TWO MURDER CHARGES.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20205, 16 January 1934, Page 7

TWO MURDER CHARGES.

Man and Wife Alleged to Have Been Killed. WILLIAM ALFRED BAYLY IN DOCK. Application by Defence for Suppression of Evidence Refused by Magistrate. (Special to the “ Star.**) AUCKLAND, January 16. HUNDREDS gathered outside the Police Court this morning in the hope of gaining admission to the preliminary hearing of the double murder charge against William Alfred Bayly, twenty-eight years of age, a farmer, of Ruawaro. The queue started to form at 9 o’clock. Three constables kept the crowd in order and every door to the Court was guarded. When the main door opened there was a frantic scramble of men and women as they surged into the public portion of the Court. Some women screamed. Bayly, who looked well and showed not the slightest sign of stress, was charged that at Ruawaro on or about October 15 he murdered Christable Lakey and further that at Ruawaro on or about October 15 he murdered Samuel Pender Lakey. At the outset an application by counsel for the defence for the suppression of evidence during the present proceedings was refused by the Magistrate. The hearing is expected to last four days.

The for the Crown was conducted by Mr V. R. Meredith, Crown Prosecutor at Auckland, and Mr F. M ’Carth y. Accused is defended by Mr E. H. Northcroft and Mr R. B. Lusk. Among those present was the Commissioner of Police (Mr W. G. Wohlmann). Without precedent in New Zealand criminal jurisdiction, Mr Northcroft made a surprising application to the Magistrate. Immediately after accused stepped into the dock and was charged counsel asked that the public and the newspapers should be excluded from the preliminary hearing of the charges. “ Before the hearing of evidence is proceeded with,” said Mr Northcroft, “ I have an application to make, founded on section 143 of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1927.” After reading this, Mr Northcroft proceeded : “ Courts as a general rule are open to the public; but a preliminary inquiry by a Magistrate or a Justice is not a trial, and consequently it may be held that the right of access of the public generally is to proceedings held in open Court. Beyond this, they possess, at common law, no further rights.

The view, I submit respectfully, is that only where your Worship exercises summary jurisdiction does this become an open Court to which the public are admitted. I think that the ends of justice will be best served by the exclusion of the Press and the public in this case. After all, the paramount thing is justice.” Mr Northcroft said that with regard to the Crown’s view of his application, he could see that his learned friend would submit that publicity given to the case might result in. spontaneous evidence being offered and given. In some cases that might be well, but the present case, having regard to the tremendous publicity given in the Press to the case, and the minute and very elaborate investigation by the police, it would be hard to conceive that the police had not discovered everything. “ So much for the crime,” said counsel. “ With regard to accused, I submit that there is the greatest danger to his receiving a fair and impartial trial in the Supreme Court if the proceedings are published. This matter has had the greatest publicity given to it, every little incident being recorded. We have been told that over fifty police, including some of the best investigators in the country, have been working on the case. The public imagination has been so stirred that it is difficult to say that an impartial jury will be empanelled. If these proceedings are open to the Press and the public, it follows that wide publicity will be given to the Crown’s case, with out any critical cross-examination and opposing theories. Then the view formed by the public, with a mind already inflamed, will hardly ensure 9. fair trial for accused. The only harm that can be done at the present moment, if my application is granted, is that the morbid and ghoulish tastes of the public will not be gratified. They will be deprived of it twice, but they can enjoy it once when the case is heard in the Supreme Court. Here we are concerned above all with the purity of justice and the removal of any danger of trial by having a jury which is not prejudiced. It will be almost an impossibility to get a jury that will bpimpartial if the circumstances of this case are reported. Application Opposed. Mr Meredith, Crown Prosecutor, said that “ discretion to hear a case in camera is very sparingly exercised, and only when the administration of justice is paralysed is it done. There has only been one instance where it was done, and that was during a rebellion when witnesses, it was feared, might be shot in Court. I cannot agree that the publishing of evidence is going to effect the jury, or that the mere fact that rumours may be floating about will make twelve men on a jury forget their duty and oaths.” The Magistrate said: “ Prima facie criminal cases are always taken in open Court. It is one of the safeguards

