The Daily News. FRIDAY, APRIL 12. THE MEIKLE CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume L, Issue 59, 12 April 1907, Page 2

The Daily News. FRIDAY, APRIL 12. THE MEIKLE CASE.

Tile report of Mr. ■ ' n.^lice Kdwards anl Mr. I list iti' Cooper, the t 'oiiiiuission appointed to investigate tin' circumstances of I lie Meikle ens.', published tin- olln-r ,1:1 v. brills to eltifC one of till' most extraordinary cases Hint have ha;i] h-ih-iI in tin- it lon.v. We hope it will also luiiiii jo all l Mil till' aiiiiiltii'll t I'Hl Ills 1 M'IMl .'oiii" i n lor ,vmr>. in in»mrti»n •.villi tin.' cast . Karlv i" November. I JUT. .lolm Jame. 'Meikle. 11 pro-.per-oils farmer 111 Tuturaii. Wyiidhain. i» tin' provincial district of Southland. whs arrested oil the i- 4 ,- of .-tcalim; fill sheep. Hie peil'v of tin' New /calami Mortgage nml' li'vesiiui'iit AssuHiitioii. Limited. Till' companv whs tin' less H shri'pnm v,"Licit adjoined Meikle's land, mid, had had occasion to complain of the invstei'ious disappearance of its slici-p fn',lll tinii' to time. not nil uncommon experience of ruu-holders in various parts of tin l colony. 1 hal t liev weie beiii" stolen by soincimc in the neighborhood seemed to admit of l'.o doubt, - and tlu company engaged William Lam- * hert, a rouscabout, wlio described him- , self an a private detective, to discover the thiol. The terms of Ms engagement constitute an important element in the Meikle ease. His ordinary wages were ,tl a week and found, lint lie was to receive .-Call if lie succeeded in securing the conviction of the thief. Lambert had thus a direct pecuniary interest in bringing' someone to justice, l-roni informal ion supplied by liini, Meikle and his son, a mere boy, were arrested and were tiieil in the Supreme Court at Invarcargill, before -Mi'. Justice Ward am.l a common jury, in December, 1887. lhe principal witness against them was Lambert. He swore that oil the night of October 17 in Hie same year lie saw the bl7 Meikle driving a mob of sheep along it road which passed through the. conipi iv's land. Lambert spoke to him, and the. boy said he was taking Hie sheep home "to get a fat one. ' He, drove tl'.em to lii.s lather's sheep yards near the house, and the elder Meikle eaiue upon the scene with a A sheep was selected and killed, and Meikle talked wry boldly of how he would "defy the company or anyone else." lie also told Lambert that he could give him some shearing to do, but he "would have to keep his mouth shut about anything In saw." Lambert also stated that he saw the company's earmark on the sheep that was killed, and Hie company's brand on some of the others. Mainly on the strength of this remarkable and uncorroborated story the prisoners were eunvi"ted, though the evidence called for the deferee should have raised doulits in the minds of the Judge and jury as to the reliability of the witness. Meikle was sentenced to seven years' penal servitude, the Judge remarking that "there was no honest farmer within ten miles Meikle's neighborhood but would sleep sounder because of his conviction.' A nolle pioseqni was entered ill the ease ol the boy, 011 the ground that he was "the tool of the elder prisoner," and lie was dismissed, and shortly alterwards died. During his long term of imprisonment Meikle never ceased to protest liis imioI cence. lie petitioned the government for redrew, and Mr. Justice Ward was requested to report upon the ease, llis report was unequivocally in favor of Meikle's guilt. No further action was taken by the (loveriiinent, and Meikle remained in prison until November,'lSM, when he regained his liberty on the expiration of his sentence, part of his term having been remitted for good conduct. No sinmci was he five than lie began the struggle which has only now concluded to establish his innocence, llis lirst. task was lo prove that Lambert, the chief witii"ss against him. had committed perjury in the evidence which he gave, and eight years after the commission of the oiicrce he succeeded, Lambert being. , convicted and sentenced to four years' penal suvitude. Meikle next petitioned [ Parliament, praying I lint liis name might be remou-d from the prison records of the colony, and that .CIO,OOO might be graute I him as compensation for false imprisonment and the financial loss which lie bad sustained, for lie had been left to bear alone the expense involved in securing the conviction of Lambert, so necessary to the establishment of his own innocence. The Public Petitions Committee in 18! l."> reported that after eliininalHig Lambert's evidence "there was not ::U 11 icielit evidence adduced at petitioner's trial to warrant his conviction eu the charge preferred against hini,'' and recommended the payment lo liini of "a sum of money by way of compensation," expressing at the same time the opinion that his reijuesl for the removal of his name • from the prison records "merits the serious consideration of the Crown." The (jovernni'jiit acted so far on this report of the committee as to pay. lleikle the amount of his expenses in the proseculiju of Lambert, and two years later placed the sum of .CSOO on the Intimates in lull discharge of all his claims, that amount being subsequently handed over to him. Since then Meikle has been carrying on au agitation for additional redress, which resulted in the appointment. of Air. Justice Edwards and Mr. Justice Cooper as a Commission to go into the whole matter. They find that the evidence adduced before them does not sullioiently prove that Meikle was guilty of the crime alleged against him, and that were he being retried by them am; a jury upon an indictment for the said crime it would be proper to acquit him, "and we should have so stated *;o the jury." 'They therefore recommend that he should be granted a free paulon or that his conviction should be quashed and an acquittal entered as a record. On the question of compensation, the two Judges have practically no recommendation to make.