw the red mark, but did not look at it so as to be able to describe it. A good number of witnesses would answer in that way. Mr. Atkinson : But he knew that Meikle's brand was not red. My friend had better call evidence now that Lambert was colour-blind, and therefore mistook the colour. If these two statements —the answers to questions 160 and 198 —are compatible, Ido not know what to say. He says the brand was red, but it may have been one of Meikle's. Mr. Justice Edwards : You expect to hear logic from a man like this, but you never get it. He did rrot examirre the brand, but saw the red mark. He says, "I am not prepared to say that it was the company's brarrd, Al." Mr. Atkinson : Also, he was not prepared to say that the sheep was not one of Meikle's. He did nof'see the shape of the brand, but he saw the colour, and yet did not know whether the sheep was not one of Meikle's. Mr. Macdonald : I thirrk the first statement had reference to fire brands.
323
H.—2l
324
Mr. Justice Edwards: You see, this particular answer has not been given with a view to getting Meikle deeper into the fire. Mr. Atkinson : He said in 1887 that he did not know the sheep was not Meikle's, and he says in 1906 that he saw a red brand on it. Mr. Justice Cooper : You must expect a certain amount of contradiction. Mr. Atkinson : Black and red are as far apart as you can get them. Mr. Justice Cooper : It is singular, if this statement of Lambert is true that Meikle combed out the brarrd on the skin of the sheep he killed, he did not comb out the brands orr the skins of the sheep he subsequently killed and kept. Mr. Atkinson : That is a broad point, but it does not go to this question. Mr. Justice Cooper : It goes to the credibility of Lambert's evidence. Mr. Justice Edwards : What answer can you suggest, Mr. Macdonald ? Mr. Macdonald : If Lambert was inventing his evidence, he would say Meikle did not take out the bland, and that the skin of the sheep he saw killed was one of those found in the smithy. Mr. Justice Cooper : That does not answer the suggestion I made. What answer have you to this 1 If Meikle was canny enough to comb out the brand on the skin which Lambert, an employee of the company, saw him take from a sheep belonging to the company, why should he keep the brand upon the two skins found in the smithy ? Mr. Macdonald : That is one of the questions that even a most experienced criminal overlooks. Of course, if Meikle had done that the theft would never have been found out. ?:|j Mr. Justice Cooper : You say that Meikle was a criminal who had taken certain precautions with regard to one, and, by that fatality which often accompanies criminal acts, failed in the other cases. Mr. Macdonald : Not that. These two skins found in the barn were mixed up with Meikle's, and he did not know there was going to be a search-warrant issued. Consequently he had a certain sense of security. It may have been that these skins would be done away with later. Mr. Justice Cooper : Why did he comb out the brand on the other ? Mr. Macdonald : Because Lambert was there. We know it is perfectly evident that Lambert was in Meikle's confidence. He was asked on the 14th November to go and shear for Meikle. It is perfectly evident, therefore, that he used to visit him, and to a certain extent trusted and believed in him; but to make perfectly certain, as the killing was done in the presence of Lambert, a third person, he made certain by combing out the brand. Mr. Justice Edwards : Ordinarily, you would have expected him to take the brand off the skins in order to hide his guilt; but a man might do it in twenty-five cases and neglect to do it in the twentysixth, with the result that he is caught. Is that your theory ? Mr. Macdonald : Yes ; and there is the additional theory that he was resting on a sense of security. Mr. Justice Cooper : It is hard to see that. You say, first, that he was resting on a feeling of blind confidence in an employee of the company —that is, that he must have assumed that the employee of the company, who was to get the £50 reward, would not give information to the company. Then, secondly, you say he was resting on a sense of security because the skins were mixed up with his own. The evidence was that the skins were in an open shed. Mr. Macdonald : The skins were found with his own skins. Mr. Justice Cooper : But not concealed. Mr. Macdonald : They were mixed up with the rest of them, and you could not find them unless the whole lot were pulled down and examined. Mr. Justice Cooper : It only struck me as a singular circumstance that we should have to consider from both points of view. There is another singular circumstance, and that is, assuming that this theft was committed on the 18th October, which must be your case now, he not only omitted to comb out the brand from the skins of the two sheep he had killed in addition to the third one, but he kept the twenty-four sheep with the brand on about his place. Mr. Justice Edwards : That does not strike me as being improbable, because if any one came along he would say, " Take your sheep away, or I will sue you for trespass." Mr. Justice Cooper : But there is this circumstance : that they would miss those three sheep, and would naturally search his place to find out what had become of them. Mr. Justice Edwards : Not without a search-warrant. Mr. Macdonald : They had a search-warrant. Meikle would not allow them to interfere with his sheep at all without a search-warrant. " s*. : Mr. Justice Edwards : There is no search-warrant mentioned irr Lambert's evidence. - sLjjj Mr. Macdonald : The search-warrant was obtained upon the information of Stuart, not of Lambert, though Stuart got his information from Lambert. The Court adjourned at 4.45 p.m.
