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