THE MEIKLE COMMISSION.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXIX, Issue 8327, 8 January 1907, Page 5

THE MEIKLE COMMISSION.

ADDRESSES OF COUNSEL,

! The Meikle Commisison resumed its sittings at Wellington, yesterday, when Mr M'Donald, Crown Prosecutor at Invercargill, appeared with Mr D. M. Findlay for the Ci'own, and Mr Atkinson appeared on behalf of Mr Meikle. Mr M'Donald expressed his appreciation of the courtesy and consideration shown to him by the judges in adjourning the case from last week (in consequence of Mr M'Donald's illness), to give a chance of his recovering and being present to address the court on the evidence. Discussion took place as to whether it would be necessary to call as a witness the Hon. Mr M'Nab, Minister for Lands. Eventually Mr Atkinson admitted as correct a letter setting out the terms upon which; the grant of £SOO was made by the Government to Mr Meikle on Mr M'Nab's solicitation (Mr Meikle undertaking that if the grant was. made he would never again trouble the Government on the matter). Mr Atkinson said that this was a private undertaking, and in no way binding upon Mr Meikle, but Crown counsel pointed out that on receiving the money Mr Miekle signed a discharge in full of all claims against the colony. Having regard to Mr Atkinson's admission, Mr M'Donald said he saw no need to call Mr M'Nab as a witness.

The addresses to the commission were then proceeded with, Mr M'Donald opening for the Crown. He said he would argue on three heads —(1) That Mr Meikle was convicted of sheep-stealing in 1887 upon sufficient and satisfactory evidence, and that whether or nut Lambert's evidence was acepted as creditable; (2) that Lambert was convicted of perjury in 1895 on evidence that was false; (3) that Meikle had wholly failed to establish his innocence before this commission. Counsel went on to review very fully the great mass of evidence taken at the Meikle and Lambert trials and before the present commission. Dealing with the first proposition he said that the sheepskins were found on Meikle's property in one of the places where he kept skins; the sheep were on the place and Arthur Meikle knew it, yet no notice of the fact was given to the company. Whether .or not the sheep did stray upon the ground of Meikle, the fact that two skins longing to the company were found on Meikle's property was ground for conviction. The jury had disbelieved the defence, recognising that the witnesses for the defence had given evidence before them that was contradictory to evidence given by [ them in the Lower Court. ' These | witnesses had alleged that Lambert had told them that he.was engaged to secure Meikle's conviction. Was it likely, that a man engaged for that purpose would go around amongst Meikle's friends proclaiming his mission? Lambert had been ponvicted of perjury in 1895, on evidence that was "false. Meikle had come out of prison with an intense and bitterly deep hatred against Lambert, and he prosecuted him for purpose of revenge. Having found at his own trial that the evidence submitted was insuciffient to convince the jury, Meikle, counsel alleged, deliberately set himself to manufacture evidence against Lambert. Thus it came about that evidence was given at Lambert's trial which was not produced at Meikle's trial. Yet that evidence would have *been an important factor for the defence at Meikle's trial. It was perfectly available at Meikle's trial, if it was true, and yet there was no reference to it. Yet, if true, it must have been within the breast of Arthur Meikle, of one Harvey, and of Meikle himself. When taxed with this omission by Dr Findlay, before the commission, Meikle made the excuse that he had been told by his counsel that he could not possibly be convicted on this charge, and that therefore the evidence was unnecesssary. Yet Meikle's counsel (Mr McGregor) had made it clear that all the evidence he could lay his hands upon had been given. The only inference Mr McDonald could ask the commissioners to draw was that this evidence was concocted. At 11.45 Mr McDonald intimated to the Court that he felt too ill to proceed further with his address.

Mr Justice Edwards remarked that the commission was desirous of having the assistance of Mr McDonald, and to get that assistance it was necessary that the Court should assist Mr McDonald. An adjournment until 2 p.m. would be made.— Post.