MURDER CHARGES.

Star (Christchurch), Volume LXVI, Issue 20223, 6 February 1934, Page 7

MURDER CHARGES.

For Hearing at Auckland Session, JUDGE'S COMMENT. Per Presa AesoclatlonAUCKLAND, February 6. A case of outstanding interest for hearing at the Supreme Court session which opened to-day is the double charge of murder against William Alfred Bayly. Mr Justice Herdman, in his charge to the Grand Jury, said that Bayly was charged with murdering two people, a man named Lakey and his wife, at Ruawaro. “ The case is of great importance and you must consider the evidence with very great care,” said his Honor. “ Each case must be considered separately. 1 do not propose to go into the evidence at great length, because I think it is undesirable that I should do so, but I do propose to refer to it briefly.” Crown’s Allegations. In outlining the Crown’s allegations the Judge said that expert medical evidence would be called to prove that Mrs Lakey had been struck a severe blow on the chin and then placed in a duck-pond—probably dragged, for l:cr clothes were up—and drowned. The duty of the Crown would be to prove that both the Lakej's were killed. He had no doubt at all that the Grand Jury would conclude that this certainly was a case to go to a Common Jury. Finding of Guns. The evidence would show that not long after the discovery of the dead woman the accused suggested that Lakey, coming back to the house and finding his wife dead, had taken to the bush with his gun. But two guns were found in a swamp on the accused’s property. One was a shotgun belonging to another man, which was kept in Lakey’s house. The discovery of a pearifle was of great importance. The Judge said that when a pair of dungarees were seized by the police at Bayly’s place a cartridge shell dropped from the pocket and expert evidence would be called to prove that the shell was fired from one of the swamp guns. Another point for the Grand Jury’s attention was the evidence that about the time Lakey disappeared smoke was seen coming from the accused’s property. There would also be evidence of apparatus which apparently had been used as an incinerator, and the Crown would allege that the bonedust was found in it. Human Bone. A considerable quantity of bone had been found on the accused’s property and medical experts would say that it was human bone. The Judge mentioned also the discovery of pieces of a watch and a patent lighter on Bayly’s property. He said that the Crown alleged that the lighting material in the lighter had been manufactured from a piece of cotton which came from a work basket at Lakey’s. In addition blood marks had been found on the premises and on a vehicle and it would seem that an attempt had been made to remove these stains. It was suggested that a knife and steel found in the accused’s possession were used. There were also track marks of some vehicle coming away from the Lakey’s in the direction of Bayly’s farm. The Judge concluded by stating that there was ample material to warrant the returning of a true bill.