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