Friday, Uth January, 1907. Mr. Atkinson,: I concluded yesterday my examination of Mr. Lambert's contradictions of himself in the various narratives he has given. I now proceed to deal with the contradictions of Lambert by other witnesses who have been called on Mr. Meikle's behalf at various times. The first will be Mr. Templeton, who made a very brief statement on the subject at page 24 of the 1887 evidence in the Supreme Court: —
325
H.—2l
" Templeton, Wyndham, storekeeper : Know Lambert and prisoner. On 24th September, Saturday night, Lambert put his arm round my neck and said, ' Look here, Jack, company wants me to go for poor old Meikle, but I'll stick to Meikle.' I was asking no questions about Meikle. Conversation put in interruptedly. I asked no questions. Lambert left then." That is a pretty clear and, I submit, a not easily mistakable statement of Lambert's to which Templeton testifies. lam not referring, of course, to anything he says now after such a long lapse of time, but what Lambert said about it in the Supreme Court in 1887 in cross-examination was: — " I know Templeton, of Wyndham. Had conversation with him. Cannot say what date. It was not about Meikle ; it was about row in publichouse. Never said, ' Look here, Jack, company want me to go for poor old;Meikle, but I will not; I will stick to Meikle.' ' : Then next we have William Harvey, at page 24 of the pamphlet—that is, of course, evidence for the defence at Meikle's trial: — " Heard him [that was Lambert] at end of September in Meikle's small kitchen, before Mrs. Meikle, Jane Geary, and myself, Arthur and Mr. Meikle, say that company had either offered or promised him £50 if he could get Meikle arrested. ' They want me to put things on to your property to get you into trouble.' He said he could not do it, and it was better to tell him what they were going to do." That statement, of course, is denied by Lambert. Harvey was not produced before this Commissiorr, as he died some time ago. The Jane Geary referred to irr that evidence, who is now Mrs. Shiels, was produced. All she was able to remember of the conversation in her evidence to this Commission is at page 97, question 653 : — " I heard him say he was going to get £50 to get Mr. Meikle convicted." Now, her more detailed statement in 1887 is at page 26 :— "He said to Meikle, in kitchen, middle September, before Mrs. Meikle, Arthur Meikle, James Meikle, arrd myself, that Cameron and Troup were to give him £50 to put sheep and skins orr Meikle's property to get him convicted before going to Wellington." Lambert, at page 20 in the report of Meikle's trial, give, a general denial :— " I know Mrs. Shiels (Miss Geary), servant to Meikle. Was often at Meikle's—not very often. Never said there I was to get £50 from company. If Mrs. Shiels or Harvey says that I said Cameron and Stuart intended to put sheep on Meikle's property and get him convicted, it is not true," Then Arthur Meikle, at page 27 of the 1887 trial, says, referring to Lambert,— " Said he was to get £50 to arrest father—to put sheep and skins on property. He said he would not do it." . , ~ , T That, of course, is denied. Then there is the statement of George Davis at page 2b, ot which 1 have already indicated to your Honours the possible importance, in view of the fact that it is the only reference to the matter of grass-seed in the evidence given at Meikle's trial. He says,— " I asked what he wanted to see me for. He said, in reference to Meikle. He was to get £50 to trap him : that they had been blaming Meikle for taking away sheep, and he was to catch him if he could, or he did not get the £50." ~, ~ He goes on further to say that Lambert suggested to him he should take some barbed wire and also 100 lb. of grass-seed that was in the hut. "He said, ' I have 100 lb. grass-seed in hut. You might do something with it. 1 asked how much per pourid. I said, ' I know nothing of grass-seed.' He said, 'If you take that with you, you might get a quid for it, and you can give me half when I see you.' I said he had better do it himself. [ would have nothing to do with it." , . Lambert denies that statement. The actual words put to him in cross-examination are shown at the foot of page 20 : — ,«,,-. " Know George Davis; not intimate, friendly. He came to hut on Sunday evening ; cannot say date Did not say, 'I am going to get sack.' Said, ' Did you see men on road on horseback.' Did not say ' They have brought man up in my plaoe.'||Did not say, ' I am to get fifty quid to catch Merkle.' Did not tell him about £50 promised. I said nothing to him about catching Meikle. Did not say, ' I have been put here to catch Meikle, but have seen nothing wrong since I came.' Drd not say anything about putting sheep or sheep-skins on Meikle's place, or about colza-oil or barbed wire." lames Meikle was not called in the Supreme Court in 1887—he was a lad of twelve then—but there was a similar statement of his in the 1887 depositions. I cannot give it, as I have not got my copy here but it is not of great importance. Alexander McDonald, m 1887, at page 27, says— " Had corrversation with Lambert in Esk Street on sth November. He asked me rf I knew that company were going to pull Meikle for stealing sheep. I: ' No; I noticed in papers they were pullrng his son.' He : ' Meikle had nothing to do with sheep or skins ; I could clear them of it if I liked. That is all." And then there is the subsequent conversation :— " Meikle and Lambert came out together into passage. Brother was outside. Meikle