ADDRESS TO JURY

Evening Post, Volume CXVII, Issue 147, 23 June 1934, Page 10

ADDRESS TO JURY

HIS HONOUR SUMS UP

"You havo now reached tho end of a . memorable experience," said his Honour to tho jury. The jury had had the assistance of counsel .who had not spared themselves. It had been properly pointed out that if the Crown failed to prove its case they must return a verdict of not guilty. While the^jury must free their minds of all that they had heard or read of the case previously; on the other hand, if they were satisfied that the Crown case had beca proven, the jury must return a •verdict of guilty, no matter what the consequences might be, and no matter how unpleasant that duty might bo.' "In the course of the trial reference - has been made to circumstantial evidence. I have no hesitation in saying, despite what has-been said, that on; circumstantial evidence alono you are,, entitled to judge this, case," continued his Honour, who then quoted authorities. The accused in the present case was charged with*, murder. There were two counts jn tho indictment, and each ease'must be considered in the light of the evidence proper to it. The Crown's suggestion was that Lakey had been shot with a pea-rifle, and tho body burned. In regard to Mrs. Lakey the • Grown allegation was that she was struck two blows, rendering her unconscious. -. ■It was alleged that-the accused deliberately took her to the duck pond while sho was alive, and placed her in the duck pond for the purpose of drowning her. The evidence which supported this charge might not be as strong as the evidence ori the other count. "WHERE IS LAKEY?" ; His Honour then said he would deal with the death of Lakey. "Where is he? What has happened to him? His wife is dead, and cannot speak. No witness has come forward to testify to having seen a struggle," he continued. "When a charge of murder is laid the Jjqdy must be found or there must be direct or circumstantial evidence that murder has taken place." There could be no doubt up to 6 p.m. .on October 15 that Lakey and his wife were alive. The milking operations haS beea completed. Stevens had seen a man turning out the cows. If it was Lakey,. he was alive at 6.30 p.m. In the house tho evening meal had riot .been touched. The circumstances suggested that Mrs. Lakey'died • and that Lakey disappeared between the completion of milking and the time of the evening nicai being taken, which would bo from 6.30 to 7 p.m. There had been somo suggestion that a third person was expected at Lakey's that night, but the evidence,on that point was slight. The cream cans, containing only the Sunday milking, had been put out, but not in the usual place. "Who put .the cans there? The jury could draw the inferenco that it was not Eakey.' If Lakey did not, the inference was that it was done by someone who knew where Lakey put the cans./ The cans "might nave been put but to prevent the tragedy of the Lakeys being, discovered until hours had elapsed. .BAYLY'S MOVEMENTS. ; His Honour then recalled Bayly's .known movements on the Sunday night ' arid on the Monday morning, and said there was also the evidence of Mrs. Stevens'that_ she had seen Bayly riding along the ridge on Lakey's property early on the Monday morning. On the arrival of neighbours at Lakey's it was found.that the beds had not. been slept in. The house had not been ransacked. The body of Mrs. Lakey'was discovered in the duckpond. The evidence of experts was that she had beea placed in the pond unconscious and drowned there. When tho police called at Lakey's place it was discovered that guns were missing from the house. Searches for Lakey were commenced in all directions, but no trace was found. - ' His: Honour then said that he would turn to the theories put forward by Bayly to account for Lakey's disappearance, then reviewing the discovery of the sledgemarks at Bayly's, and the wheels and frame under the wattle tree. It was for the jury to answer the question who took the frame from the yard and used it. His Honour reviewed the.finding of . the bloodstains on tho wheels, frame, and sledge, and the of the cartridge in Lakey's garden. If that cartridge had been fired with Bayly's Spandau rifle it was evidence of the greatest importance, for who else- could had fired the shot with the 'Spandau but the accused. When the police executed the search warraat at Bayly's house they found a sliell which it was said fell,from his pocket, and which was declared by-experts to be from the rifle found in' the swamp. "It does not seem to me to matter whether it fell from a pocket or from a garment," continued his Honour. "If the shell had been fired from the pearifle found, in tho swamp how could it come into the possession of the accused? You will decide whether the evidence of the experts is worthy of credence. If you deeido that the shell was fired from that' rifle, then you have an association of Bayly with the rifle found in the swamp. . CTONS IN THE SWAMP. His Hoaour turned to the finding of parts of guns in Bayly's swamp. "Who put these guns there1?" ho asked. "Can it be said that Lakey did this. If he were alive surely he would have taken them with him. If anyone else placed them there, for what purpose (lid they, do it? I havo no hesitation in. saying that, you are entitled to

plaeo- tho construction on it that the guns were placed , there to escape detection."

