THE DOUBLE MURDER AT RUAWARO

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 54, Issue 196, 1 June 1934, Page 6

THE DOUBLE MURDER AT RUAWARO

CROWN CASE AGAINST BAYLY CONTINUED.

LONG CROSS-EXAMINATION OF DETECTIVE

QUESTIONS RELATING TO GENERAL INTERVIEWS.

MOVEMENTS AND EXHIBITS UNDER DISCUSSION

(Per Press Association). 1 AUCKLAND, This Day

The cross-examination of Detective T. Sneddon by Air E. H. Noi tilcroft (senior counsel for the defence) was continued when the hearing of the murder charges against William Alfred Bayly was resumed Supreme Court this morning. ‘ Bayly is charged with murdering Samuel Pender Lakey and Christobel Lakey at Ruawaro on October 15. Despite the wet weather, public-interest in the trial wak well maintained, the Court and gallery being both filled.

. The Crown Prosecutor (Mr V. R. Meredith); with him Air F. McCarthy, is prosecuting, while Bayly is represented by Messrs E. H. Nortkcroft And h. P. Deary, instructed by Mi’ It. H. Lusk. Mr justice Herdman is on the bench. '

AVnou tne Court resumed yesterday afternoon, Detective Sneddon traced the handling of seyerat other exhibits, including a brace runner, a buckle, a metal stud, and the toepiate of a boot, which he gave to various authorities in Auckland. . Witness took the pea-rihe to Dr. Brown a second time, 4>r. Brown firing more shots and retaining tire shells. The rihe. was cleaned and. oiled on December 29. Witness took the rihe from the swamp, the cartridge shell from Bayly’s pocket,, and the steel from Bayly’,6 sheath to Wellington, where the shell and the steel were photographed by SeniorSergeant Dinnie. The steel was later handed to Dr. Brown in Auckland for further photographing.

Witness his evidence in chief a few minutes lie-fore 3 p.m., having been a day in the box,

Cross-examined by' Air Northcroft, Detective Snedden said he wlas senior to Detective Alisopp. The Chief-De-tective arrived on October 18, and was in charge from then onward. Please do not anticipate- my questions,” said Air Nortkcroft, after further examination. - r

Witness: I am not trying to evade them.

Counsel: I said anticipate. He asked- - whether the view that'Mrs Lakey had a seizure was held commonly in the district on October 17.

.Witness: I could not say that,

“Did you see that in the paper?” asked Air Northcroft, who read an extract to that effect. ,

Witness: I was too busy to read the papers.

His Honour added that lie had not heard that theory.

Counsel: Alight is be that the theory was ’ held without your hearing?—l could not say that. Counsel then asked, the detective, whether the photograph accurately represented the position at Lakey’s when witness arrived on October 16.'AVit-

ness enumerated the different positions I of certain articles in the yard. He had made an examination all through the house.

. Counsel: Was the examination done thoroughly ?—Detectivo Alisopp and I both looked through the house. . I should say it was fairly thorough. Did any part of the house appear to have been ransacked ?•—No.

Do you know if any ammunition

was found?—Yes. Thirty-nine pearifle cartridges, some long and some short were found in the house, There were two brands bearing 1C and 1U respectively. A revolver, a shotgun, and cartridges were also found. There were two pudding plates on the table under the telephone. Were they soup plates?—l would say there were either soup or pudding plates. Were there any other plates there? —I could not say. Do you remember what food was there. AVitness said he remembered, and gave the contents of three pots. Counsel: Do you know ifrthe potatoes were over-cooked or not?-—I am pot an expert cook. I could not say. The detective gave details of the bedrooms. The only shaving gear lie remenibered seeing in the house was in one room.

THIS MORNING’S EVIDENCE

Counsel: AVhat hairbrushes do you remember, seeing. AVitness said he saw a brush with a handle in one room, and one with a handle and one without a handle in another room. The brushes were handed to -Dr. Gilmour. One brush did not appear to have been used for some time. "Witness did tiot examine the brushes carefully at that time. One was examined on December 20, in Auckland. searches in the Marsh. Air Northcroft then referred to the searches by the police and settlers on October 171 Counsel: If the body had been dragged into the marsh, or a man had committed suicide, it would have been seen?—That was what we were looking for. Everything was wet and sodden. The edges of the lake and the marsh were soft. The sledge marks were seen on October 17 and pegged the same evening. Did you find any other sledge marks that, day?—No. Except for the marks on Bayly’s road. " Witness later said sledge marks were < seen on newly-sown ground on Furniss’s property. No other sledge marks were found on Bayly’s. AVhen did you discover that Airs Stevens claimed that she saw Bayly bring a sledge out of the paddock ? About October 20. Did you search for marks which would be consistent with that story? Yes. I looked there. I did not see

any. , .. In reply to further questions wit-

ness said it was difficult to pick up sledge marks. The police could only see the marks near the telephone pole in- the evening when the dew had fallen. „ >

Mr Northcroft referred to the fact that Bayly had put stock into the paddock the day after the marks were found. “Do you think four beasts in a 12-acre paddock -could have any effect on the marks in it?” asked Air Northcroft.