said, 45e truthful, Lambert, and tell the truth on both sides.' Lambert said, 'Yes; lam waiting to get £10 blood-money from Stuart.'" ,-,.,- -j * toot to. That of course was denied. That exhausts the contradiction m the evrdence ot 1887. Ihen, coming to 1895 there is first of all Meikle's evidence, and then that of Mrs. Merkle. I need not detarn your Honours with specific references to the statements there arrd Lambert's contradrctrons. Then, the first independent witness called was Mr. Kelly, who was foreman of the jury m 1887. Hrs evrdence was as to whether or not Lambert had definitely fixed the date, and hrs statement, on page 32, rs :— " The date Lambert spoke to all through his evidence was the 17th October, 1887. That, of course, was denied. The evidence of Mrs. Howe, a nurse, who had been rrursrng Mrs. Meikle. is on page 36 : — ~ , " I remember seeing Lambert there [at Meikle's]. I saw him more than once. He said he was to get £50 from Cameron and Troup to put skins on Meikle's place to catch Meikle."
H.—2l.
That statement Lambert also denies. The evidence of McGeorge, who also appeared for the first time at the trial of 1895, is at page 39 : — £j " Before I left [that is, the hut] —maybe'a week or a fortnight —Lambert said he wairted a couple of sheep-skins for mats. I left them for him on the fences." Then, cross-examined, he said,— " I left the two skins hanging on the wire fence alongside of Lambert's hut." That statemeirt was denied by Lambert at page 45. Mr. Justice Edwards : Did v not McGeorge deny that in his evidence before tlWCommission i Mr. Atkinson : He did not deny the request. He did not remember having given them. Mr. Justice Edwards : It did not come as a request. Mr. Atkinson : Oh, yes, he said he was asked. Mr. Justice Edwards : I know. He said he supposed Lambert spoke about it. Mr. Justice Cooper : He said he would like to have one or two to take home for mats, if I remember properly. Mr. Atkinson : Page 81 : — " How long was that before you left for the station ?—lt might have beerr a week or so. " 715. Did you get one or two skins for him ? —No, I did not get them for him. He could help himself to them. They were, at the back of the hut. " 716. Do you know whether they were got for him ?—I did not give them to him. "717. Do you mean that he asked you for them arrd that you did not get them : what was the point of the conversation ?—I could rrot tell you now what the conversation might be. " 718. You told us he asked about one or two skins for mats ?—Yes, I remember that right enough. " 719. He asked you for one or two skins for mats, and I want to know whether he got the skins ? —I would not like to say whether he took them or not. I cannot say. " 720. Did you not get them for him ? —I did not get them for him. "721. What did he ask you for ?—Really, I do not know what his idea would be for asking me at the time. " 722. Had you any carting to do in connection with skins at the station ? —Yes. I took in what skins were there ; but I cannot tell you how many now. " 723. Were there any skins hanging about the hut or fence when you left ?—Not that I am aware of. " 724. Do you remember the evidence you gave in Lambert's trial in 1895 ?—lndeed, I cannot tell you that now. I suppose it is there in print, and I know that what I said was right." This was a clear case of an old man who was beginning to fail, and I only refer to this question and question 46 on page 83 : — " Are you aware of having made any mistakes in your evidence at Lambert's trial in 1895 ?—Not that I am aware of." I only put it irr to show that it is rrot arr admission of false swearing in 1895 ; arrd it is a clear case that he is speaking to the best of his recollection now, and is rrot consciously correcting anything he said in 1895. Then, your Honours, whether McGeorge is to be taken to be correct in 1895 or 1906— when his memory, as I put it, is beginning to fail—Lambert's denials of that request are of the utmost importance in any case, owing to the absolutely contradictory reasons that he gives—page 175 of the report of the Commission's proceedings, question 561 arrd following :— "Is it also not true that you asked McGeorge for some skins a week or two before he left ( —I never mentioned skins to him. —not for that purpose. " 562. Ido not suggest for that purpose. Did you mention the matter to him at all ? —He might have taken skins to the station. " 563. I mean, did you ask him to get two skins for mats ?—No, I did not. " 564. Why are you sure about that ?—lf I wanted two skins I do not see why 1 should ask McGeorge for them. I could get them without asking for them at all. " 565. What was the arrangement at the station with regard to skins ? Had you a free hand ; could you help yourself to skins as you liked ? —No. " 566. What would you have done if you had wanted skins ?