His Honour added that the evidence of the experts was that the shell found at Bayly's had been fired with the pea-rifle found in the swamp.- Why had Bayly gono to the swamp at night? If he was innocent, the jury might think it extraordinary conduct. His Honour declared that if the jury accepted the experts' evidence that the shell found at Lakey's had been fired with Bayly's rifle and that the shellfound at Bayly's had been fired with the rifle from the swamp, they were entitled to. draw the conclusion that Bayly must have been at Lakey's.

The discovery of the burnt material on the shovel at Bayly's had led the police to make further investigations of his property. If the evidence of the discoveries was followed, if the evidence- of Drs. Gilmour, Lynch, and MacCormick was accepted, the--jury had evidence that the bones we're human and recently burnt. "How aid these bones get- to the accused's place?" asked his Honour. "How did they become, buried in the orchard, in the garden, and in the sheep dip. It may be said that these, were from some human being buried years before. In that case, how could they be in two -or three places and not .to.gether in one place? How. did ,they become burnt?" Some human agency must have been at work. Was it possible tha,t some person came to Bayly's and; put them there? There was no evidence- of that./ Would Bayly have been unaware of them? ■

"Is this suggestion that some third person who has never been seen, and who, is not known, in some secret way went' to this property arid placed the bones there to bo believed?" asked his Honour^ who then referred to. the- finding of the cigarette lighter. After reading tho evidence dealing with, tho nature of the lighter and wick, his Honour dealt with the pieces of the. watch found on Bayly's property. There was no definite proof that the watch was Lakey's, but there was evidence' that it was similar to his. The discoveries, however, did not end there. In the sheep dip was found a'lock of hair similar to Lakey's hair, as described by witnesses. EVIDENCE OP A FIRE. His Honour said he would next refer to a remarkable piece of evidence, that of Herbert, his employee. He had seen smoke at Bayly's cowshed. He had sworn that he remembered that night definitely. If his evidence was true it was evident that there was a fire at Bayly's that night. It had been suggested that the knife-cuts at Lakey Js implement shed and Bayly's cowshed had been made by the accused's knife. "I do not think you will decide, after having .heard the evidence, that it was proved that they were made by Bayly's knife," continued his Honour. "However, experts had said that the cuts were made by the same knife." After hearing the evidence of the Crown's experiments with animals the jury- might come to the conclusion that the drum could have been used to burn a human being. It was for tho jury to decide whether it was feasible for a man to take a body to tho fence on the wheels and frame and lift it over without leaving bloodstains'about the fence..< Dr. Gilmour had said that if a body were moved the motion sometimes stopped bleeding and sometimes started it. Tho movement might have stopped bleeding, accounting for the small portion of blood on the frame of, the sledge. . That, • again, was for the jury to decide. THE EXPERT TESTIMONY. His Honour dealt with the blood tests employed by Dr, Gilmour and Dr. Lynch, who had said that blood group tests in their opinion were not certain.. It was for the jury to say if their evidence was sufficient or insufficient. The jury haa been askea to view the expert evidence with suspicion, but expert evidence was frequently called in cases such as the present which could not be proved without expert assistance. Who could give evidence about bones and blood tests but an expert. Turning to the question of the cartridge cases his Honour recalled the murder of Constable Gutteridgc, a case in which the greater part of tho evidence dealt with bullets and cartridge cases. The administration of justice could not continuo unless expert witnesses were called. Their evidence and considered criticism1 had been made. The police had concentrated in efforts to incriminate Bayly. At the outset the police.had held no theory. Searches had been made (all over the country for Lakey, dead or alive. His Hdnour said that he Uad already referred to the suggestion that a third person, had bear, at Lakey's and planted bones at Bayly's. How could it bo possible for that to have been done? he asked. It was possible to take a view of the case of Mrs* Lakey quite different from that of Lakey, continued his Honour. "If you conclude that Bayly did in fact kill Lakey, he is guilty of the murder of Lakey. You find he was on the spot. That is an important matter. / In regard to tho murder of Mrs. Lakey you may conclude that the Crown has not proved its case beyond doubt. On the other hand, considering the evidence and the opinion of doetors'that she was drowned you may conclude that Bayly, on the premises, killed Mrs. Lakey." Mr. Northcroft mentioned the possibility of accidental death of Mrs. Lakey, who was later placed in the duckpond by some person. His Honour said that the jury must consider that point.

Mr. N. D. Binnio, assistant manager of the Commonwealth and Dominion Line, will leave Auckland next Monday by the Port Hunter on a visit to Great Britain. He will be accompanied by Mrs. Biunie,