Witness: Wo thought Bayly put them in to give him an opportunity to see what we were doing. How long would he take ?——" Not many minutes. - . When did you first find bloodstained objects at Lakey’s?—ln the evening of October 18. "We found a stick under -a bag on the kitchen floor, which was later accounted for. I was fold that it had been used by a doctor to open Mrs Lakey’s mouth. Two patches of grass near the sledge-marks wei e examined for blood. None was found. Was there Anything else to suggest that a body had been on the ground there? —No, nothing. Was the examination There very minute ?—Yes. . 1 Witness said he could not say how many wires there were in the boundary fence. After examining a photograph witness said there were two bottom wires and a top barbed wire. The bottom two were very close together, and the bottom one was close to the ground. Witness examined the fence carefully. , • Did you find anything sinister ?—No.. Did yon find any ground trodden by horses’ hooves?—No. I did not see any marks of horses. • Witness was not at Bayly’s on October 18. A cherrywood pipe had been found that day by a reporter near Lakey’s yard fence. It was full of tobacco and appeared to have just been lit and allowed to go out. “That was an important find, was it not? Why did you not tell us about it before?” asked Mr Northcroft. Witness: I was not asked. Witness said the pipe had been shown to neighbours. Nobody identified it as Lakey’s. It appeared as if 'it had fallen out of somebody’s pocket. Mr Northcroft: I put it to you, it must he Lakey’s-?—lt might be Lakey’s.: The wattle tree paddock was the only paddock searched for wheelmarks. No marks were found leading in to Lakey’s yard. . After remarking that no evidence had been given in the Lower Court regarding the cartridge case found in Lakey’s garden, Air Northcroft asked the witness if the reason it was not mentioned was because the witness s notebook had been put in as an exhibit, to which the defence had access. “It was looked on as an old shell,” replied Detective Snedden, who admitted that no reference had been made to it in the Lower Court, nor had the defence been informed. The Court then rose.

MANY QUESTIONS ASKED. JUDGE PUTS IN A AVORD. AUCKLAND, This Day. ' AVhen the Court resumed to-day, Air Northcroft said he wished to revert to the condition of Lakey’s yard on October 16.

- AA’itness (Detective Snedden) said he did not remember seeing a tub standing under the tap. It might have been about the yard or in the shed. The pipe bearing the tap might have since been raised. There was no receptacle under the tap on October 16, as far as he remembered.

In all your search of Lakey’s you found no money whatever, continued Mr Northcroft. There was none whatever, replied Detective Snedden, who said there was a purse in a lady’s handbag in the bedroom, hut it contained no money. Detective Snedden said he was at Baylyl’s on October 17 and 18, on both times for about an hour. On the 17tli the sledge-marks had not been found. Witness described where he met accused on each occasion. During his visit on October 19 the police inspected Bayly’s sledge and spoke to him about the marks. Accused then gave the explanation that he had gone to the fence to examine the pole. Is this pole overlooked by any property? asked counsel. The nearest house is to the east, a long way away, replied Detective Sned,den.

Is it not visible from Wright’s? asked the Judge. y AVitness: I think it possible the pole might be visible from Wright’s house. Air Northcroft: I put it to you that the paddock is completely invisible from Wright’s. AA’itness: I could not be definite. When you asked Bayly for a statement about the sledge, you told him you wished to get it in writing, to avoid misunderstanding. AVas that the

“Keep to Important Matters.”

policy you pursued.—Yes. You, took several..statements from Bayly.—Yes. There were other statements made by Bayly that you did not put into writing.—-Yes.

AYould it not have been better to put these conversations in 'writing.— Yes. . ,

Detective Sneddon said that Bayly had made no objection when the police took the boards of the sledge. You know that the stains proved to be not human blood, asked counsel. Yes, replied witness. If the front board had been taken off the vehicle it would have ceased to be a sledge?—There would be practically nothing at all. You had no right to take the boards. We had no search warrant, said witness, who stated that lie drew accused’s attention to what he then thought suspicious marks. He had later removed the sledge under warrant, It was then in the same condition. Bayly had made no attempt to obliterate the marks. AVitness said that when he examined ‘Bayly’s hat he saw splashes which might have been paint. He though! also it might have been blood. Accused said they were paint. Examination proved this to be correct.

Mr Northcroft then asked witness what he had done on October 20.

The Detective replied that lie searched the swamp. A search-warrant was obtained next day by the Chief Detective.

“I must.ask that you keep the examination to matters, which, are important,” observed the Judge, after further questions had been asked.

