RUAWARO CASE

Southland Times, Issue 22333, 26 May 1934, Page 6

RUAWARO CASE

TRIAL OF BAYLY GREAT INTEREST TAKEN EVIDENCE OF NEIGHBOURS (Per United Press Association.) Auckland, May 25. Good progress is being made with the hearing of the murder charges against William Alfred Bayly in the Supreme Court. On the resumption to-day the nineteenth witness entered the box. Public interest remains at a constant level, the court being full at every session. Only portion of the body of the court is being utilized, further members of the public being admitted as others depart. The same procedure is followed in the women’s gallery to prevent congestion. Evidence by Bayly’s neighbours and the Huntly constables concerning the movements of accused before and after Lakey's disappearance, detailing alleged remarks by Bayly, occupied the afternoon. Great interest was created in the cross-examination of Furniss, a neighbour friendly to Bayly several years ago who stated that a horse would not behave quietly if used to transport a dead body. The re-exam-ination of Furniss by Mr Meredith is expected this morning. The Evidence. Duncan McKercher, manager of the dairy factory at Huntly, said the company’s carrier collected on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays last October. Monday’s collection covered four milkings. Witness produced a record of Bayly’s tally in October, giving the tests for the same period. Up to October 10 the accused had 3.8, to the 20th 3.4, and to the 30th 3.2. In reply to Mr Leary, witness stated the amount of butter-fat primarily governed the condition of the separator. Variations were common enough. McKercher agreed that farmers sometimes retained a portion of their cream for making butter and other purposes. To Mr Meredith: If a milking were missed it would retard the production for several milkings after a double milking. A mechanic, Hubert George Hamer, of Ruawaro, stated he was at Lakey’s on the Sunday before Lakey disappeared and talked about the implements. Ho identified the wheels and frame as those he saw standing by the fence round Lakey’s house. Turkeys roosted on the axle, leaving their droppings on the ground there. The Thursday after Lakey’s disappearance the wheels were not there. The finding of Mrs Lakey’s body was described by Constable David Robei’tson, of Huntly, who said that when informed the Lakeys were missing he rang Bayly at one a.m. on October 16 and asked if he had heard or seen anything of the missing people. The accused did not reply. Witness made a mistake in the name, asking about the Sansons. Bayly said the Sansons had children. Witness then said not the Sansons but the Lakeys, asking Bayly to inform him if he ascertained anything. The constable described the appearance of Lakey’s kitchen. On his arrival at the farm the fire in the range -was dead out. Witness took possession of the pea-rifle and a cartridge box and locked it in the Huntly police station. Witness was involved in an accident in Huntly when Constable Shields was killed and he gave the keys to Constable Elms while in hospital. The beds at Lakeys were made and, had not been slept in. The only disturbance in the bedroom was one drawer slightly open. In the passage alongside the kitchen stood a double shotgun and a single shotgun of .410 calibre. They were identical with those produced. Mrs Lakey’s Body Found. After visiting the cowshed the constable was returning to the house when he heard a cry and went to the duckpond. He lifted a heap of manure sacks and discovered Mrs Lakey. The sacks were piled nearly the full length of the body which was face down and overhanging the water. The constable indicated on a photograph the position of the body in relation to the track to the cowshed. Rigor mortis had set in. The clothing was up waist high in front and consisted of a woollen cardigan, skirt, and gumboots but no hat. The gumboots were clean. There was a certain amount of mud in the cowyard. Mrs Lakey had a small abrasion on the chin and there was a discharge of frothy blood from the nose. The body was carried to the kitchen on a door and a doctor summoned. He arrived at 1.45 p.m. Search for Lakey. Witness made arrangements for an immediate search for Lakey. The parties worked in different directions. “I saw Bayly first on the road a short distance from, Wright’s gate,” continued the constable. “I stopped my car and got out. Bayly was approaching at full gallop from Wright’s. When I first saw him he was standing still. Bayly leaned over the horse and said: ‘Has anything been done about Lakey’s stock?’ I replied: ‘I have made arrangements. We have found Mrs Lakey.’ Bayly made no reply and rode away. Detectives and police arrived from Auckland that afternoon. The two guns in the house did not appear to have been fired recently, being covered with cobwebs.” Witness found on the kitchen dresser a tobacco tin containing pearifle cartridges. He did not see a .22 calibre rifle in the house. In the bedroojn were two boxes of .32 calibre revolver cartridges with a revolver. Witness was Arms Officer in Huntly. Bayly obtained a permit to obtain a .22 calibre rifle on October 12 from the Farmers’ Trading Company. To Mr Leary, Constable Robertson said the duckpond shelved at the shallow end. Witness demonstrated how Mrs Lakey was lying. When he drove a car he met Bayly. Witness had not passed him. Witness was not in uniform. He was in a sedan car. He was the first constable on the scene. He did not notice if there was a tub alongside the shed. The settlers joined in the search in the afternoon and worked in different directions across Lakey’s, Furniss’s and Bayly’s farms. Witness was not on Bayly’s place, which was visited by Constable Elms. Witness was entrusted with the glass jars after the post mortem and gave them to Constable Richardson to forward to the Government Analyst. Witness had not mentioned the second discharge of frothy blood from Mrs. Lakey’s nose at the Police Court. Cross-Examination. “At what stage have you remembered this discharge?” asked Mr Leary.—“l remember it very distinctly,” replied witness. “It was mentioned by Dr McFarlane.” “Is it not strange you did not mention it before?”—“l was not asked about it.” His Honour said the constable could not be expected to remember everything in the lower court. He had previously referred to this method of examination. “Do you rule the question improper?” asked Mr Leary. “Not improper, but a waste of time,” replied the Judge. “It is an extremely important question bearing on whether it was an accident or murder,” replied Mr Leary, who continued to question witness on the second discharge. • The constable said the Lakeys had no permit for the revolver.