—I could have taken skins if I had wanted to. " 567. Could you have picked them up round the hut >. —Yes." Well, your Honours, contrast that statement with his contradiction of McGeorge's evidence on the same point in 1895, on page 45 of the pamphlet: — "It is not true I asked McGeorge for two skins before he left. I could have got them from Stuart or Mr. Troup without asking McGeorge for them." That is an important point, because it goes to the credibility of Lambert's testimony and the testimony of other of the company's servants; because it was put to your Honours that the request would have been a mere superfluity, since he could help himself. It was quite clear that Lambert knew in 1895 that it was not quite such a free-and-easy matter as has been put to the Court. I put it now, at any rate, that the reason given in 1895 must be taken to show that the present explanation is false. Mr. Justice Edwards : The man says he could have helped himself. Both are obviously and equallytrue, it seems to me : he could have helped himself if he had wanted to do so, and he could have asked Troup if he had wairted to. It is not a statement of fact. Mr. Atkinson : Very well, your -Honour. Of course there is a statement of fact at the back of it, because it is a supposed fact which he is alleging. Either it is a fact that he could help himself at the hut, or he had to go to Islay, go through the form of consulting Troup or Stuart, and. get the skins there. Surely such a difference as that is a difference of fact, and rrot one which could escape the mind of a man who had beerr on the station for some months.
326
H.—2l
327
Mr. Justice Edwards : It is perfectly plain that he could have taken the skins if he had wanted to. Mr. Atkinson : It is perfectly 7 plain he knew in 1895 that he could not. Surely, your Honour, if he was free to do as he pleased he would never have given the reason in 1895 that he need not ask McGeorge, because Stuart or Troup would have done as well, especially in view of the fact which your Honours will not forget, that Stuart and Troup were at the' homestead—some six or seveir miles off— and that, Lambert's home at this time was the hut on the pre-emptive right. Then, Mr. Fraser is the next witness he has to contradict. Mr. Fraser's evidence begins at page 39 of the pamphlet, but the circumstantial statement to which I wish to refer is at the top of page 40, — " I met Lambert rright of same day I met McGeorge. I was going from Cameron's hotel to Humphrey's hotel irr Mataura. It was after tea-time. When I met him he asked me to go back to Cameron's and have a drink. I did not go. I said I would not go back. There was a Mr. Leece, a constable. He said, ' For God's sake keep me away from this constable.' " It was intimated by His Honour Mr. Justice Cooper, when I was discussing the question of date relative to the incident, that the denial of a circumstance would be a material matter, but that the mere denial of meeting Fraser orr that date would not have much significance ; but I do submit, in view of such a circumstance as that, that the discrepancy on the point is decidedly a material one. What Lambert said about it at his own trial is to be found on page 46— " Nothing as to what Fraser said about Constable Leece happened. I did not see Fraser day Barclay was castrating the colt, unless it was in the morning." Lambert's statement as to the conversation —I have dealt already with what he said on the question of date—is at page 176 of the Commission's proceedings, question 582 : — " You do not remember a conversation with him or Constable Leece of which he speaks, which you prefaced by saying, ' For Goodness' sake keep me away 7 from that constable' % —No ; I had no occasion to say that to him. " 583. You swear there is no such conversation ? —I do not remember such a conversation. " 584. In 1888, do you remember whether your memory was clear on the subject ? At page 46 you said, ' Nothing as to what Fraser said about Constable Leece happened ' ?—I believe that is correct." Then the last of the 1895 witnesses, your Honours, is orre to whom I expect your Honours will be disposed to attach considerable importance, and that is Mr. Arthur C. Henderson, who was called as the first witness for the prosecution at the Lambert trial. He was a solicitor, and had been Registrar of the Supreme Court when Meikle was convicted. He was called to produce the Registrar's notebook, and to give evidence as to what Lambert said on the matter of date, and he also deposed to this conversation —a little more than half-way down his examirration-in-chief, on page 31 of the pamphlet:— " I saw Lambert at Otautau about eight months ago, while he was waiting trial on a similar charge to this. I did not know him while conversation was going on. I made inquiries and found out who he was afterwards. The man with whom I had a conversation at Otautau was prisoner. I was standing at door of hotel. lam sure he knew me. He referred first to Meikle's case. I made the remark, 'It was a dreadful thing that a man could be found for £50 to swear another man's life away.' I can only give the gist of his answer. It was something to the effect that Meikle was no good. He said that he was a bad b , and that he would give him more yet. He looked past me and saw some man making a sign to him, arrd he left me. I then inquired and found out who he was." Then Lambert's version of the conversation is interesting. Page 46 — " After I was committed for trial I saw Henderson at Otautau. He said he was sorry for me ; he thought I could get a better counsel. He said he was better than McAlister. He did not come again. I think I told him to go to a warm place." At page 180 of the Commission proceedings, question 739, Henderson's statement was again put to him, and he was asked to absolutely contradict Henderson's statement, and he said, " I do." Then it proceeds: — " You were going to make some explanation ?—He said I should get good counsel, and I asked who he, would recommend, and he replied he thought he was good enough. " He was touting for a job he could not get, and then he turns round and lies against you in the Court ?