“There has been none of the crossexamination which has been idle qr unimportant,” replied counsel. Detective Sneddon said that when the warrant was obtained, on October 21, the police had Bayly under suspicion . “Now Ins Honor sees where the questions are leading,’' remarked Air Northcroft, who asked Detective Sneddon if he had seen a shovel in ac-‘ cused’s cowshed at that time. Witness said he had not. When Bayly’s Rouse was searched some ar tides of clothing were taken, including working boots (produced). Any footprints made by those boots w.ould be characteristic? asked counsel. “Yes,” rep%d witness. You knew before you conducted that search liow Bayly dressed, from Calvert . We knew, in working clothes, replied witness. The leggings had been examined for bloodstains? —Yes. None were found? —Yes. Detective |Sneddon said that accused’s oilskin was searched for bloodstains on October 21, and taken possession of on the 29th. No blood was seen. No other coat was inspected at Bayly’s. The,, police took the cardigan. (produced), which proved to have no bloodstains. Detectives also took two paiis of denims. ' Tlio clothing taken that day proved to be free of human blood, or everything incriminating, except one pair of denims. The spots of blood on that pair were exceedingly small, wore they not? Yds ■ Referring to the cartridges which Bayly said he missed from his imple-ment-shed, Air Northcroft asked what inquiries had been made elsewhere. “General inquiries,” replied Detective Sneddon. Officers ire Charge. In reply to his Honor, witness said the' the Chief Detective took charge on the afternoon of October 18 . at Lluawaro, while Inspectors Cummings and Ward arrived about November 7. Inspector Hollis had also made an inspection, as luid feupeiintendent Till. ' Whose ease was it? asked counsel.. It was conducted by the i inspectoi s and the Chief-Detective, replied Detective Sneddon. It is perfectly well .known that there were 30 or 40 police operating all over the district under their heads, observed Air Aleredith. Counsel then returned to the police activities on October 21, when Bayly s was searched. Witness admitted that black gumboots with white soles were common, but lie did not know what settlers had them. Did you know that Bayly had. a pair, continued counsel. Witness: I did not bother about it. Rlr Northcroft (handing up 'Bayly’s Bpandau rifle): Yill you show 1 me where the bloodstain was? Witness: I could not say exactly. Air Meredith: Show him about where it was. . Detective Sneddon then pointed to a portion of the barrel. You can givo us mo idea how far it extended? questioned counsel. Witness: I could not say how far. Bayly’s Motor-car. At tlio time witness w r as satisfied that accused’s statement that the car was not out after October 14 was correct. The car had chains on. AVitness traced the chain marks to the entrance where Bayly had put the chains on, as Saturday, October 14 was wet. when lie scraped the shovel at accused s cowshed witness could see charcoal and burned bone. Before you scraped it, did you see what appeared to be hone ? asked counWitness: I saw what I thought to be bone,. i Did you make inquiries about a strange motor-car seen in the distiict early on the morning of October 16? Yes. Witness said the car had been described as dark blue,, like Bayly’s, but he was satisfied that Bayly’s car had not been out.. Detective Sneddon said ho had made inquiries about the car from othei settlers. He had interviewed t urniss, who said lie saw no car marks on tne road. It had been raining. Witness also saw a drover, Curran, who had driven c-attle on the road. He had also made other inquiries from Wright, who w r as out before 5 a.m. AVhat farms overlooked Bayly’s cowshed? asked Air Northcroft. AVitness enumerated certain properties, giving the distances away. .A settler named Mantelow was nearest. His farm, looked on the back of Bayly’s cowshed. Witness first heard of smoke being seen

in December, after Bayly’s arrest. Can w T e take it that no inquiries were made regarding the smoke until December ?

AVitness: I made no inquiries. I do not know of any inquiries until after Bayly’s arrest, Later inquiries were made?- —Yes. What inquiries did you make? — AA 7 itness: I saw peo-ple at Dobson’s and Grant’s house after fife 'lower court proceedings in January. "Witness had also questioned another settler on December 17.

Why badger the witness? asked his Honor after further close' questioning. I submit that the questions are not badgering, replied counsel. The Judge: Very well then.

Counsel then further examined wetness regarding settlers interviewed in relation to the smoke.

Detective Sneddon said that a settler named Henderson was interviewed 1 on December 10. He said he had seen nothing, as he was busy with the cows. Witness had not questioned Fleck, with whom, however, lie had conversed on October 20, asking when Bayly got the cows in on Octotber 15. Fleck then said he was busy with the cows, and did not see. Witness hadniot spoken to Mantlelow about the smoke. Mantlelow in an interview had said lie had seen Bayly -riding a horse on October 16 at 6.30 a.m., from the cowshed. Three-quarters of an hour later he saw accused gettijia; the cows in. Relating to incident:v4l» ! '9fis visits to Bayly’s the day the deposits were taken from the petrol drum, Detective Sneddon, said that the sample taken by Detective Alisopp was from the bottom and side.