of our system and for the administration of justice. The administration of criminal law should be in public, so that the public will have confidence in the way the law is administered. Will the ends of justice best be answered by the clearing of the Court and the exclusion of the newspapers? What is there to lead me to believe it? I am told that the present state of the public mind makes it impossible to get the impartial jury and the fair trial that are of great importance. If the case is heard in open Court, and if the exact facts as presented by the police are made known to the public, then all untrue stories and rumours will be set in their proper place. When the true facts are placed before the public, it will kill any untruth, and all rumour. The jury will be drawn from the public. If some of the jurymen may be prejudiced, then it is all the more reason that they should hear the facts now. I cannot grant the application. No gopd reason has been shown me why I should grant it. The ends of justice will best be served by the hearing of the case in open Court.” The hearing of evidence was then proceeded with. It was agreed that both charges should be heard together. The first witness, J. J. Carroll, of the Lands Department, produced topographical plans of the Bayly and Lakey farms, plans of the point where the farms adjoin, and plans of a swamp, and of various farm buildings. Upon the application of counsel for the defence all other witnesses, except Police Inspector J. W. Hollis, were ordered from the Court. Photographs Produced. A police finger-print expert and photographer, Claude M. Francis, produced photographs, including one of a vehicle standing against a wattle tree, one of the interior of the Lakey’s kitchen, showing a table, and one of a duckpond, showing the sloping end after the water had been drained out. Frank Stewart, a photographer, produced a series of photographs taken on January 8 from an aeroplane, at Ruawaro, of the Bayly and Lakey properties. More photographs were produced by Senior-Sergeant E. W. Dinnie, of police headquarters. At this stage accused was permitted to sit in the dock. Raymond George Brader, aged 11 years, who had lunch with the Lakeys on the Sunday of the tragedy, said that Lakey was dressed in working clothes. There were three guns in the passage. He left at 2.30 o’clock. Lakey was then lying on a sofa reading. Mrs Laltey went with witness to the fence, and kissed him good-bye as usual, and gave him a rabbit to take home. Both the Lakeys were well, and appeared to be just as usual that day. Bertram Vernon Stevens, a farmer, said he knew the Lakeys well. They were very nice people and got on well together. Witness, from his place, could see the paddock into which Lakey turned his cows after milking. That Sunday night the cows were turned into the paddock about 6.30 p.m., and witness saw a man, but could not say who it was. About 4.45 o’clock next morning, witness got up to milk and saw Lakey’s cows in the same paddock. They were still there at 8.15. Witness concluded that the Lakeys were sick, and, after finishing milking and carting his cream on a sledge to the gate of a neighbour named Wright, he went to the Lakey’s place. On the road near the Lakeys’ gate were Lakey’s two cream cans. Found Woman’s Body. The witness Stevens said that he and Wright knocked at Lakey’s dopr. They called out and got no answer. They went to the cowshed and found nobody there. They returned to the house and walked through it. The bed in the front room had been made up, but did not look as if it had been slept in. The fireplace was cold. They went over to a neighbour, Sansons, and Wright got in touch with the police. They returned and milked Lakey’s cows. Witness then went up to the house and found Constable Robertson there. Witness noticed a lot of sacks, which he had seen before, but passed by. They removed the sacks and found the body of Mrs Lakey. She was resting with her head on her fyands under the water in the duckpond. Part of her face was under the water. After the body had been lifted out. witness noticed a mark on the rpiddle of the chin. There was blood issuing from the nose. She was dressed in old milking clothes and gumboots. A shotgun in pieces was produced, and witness said that it was very like Lakey’s gun. He identified another gun as Mrs Lakey’s and a waistcoat as Lakey’s The Court adjourned for a few mini utes while witness went outside to inspect the wheels, frame and axle of an old cart. The wheels were kept usually near the remains of a boat near a fence. Witness noticed them near a wattle tree about two chains from Bayly's boundary. Position of Wheels. Witness said that he had never seen Lakey use those wheels nor had he ever seen them at the wattle tree j before. 1 Witness identified a cigarette lighter

as one very similar to Lakey’s. The wick in the lighter was supplied by Mrs Lakey, who also gave witness a spare piece for himself. Witness was asked questions concerning various items of Lakey’s personal property and clothing. He said that Lakey had auburn hair, inclined to go grey. (Proceeding.)