—Yes." Then, your Honours, there are two witnesses to add to the list of those who have appeared before the Commission. There is the evidence of Mr. Perkins at page 95, questions 546, 547 : — " Did you have any conversation with Lambert as to what he was employed for I—He1 —He told me that he had to get Meikle out of the place—that the company wanted the land. " Did he say on what terms he was to be employed ?—That he was to get £50 if he could get him out." Then there are questions 582 and 583 on the same page,— " How was he to do it ? —I do not know. " Did he not tell you how he was to do it ?—No." Lambert denies that conversation in two places. First at page 181, question 746, where Perkins' statement is put to him, and he is asked, — " You heard Perkins swear here two days ago that when he was employed by Meikle in September he was ploughing alongside the pre-emptive right, and that he asked you to take the company's sheep off, and that you mentioned to him that you were to get £50 for trapping Meikle. Is every word of that incorrect % —There is none of it correct." He makes the still, more sweeping denial in question 387 — " Did you ever tell Perkins what you were there for I —l did not." Then the last witness I have to refer to in this connection is Mr. Redding, who was called at Wellington on the 14th May last, and deposed to a conversation he had with Lambert in Gore, — "11. Of course you knew Lambert had been a witness ? —Yes,
H.—2l.
" Tell us as well as you recollect what took place ?—We were having a drink at the bar. " Was that in your own house ? —No; it was in White's Railway Hotel. Some conversation cropped up re the Meikle case, and I happened to pass the remark to Lambert, ' Did he really steal the sheep,' and he said, ' If he did not, Jack, he has before.' " I submit that that is not the answer a man would have made who was the witness of truth as to these events. Lambert denies the statement at page 181, questions 748-752, — " Do you know Mr. Redding who kept a billiard-room once in Gore ? —-Yes, I know him. " Did you go to his house ?—No ; I was never there. " Never played a game of billiards in the billiard-room ?—Oh, yes, I have done that. I thought you referred to his private room. " Did you ever discuss Meikle's case ?—I do not remember having done so. " I put it to you in order to recall it to you if possible. Mr. Redding asked you about Meikle, and further details were mentioned ?—I never mentioned such a thing." I actually quoted Redding's words to the witness, but " further details " is all that appears in the report. Summing up the results of that analysis, there are sixteen witnesses there altogether, and excluding the Meikle family there are twelve — some of them I submit absolutely beyond cavil of any kind, independent of any Meikle influence, and men against whose character nothing has been suggested. Specially I refer to Kelly, Templeton, Fraser, Henderson, McGeorge, and Redding. Kelly only gave evidence as to the precise date fixed by Lambert, but the others as to circumstances of a specific kind, as to which I suggest it is impossible there could have been mistake after mistake between the parties, and that it is inconceivable that all these witnesses speaking to different conversations, some of them men of good position, arrd all of whose characters have not been attacked—it is inconceivable that all of them can have been swearing falsely, and that Lambert was the only truthful man of the lot. It is a remarkable feature about some of these contradictions that Lambert is so careful to deny that he denies things yvhich do not by any means necessarily imply guilt or even anything discreditable, as, for instance, a remark Templeton attributed to him, " Look here, Jack, the company wants me to go for poor old Meikle, but I will stick to Meikle." Surely that has but a faint relevance to the issue of 1887, and it cannot be said that it denoted or suggested any impropriety on Lambert's part. The company had asked him to undertake the job, and he thought that he would not do it. That is the natural meaning to put on it, but Lambert denies that as strenuously as he denies matters that cut more nearly to the root of the question at issue. Another feature about his denial is in regard to statements that were quite innocent in regard to the £50. He denies the general statements at Meikle's house, and the words deposed to by Mrs. Shields and others, and yet he denies the statement to Perkins which put in one form is perfectly 7 harmless, — " Did you ever tell Perkins what you were there for I —l did not." Yet he makes an admission which disposes of a good deal of Dr. Findlay's general argument against the possibility of his having made such statements, question 376, page 170— " Then who do you suppose you might have mentioned it to before —this question of the £50 ? — All that was asked me was what I was there for. I did not keep it a secret from any one." If he did not keep it a secret from any one it is surprising that he should be so absolute, that he did not mention it in the remotest way to Perkins, and that he was so strenuous in denying the number of conversations irr regard to the £50 which really did not involve anything more than telling people what he was there for. Ido submit that when a man is paid by results, when his own character is not above suspicion, when his own story is a priori very improbable, and when the different narratives he has given from time to time abound in important contradictions, then he is unworthy of credibility. Then, in