Christopher Moore, a barman, said he had left a pearifle at Joseph Gilmour’s, Ruawaro. He identified the rifle produced as his. A salesman at the Farmers’ Trading Company at Huntly, Maurice Northmore, said he had sold a rifle to Bayly on October 12 of the type produced. To Mr Northcroft he stated the sheath knife and steel exhibited were known as a rabbiter’s set and were commonly used by fishermen and farmers.

Constable T. D. Elms said on October 16 he was relieving at Huntly. He accompanied Constable Robertson to the Lakey’s. After describing the condition of the kitchen and bedroom he related finding Mrs Lakey in the duckpond. The search for Lakey commenced after the body had been removed to the house, the parties separating after crossing the wattle tree paddock. Witness commenced his search before lunch. He saw the wheels and frame standing under the wattle tree. “I saw Bayly at 12.30 near his house,” continued the constable. “I told him we had found Mrs Lakey in the duckpond, also that we had discovered Lakey’s gun was missing and that we were looking for Sam Lakey. Not on Friendly Terms. I asked Bayly if he had seen or heard of Lakey. The accused said: ‘I suppose you already know we are not on friendly terms?’ I asked him again if he had seen Lakey or heard the report of a shotgun. He replied he had not and passed a remark that Lakey had put one across him over some sheep. I told the accused I was not concerned with private matters and then left him.” Constable Elms detailed the handling of the cartridges received from Constable Robertson. To Mr Leary the constable said that on October 19 he found a pearifle shell in Lakey’s garden. There was a spider’s nest in it. He did not mention this in the Police Court as it had no importance. He reported it to his superior officers. He did not see the pipe found at Lakey’s and identified as Lakey’s. He could not say whether it had been just filled and lighted. “Is there any other matter not brought forward in the lower court?” asked Mr Leary. “Not that I know of,” replied witness, who then detailed the personnel of the search parties on October 16. The constable admitted that it could be logical of Bayly to reply that he was not friendly with Lakey when asked the latter’s whereabouts as he might therefore not be conversant with Lakey’s movements. “Can you tell me of anyone who searched the main portion of Bayly’s farm on October 16?” asked Mr Leary. “No one other than myself,” replied the constable. Cross-examined by Mr Meredith Constable Elms declared that the pearifle shell found at Lakey’s was very similar to that now handed to him. The one produced contained a cobweb almost similar to a spider’s nest. Constable J. Richardson, Auckland, said that on October 19 he was with Constable Elms when a tarnished pearifle shell was found. He identified the shell produced. The web inside was different compared with its present appearance, declared witness. It was whiter. Cross-examined by Mr Northcroft the constable said the shell was brighter when he first saw it. “If there were another shell, would you be prepared to say this was the same shell?” asked counsel. “You say it is a different colour now.” Witness said that it was similar to the shell he saw indicated on the photograph. Neighbour’s Evidence. A Ruawaro farmer, Charles Calvert, said that he lived two miles from the Lakey’s on the high land. He had a good view of the Lakey’s house. “Bayly was at my house on Sunday, October 15,” continued Calvert. “He arrived about noon on a horse, saying that he had come to see about me milking his cows. He said he was going to Auckland on the Tuesday.. I had milked for him two or three times before. He had spoken to me several days previously about milking. 1 arranged to do it after I had milked my cows. He came on Sunday to tell me about a particular heifer. We went down to the cowshed. He. left about 4 p.m., saying he was going up to George Furniss’s house to get some meat. Bayly wore working clothes, dungarees and an oilskin coat. He asked me what the road was like through Churchill to Auckland.” Witness stated to Mr Leary that Furniss’s gate was not near Lakey's, but was about two miles further. Bayly said he was going to Auckland on business. “It would be on that account that Bayly asked the condition of the road?” asked Mr Leary. Witness agreed that it was not uncommon for farmers to cut hair on farms in preference to going to town. “Did Lakey assist Bayly to rebuild the cowshed?” asked counsel. Witness —Yes. “Portion of Bayly’s house was rebuilt with Lakey’s assistance?” Witness—Yes, that is so. It was common to see odd bones lying round farms, said Calvert in reply to further questioning. Former Friend in Box. Another Ruawaro farmer, George Furniss, said he lived one and aquarter miles from Lakey s and one and three-quarter miles from Bayly s. The accused was friendly with witness and came to his house. Witness had known the accused since Bayly arrived at Ruawaro four or five years ago. Bayly assisted .witness to erect a windmill on October 13 and 14. Bayly did not visit witness on Sunday, October 15. Bayly often came on Sundays to play tennis. _ , , “I heard that the Lakey s wer« missing at 9 o’clock on Monday morning,” continued Furniss. “Next day in the presence of the accused Bayly’s father said Bill has a good theory. Lakey must have come up from the shed, found Mrs Lakey dead and put the cream out to give himself time to get away. Later Bayly asked witness to milk for him as he wished to see a solicitor, adding that someone had planted guns in a gully on his place. The accused said he thought Wright had done it. On another occasion Bayly remarked that it would not do for him to find Lakey. “All those down the road think I did it” he had said. The accused also said he would like to see Wright done in. Witness related other conversations with Bayly who remarked regarding the searches, “I think they are "looking for something which doesn’t exist. This was a month or more after Lakey s disappearance. Bayly carried a sheath knife without a handle of the type produced. The accused had killed a medium pig in October before Lakey disappeared, scalding it in a 12 gallon copper heated t in a4O gallon oil drum. Bayly said the water took only a few minutes to boil. The drum was similar to that produced but was then in one piece. It stood in the cowshed in front of the bails. It burned wood. Witness saw no other fuel about. He was at Bayly’s on October 20 and saw an unloaded pearifle in the accused’s separator room. The copper was there with a verdigris ring near the top. On November 25 he saw the drum in two parts. Witness gave Bayly a hand to make a new access to Bain’s road which Bayly started to use before it was formed. Prior to that Bayly went along a ridge through Lakey’s. Bayly did the formation at Christmas 1932. Replies to Questions. To Mr Northcroft Furness said that Bayly started to use the new route in July or August 1932. This probably was in consequence of a dispute at that time over sheep. Witness was not

