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