addition, there are sixteen witnesses arrayed against him as to various specific statements, twelve of whom are not members of the Meikle family. Thus it may 7be said that his evidence has been utterly discredited. I put it to you that the evidence of a man in that position on a question irr regard to which £50 is at stake is not strong enough to hang a dog on. He admits that he was not making a secret of his mission from any one. Of course, that does not mean that he would let anybody know, or that he had said anything about sheep-skins being planted, or intended to be planted on Meikle's place. Undoubtedly the specific mention of the sheep-skins, and the mention of the plant which Meikle alleges was ultimately worked upon him does constitute the fundamental difficulty with regard to the evidence of Meikle's household and as to what Lambert told them there. The probability seems great that he should have made express mention of the device which was ultimately carried out; but I desire to refer to the statement of Meikle to Detective Ede as an additional proof of the fact that Meikle had then heard of the plant, and reckoned there might be something in what he had heard. Surely it does imply that Meikle on the 3rd or 4th October had acquired from some source or other acknowledge of the possibility 7 that sheep-skins might be planted in his buildings. If that is a reasonable assumption, surely it is equally reasonable to suppose that the man from whom he derived the knowledge was Lambert; there is no alternative suggested. What I wish to put before you in conclusion—l do not propose to analyse or criticize the evidence in detail any further—l wish to call your Honours' attention to what my friends have called a crucial point of the case, and there are one or two other considerations I should like you to examine with it. Dr. Findlay put it that these two skins found in Meikle's smithy were the crux of the case. I put it to your Honours that the crux of the sheepskin issue is Lambert's unexplained visit to Meikle's house on the night of the Ist November. Dismiss any evidence as to Lambert's mention of the sheep-skins, dismiss what I subnrit is the plain mearring of Meikle's communication to Ede, dismiss any word of Meikle or his witnesses relative to the whole case, throw all overboard, nevertheless Lambert's own admission as to his movements on that evening is sufficient to solve the mystery. Leaving on a ten-mile journey to go to Mataura that evening after having tea about 6 o'clock, he goes in an opposite direction .0 Meikle's.house. The only pretext which he gave in 1887, and which he repeated to this Commission, is that he wanted to sharpen his knife for
328
H.-21.
329
killing a sheep at the Islay homestead, which would be six or seven miles away from Meikle's. It is not suggested that there was no grindstone at Matuara or Islay, and he does not deny —I am not going beyond his admissions—that he referred to the killing of a sheep at the station as what he wanted his knife sharpened for, and he went instead to Mataura that same night, a distance of ten miles. Mr. Justice Edwards : How did he go ? Mr. Atkinson : There is nothing to show, I think. Mr. Justice Edwards : Are we to assume that he rode. Mr. Atkinson : There is nothing said about riding, your Honour. Mr. Justice Edwards : I suppose we must assume that he rode. Mr. Atkinson : I do not know. Mr. Justice Edwards : The ordinary mode of progression in a country district over a distance of ten miles would be to ride. Supposing there is no evidence at all about it, how are we to assume he was going 1 You might have asked him. Mr. Atkinson : I am trying to find if there is any reference to that point in his cross-examina-tion. Mr. Macdonald : There is nothing as to riding. Mr. Atkinson : There is nothing specific. Mr. Justice Edwards : I suppose the reasonable inference is that in a country district like that a man would have a horse with him. Mr. Macdonald : There was a team at the hut. Mr. Atkinson : There was no team at the hut at this time, as McGeorge had left with the team. Mr. Macdonald : I suppose they would have another one. Mr. Justice Edwards : Are you asking us to assume that he walked ? Mr. Atkinson: Yes. My recollection is that Troup refers to the point that McGeorge's team was the only one they had. In any case, your Honour, whether Lambert went with a horse or on foot, he is asked (question 667) — " Had you any bag with you ?—No, I had not. " 668. No blankets or anything else ?—What would I take my blankets up there for. I would have to fetch them a mile back again, as I would have to pass my hut when I left Meikle's to go home." That either implies, I suggest, that he had not got a horse with him, as clearly the handiest thing with a horse would be to pack the blankets on the saddle, and it would be less trouble than getting off and picking them up on returning and passing the hut. Then the examination goes on : — " 669. Was it not a little bit out of your way to go to Meikle's to get a knife sharpened if you were going on to Mataura —ten miles —the same night ? —No ; I do not think it was. " 670. Was Meikle's on the way to Mataura ?—No. " 671. Was it not ten miles exactly irr the opposite direction I —Yes." Then Dr. Findlay interjects :" He did not say that he came to get his knife sharpened." Then I ask him, — " 672. What did you come for ?—I do not know exactly. I took the knife up there." He had just previously been asked, question 618 :— " Can you recall when you were last at Meikle's before the police search ?