working with Bayly on October 14. If the accused cut his hand witness would not be aware of it. Mr Northcroft read a newspaper extract. “Is that not the same theory as that which Mr Bayly senior advanced,” he asked.

Witness agreed. “Then Bayly was saying nothing more than what everybody accepted at that time?” continued counsel. Witness: That is correct. Bayly’s remark regarding the planting of the guns was made after the police found them. When the accused made the remark ‘it would not do for me to find Lakey,’ suspicion was actually centred on him.

Tlie accused’s remark, ‘the police were looking for something that does not exist’ was consistent with Bayly holding the theory that Lakey was alive and had cleared out. “To have a fire in a drum under a low roofed building such as a cowshed would be risky,” said Furniss. After further cross-examination witness fixed the date of his visit at November 25 because he bought Bayly’s pigs on that day. He was at Bayly’s on the Tuesday before the Lakeys’ disappearance. “I am instructed that the drum was cut then,” said Mr Northcroft. Furniss replied that he had not noticed it that day. There was little wood about Bayly’s. The accused usually burned coal. Ti-tree would require to stand a considerable time to dry, as it would be swamp timber. There was no standing dead ti-tree which could be used as fuel in the district. On October 14 there was very heavy rain and on Sunday intermittent squalls. Under those circumstances the paddocks would be fairly sodden. Mr Northcroft enumerated a number of farm houses in one portion of the district.

Witness declared that four would command a view of Bayly’s cowshed, a number of properties also had a view of the wattle-tree paddocks at Lakey’s but mostly from a long distance. Lakey’s horse was not quiet. It would be hard to manage a horse with a dead body on it or near. “I think a horse would pull or break away if it was tied to a fence when a dead body was being put over,” declared Furniss. Witness said that Lakey assisted to repair Bayly’s cowshed. At the conclusion of the cross-examination of Furniss the court adjourned until tomorrow morning. ,