W. A. BAYLY FOUND GUILTY

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19834, 25 June 1934, Page 4

W. A. BAYLY FOUND GUILTY

SENTENCE OF DEATH PASSED END OF NOTABLE TRIAL By Telegraph—Press Association AUCKLAND, June 23. The Bayly trial concluded this morning with dramatic suddenness, reaching a climax with a verdict of guilty on both counts. Prior to the announcement of the verdict the crowd in Court stood hushed for several moments. The decision of the jury, therefore, came in an atmosphere of greatest tension. Probably the least moved man in Court was the prisoner himself, who, although he betrayed slight signs of nervousness, soon recovered the calm which has characterised his demeanour throughout the prolonged case. The Court was crowded throughout his Honour’s summing up, which was far shorter than had been expected. When the jury retired at 11.15, all portions of the Court were packed, while there was a crowd, mostly women, outside. During the interval of waiting, few, if any, of the public left their positions, while counsel and Court officials paced the corridors smoking almost continuously. While his Honour addressed the jury accused’s wife, Mrs Bayly, her father, Mr P. Palmer, accused’s father, Mr Frank Bayly, were all present, accompanied by the family solicitor. Mr R. B. Lusk. None returned to hear the verdict after the jury came back When word was received that the jury were about to return, the space in the front of the Court was eagerly sought by solicitors, friends of the parties interested, and many others. The Court officials only kept the Court clear with the greatest difficulty. Included in those who awaited the decision were a number of Ruawaro settlers, who had given evidence during the opening weeks of the trial. Superinendent S. Till. Inspector J. W. Hollis, and many other senior police officers also attended. At the same time the increasing crowd waited eagerly outside the Court and about the street to hear the verdict, many women leaning out of nearby houses and blocks of flats to hear the first word of the result. Verdict Announced. The jury filed in at 12.30 p.m.. their members looking nervous. There was a wait of a few moments, while the Judge was summoned. During this period the Court sat silent, the tension being felt keenly by all present. When his Honour had assumed his seat on the Bench, Bayly stepped up through the trap-door in the floor. As he faced the Judge his momentary nervousness could be seen. The muscles in his face were working, while he ,glanced quickly to right and left and then took up his position in front of the dock facing the Judge. When asked their finding, the foreman replied in a firm voice: “We find the accused gulity on both counts.” Bayly bowed his head slightly, but showed no trace of any emotion. The Registrar, Mr C. J. Hewlett, then asked the prisoner: “You have been found guilty of wilful murder. What have you to say why judgment should not be passed upon y u that you die according to law?” Bayly moved a pace back between the two warders, bowed to acknoivedge that he had heard the question, but made no response, holding his head high again. The Court Crier at once left his position at the side of the Court, walking past counsel and announced: “Oyez! Oye?! Oyez! His Honour, the Judge, commands all manner of men to keep silence, while sentaice of death is passed on the prisoner now in the dock, on pain of imprisonment.” Sentence Pronounced. His Honour then assumed tie Black Cap and pronounced sentence cf death. As soon as the sentence was passed, there was a stir in the Court which was quickly checked, as the Judge thanked the jury for their serv.ces and exempted them from service fir seven years. Bayly then turned to go beliw, waving aside the offers of assistaice from the warders, walking calmly to the head of the stairs with a slight, wry smile. As soon as he had left the Court, the pub!' rushed to the rear ti gain a view of the prisoner entering the van, which was denied them, as th( van was backed close to the door. BayV stepped briskly into the vehicle, whch drove off immediately. Even after his departure, a crowd loitered about the Court foi an hour or more. The jurymen, who had leen paid weekly, had received their fhal week’s payment earlier in the mcning and were taken back to the hftel where they were given their last ileal at the Crown's expense. During ihe afternoon theri luggage was cllivered to their homes while the plice took charge of the exhibits in Court and commenced to dispose of tfem. Judge’s Summing' Jp. Great crowds of men aid women attended the Supreme Court this morning, when Mr Justife Herdman commenced to sum up. Space in the Court wasjat a premium, and many waited thpughout the morning for the opportu&ty to gain admission. “You have now reached;he end of a memorable experience,” said his Honour to the jury. The Jiry had had the assistance of counsel,vho had not spared themselves, his tonour continued. It had been prqerly pointed out that if the Crown filed to prove its case, the jury must rairn a verdict of not guilty, and while he jury must free their minds of all tfcy had heard or read of the case prepusly, on the other hand, if they weresatisfied that the Crown case was piven, the jury ' must return a verdietbf guilty, no matter what the conssuences might be and no matter how that duty might be. “in the course of thetrial reference has been made to circumstantial evidence. I have no limitation in saying that, despite whatjhas been said, that on circumstantiajevidence alone, you are entitled to jflge this case,” continued his Honor, tio then quoted from authorities. Abused, in the present case, was chart-,d with murder. There are two count} in the indictment, and each case just be considered in the light of thjevidence proper to it. “The Crown’s suggjtion was that Lakey had been shofwith a pea rifle and that his body Kd been burned. In regard to Mrs Lafy, the Crown allegation was that si was struck two blows, rendering hej unconscious. It was alleged that Ilf accused deliberately took her to tnduck pond while she was alive and paced her in the duck pond for the impose of drowning her. The evidqie which support-

