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 : —