—Yes, I think the last time I was there I went to sharpen a knife." On this pretext, your Honours, or for this reason, he gained admission to the smithy where the grindstone was, and Arthur Meikle helped him grind his knife. The police called the next morning, found the door of the smithy open, and the incriminating skins therein concealed among Meikle's own. Neither Lambert nor his counsel had made any attempt to suggest any reason for the visit beyond the obviously bogus pretext given at the time that he wanted his knife sharpened ; and I put it to your Honours, therefore, in the absence of any other suggestion that their ingenuity has been able to supply, that the real object of the visit was to complete the evidence against Meikle, and to prepare for the call of the police. This, then, being the key of the situation, according to the argument on both sides, I submit that al) the other matter of the sheep and those other things are subsidiary, and what took place with regard to the sheep can be explained in a similar fashion. But why the fourteen days' delay ? Surely on the face of it that was an extraordinary delay between the alleged theft and the execution of the search warrant—fourteen days' delay in proceeding, and the sheep are untampered with in the interval. Mr Justice Edwards : Are you asking us to infer that Stuart was in the conspiracy with Lambert— because the delay was Stuart's ? He is entirely responsible for the delay. Mr. Atkinson : Stuart has not taken the responsibility for the whole of it, because he could not take the responsibility before he knew about it. It was fourteen days altogether between the alleged theft and the search, and Lambert must account for some of it. Mr. Justice Edwards : Three or four days, perhaps; it is left somewhat uncertain. Mr. Atkinson : Stuart has taken up the rest. Mr. Justice Edwards : Then you suggest Stuart was irr the conspiracy with Lambert. Mr. Atkinson : Yes ; or at any rate I am putting it as a possibility this way : that Lambert may have put some other story to Stuart—assuming Stuart was not in it —he may have given some pretext to Stuart for the delay. In that case the plant may have been entirely Lambert's own, and in that case Stuart would not have been in the conspiracy, but merely an unwitting instrument. I think Stuart gave us his reasons for delay. One reason was that he wanted to give Meikle a chance, because if he had sent the sheep back, or "had given notice that they had been there, there would not have been any trouble. I submit that rather tends to show he was in it, though it is not essential to my case. The explanation made is on page 149, question 227, — " Why did you not go to the police at once ?—There was a report of a horse having been stolen, and I had a feeling that I would give Meikle a chance. If he would send word that the sheep were in his paddock, or would turn them out, or would say something about them, I would not have laid the information. I did not want to take the man short, because I was pretty certain he would say I had got some one to put in the sheep."
42— H. 21.
H.—2l.
What I put to your Honours is this : Here was a man supposed to be stealing sheep at the rate of a thousand a year. The company had taken the extraordinary precaution of employing two detectives to watch him—because Stuart originally was employed as a detective—to see how the sheep were disappearing, Lambert having been retained previously upon those special terms pursuant to resolution passed by the board of directors in Dunedin, so that it was a matter of urgency to the company ; yet, notwithstanding this, the man appointed only a fortnight before for this very purpose —Stuart —takes upon himself to give Meikle a chance. Just the very day they had been waiting for so long had arrived, and when the man was right in their grasp, he refused to close his fingers orr him, but gave him a chance, and allowed him fourteen days within which to dispose of his booty. Mr. Justice Edwards : I understand all that, but the inference is that Stuart must hay 7 e been in the conspiracy. Mr. Atkinson : Yes, on that alternative. The other alternative is that Lambert fooled him with some specious story, knowing that his evidence was not yet complete. Further, we have it that no steps were taken to see that the sheep were not getting away. Then, I need not refer again to the fact that the marks on these skins were proved, as I put it to your Honours, to correspond with the marks of the skins dried on the wire on the fence near the hut on the pre-emptive right, but would not correspond with the appearance of skins dried lying flat in the smithy. That, I submit, your Honours, is the key to that part of the case which my friends and I are agreed to regard as constituting the essentials of it. I would add one or two additional considerations. First of all there are the admissions of Troup, which I have already discussed in detail, which show that whatever the nature of the documentary evidence he was referring to was he was satisfied in his own mind there was proof of Mr. Meikle's innocence. Lastly, your Honours, I submit Mr. Meikle himself is, after all, the chief witness of his own innocence. His testimony, formally submitted to this Commission, may be discredited or discounted in your Honours' eyes by the cruel process to which he was subjected by counsel for the Crown in the exercise of their duty. But the man himself, the whole tenor of his life and