ed this charge might not be as strong as the evidence on the other count. 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 was laid, the body must be found, or there must be direct or circumstantial evidence of a murder having taken place. There could be no doubt that up to 6 p.m. on October 15, Lakey and his wife were alive. The milking operations had been completed, and a settler named Stevens had seen a mar. turning out the cows. If it was Lakey, he was alive at 6.30 p.m. In the house, the evening meal had not been touched. The circumstances suggested that Mrs Lakey had died and that Lakey had disappeared between the completion of milking time and the time the evening meal was taken, which was from 6.30 p.m. to 7 p.m. Suggestion of Third Party. There had been some suggestion that a third person was expected at Lakey’s that night, but the evidence on that point was slight, continued his Honour. 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 inference that it was Lakey. If Lakey did not do so. the inference was that it was done by someone who knew where Lakey put the cans. The canmight have been put out to prevent the tragedy of Lakey being discovered until some hours elapsed. His Honour then recalled Bayly’s known movements on Sunday night and Monday morning, also the evidence of Mrs Stevens that she had seen Bayly riding on the ridge of Lakey’s early on Monday morning. On the arrival o: 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 duck pond. The evidence of the experts was that she had been placed in the pond unconscious and had been drowned there When the police called at Lakey’s, it was discovered that guns were missing from the house. Searches for Lakey were commenced in all directions, but no trace of him was found. His Honour then said that he would turn to the theories put forward by Bayly to account for Lakey's disappearance, then the reviewing of the discovery of the sledge marks at Bayly’s. and of 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 bloodstains on the wheels, frame, and sledge, ard the discovery of the cartridge in Lakey’s garden. “If that carSpandau rifle, it is evidence of the tridge had been fired from Bayly’s greatest importance, for who else could have fired the shot from the Spandau but the accused?” asked his Honour. When the police executed a search warrant at Bayly's, they found a shell, which, it was said, fell from a 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 Honor. “If the shell had been fired from the pea rifle found in the 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 decide that the shell was fired from that rifle, then you have the association of Bayly with the rifle found in the swamp.” The Guns in the Swamp. His Honour then turned to the finding of the gun parts in Bayly’s swamp. “Who put these guns there?” he 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 did they do it? I have no hesitation in saying that you are entitled to place the 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 from the pea rifle found in t,he swamp. “Why has Bayly gone to the swamp at night if he were innocent? The jury might think it was extraordinary conduct,” his Honour declared. If the jury accepted the experts’ evidence that the shell found at Lakey’s had been fired from Bayly’s rifle, and that the shell found at Bayly's had been fired from the rifle from the swamp, they were entitled to draw the conclusion that Bayly must have ’ an at Lakey’s. The discovery of the burnt material on the shovel at Bayly's led the police to make further investigations on his property. If the evidence of the discoveries followed, if the evidence of Drs. Gilmour, Lynch, and MacCormick was accepted, the jury had evidence that the bones were human, and had recently been burnt. “How did these bones get on accused’s place?” asked his Honour. “How did they become buried in the orchard, the garden, and the sheep dip. It may be said that these are from some human being buried years before. In that case, how could they be in two or three places, and not together in one? How did they become burnt? Some human agency must have been at work. Was it possible that some person came to Bayly’s and put them there? There is 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 and placed the bones there, to be believed?” asked his Honor, who then referred to the fir ding of the cigarette lighter. After reading the evidence dealing with the nature of the lighter wick, his Honour dealt with pieces of the watch found at Bayly’s. There was no definite proof that the watch was Lakey’s, but there was evidence that it was similar to his watch. 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. Fire and Knife Cuts. His Honour said that he would next refer to a remarkable piece of evidence—that of the neighbour, Herbert, and his employee. They had seen smoke round Bayly’s cowshed. He had sworn that he remembered that night definitely. If his evidence were true, it was evident that there was a fire at Bayly’s that night. It had been suggested that the knife cuts in Lakey’s 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 is proved that they were made by Bayly’s knife,” continued his Honour. However, the 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 ti the conclusion that a drum could have been used to burn a human being. It was for the jury to decide whether it was feasible for a man to take the body to the fence on the wheels and frame and lift it over without leaving bloodstains on the fence. Dr. Gilmour had said that if a body was moved the motion sometimes stopped bleeding and sometimes started it. The movement might have stopped any bleeding, accounting for the small portion of blood on the frame and sledge. That again was for the jury to decide.

His Honour dealt with the blood tests employed by Drs. Gilmour and Lynch, who had said that the blood group tests, in their opinion, were not certain. It was for the jury to say ev idence was sufficient or insufficient. The jury had been asked 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 experts’ assistance. Who Col i ld^, giv f evidence about the bones and blood tests, but experts? asked his Honor. Expert Evidence. Turning to the question of the cartilage cases, his Honour recalled the niuider of Constable Gutteridge, a case in which the greater part of the evidence dealt with bullets and cartridge cases. The administration of justice could not continue unless expert witnesses were called, and their evidence considered. Criticism had been made that the police had concentrated their 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 Honour said he had already referred to the suggestion that a third person had been at Lakey's and had planted bones at Bayly’s. "How could it possibly have been done?” he asked. “It is possible to take a view of the case of Mrs Lakey ouite 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. If you find that he was on the spot. t‘ at is an important matter. In regard to the murder of Mrs Lakey, you may conclude that the Crown has not proved the case beyond doubt. On the other hand, considering the evidence and opinion of the doctors that she was drowned, you may conclude that Bayly was on the premises and killed Mrs Lakey.” Mr Northcroft mentioned the possibility of the accidental death of Mrs Lakey, who, was later placed in the duck pond by some person. Kis Honour said that the jury must consider that point.