conduct from the day he faced the Justices of the Peace at Wyndham until now testify on his behalf irr a manner that cannot be mistaken. The protest from the dock, and the petition from the gaol, are, I suppose, the common perquisites of the average criminal, but his interview with the Minister of Justice in Wellington on the day after his release from the Nelson Gaol —is that or anything that has happened since reconcilable with the theory of imposture set up by the Crown ? He had seen no one but gaolers and prisoners for five years. He had briefed no witnesses ;he had " squared "no witnesses ;he had interviewed no witnesses. And he told his story to the Minister of Justice irr Wellington, and he asked the Crown to take up his case against his false accuser. Has any impostor ever yet been found willing to leave the prosecution of his claim in the hands of the lawyers, policemen, and officials of the Crown ? Where would his chances of committing the malpractices alleged in the matter of obtaining evidence have been if his request had been granted ? The bona fides of that interview has been strengthened by every year that has passed and by every step that Meikle has taken. No impostor would have been idiot enough to devote fourteen years of his life to a quest of this description, and he has told this Commission that though he has spent fourteen years he is still prepared to spend more in the assertion of his innocence. The infinitesimal prospect of a problematical gain that w 7 ould await an impostor starting on such a quest is too trivial a consideration, is too absurd to attribute to any one. It would need a real grievance, an absolute conviction of his innocence and an abiding faith in the ultimate triumph of justice, to keep a man going as this man has been kept going through good report and ill during all these years. His very faults, his excesses, his disposition to see a conspiracy everywhere, his wholesale denunciations of even the innocent instruments of the wrong he supposed himself to have suffered, his violence of language and manners —manners certainly not marked " with that repose which stamps the caste of Vere de Vere " —all these things, as I submit, point the same way. The deliberation and the self-control of a man who is consciously playing a part would have avoided these errors. Accordingly such a man would have made far better progress with his case, subject to the condition, of course, that at the same time he could create the same impression of confident innocence which Mr. Meikle, with all his faults, has been able to create in the minds of a large section of the people. No impostor who had secured the appointment of this Commission after years of toil would have jeopardized his every chance by the contempt of Court which incurred your Honours' censure in Dunedin. Surely, your Honours, it is easy to imagine that suffering innocence in a strong man may provide the indomitable courage, the inflexible will, and the restless energy which have characterized Mr. Meikle ever since he came out of gaol; but the excesses of which he has been guilty, and to which the same temperament is obviously liable, are, I submit, equally eloquent of his innocence. It is the kind of grievance which " works like madness in the brain," and not a prolonged, elaborate, and senseless imposture which supplies the key. Therefore, on broad grounds, no less than on narrow legal grounds, I ask for a recommendation favourable to my client. In its narrowest legal phase the question is reduced to this : Whether a conviction obtained on the evidence of an impecunious informer of worse than dubious antecedents —an informer who comes into this case as a detective, but who has since been proved to have had a still more intimate acquaintance with crime—is to be allowed to stand when contradicted by a dozen independent witnesses on one point or another of importance ; when he is contradicted by himself on vital and essential points ; when the terms of his employment were £50 for a conviction, and nothing otherwise; and when all the apparent corroborative circumstances which were produced at the trial have been turned against himself—is to be allowed to stand. That such a conviction should ever have been obtained is deplorable ; that it should be allowed to stand after the supposed corroboration has been wiped away would be, as I put it to your Honours, a scandal to the administration of justice and a menace to the liberty of us all. Therefore, your Honours, I look with confidence to a recommendation from this Commission in favour of Mr. Meikle, and I look to the country and to Parliament to supply such redress as is possible even at this late hour for an absolutely irreparable wrong. Mr. Justice Edwards : The report will be forwarded to His Excellency in due course. The Court adjourned at 11.45 a.m. Approximate Cost of Paper.— Preparation, not given ; printing (1,450 copies), £116 14e. 6ct.
Authority : John Mackay, Government Printer, Wellington.—l9o7.
Price ss. 9d.]
330
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/parliamentary/AJHR1907-I.2.4.2.30
Bibliographic details
CLAIMS OF JOHN JAMES MEIKLE (REPORT OF COMMISSION APPOINTED TO INQUIRE INTO)., Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1907 Session I, H-21
Word Count
365,758CLAIMS OF JOHN JAMES MEIKLE (REPORT OF COMMISSION APPOINTED TO INQUIRE INTO). Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1907 Session I, H-21
Using This Item
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.