BAYLY’S DEFENCE

Evening Star, Issue 21750, 19 June 1934, Page 13

BAYLY’S DEFENCE

LASt STAGES OF MURDER TRIAL Mfl KORTHOROFT OPENS HIS CASE [Per U.viTtn Press Association ] AUCKLAND. June 18. The case for the defence was placed before the jury this afternoon when the senior counsel for the defence (Mr Northcrol't) commenced the final address to the jury. The Crown case terminated unexpectedly at 11 o’clock in the morning. Mr Meredith then gave his filial summing up to ttie jury, his address lasting ah hodr nlld a-hal’f. Mr Northcrol’t had traversed a number of points in the Crown case by evening, but many remain yet to he discussed.

When the hearing of the Clown case was concluded. 500 pages of evidence, representing 200,000 words, had bceil recorded by the judge's associate, Mr 0. Tj. Herdman. Mr Northcrol't said he was hound to I‘cfor to the extraordinary length of the case and the strain bound to devolve upon counsel for the defence, which was greater than that on the Crown Prosecutor “ I have been fortunate in the extremely able assistance of Mr Leary,” he proceeded.

Counsel then intimated that he was bound to discuss the case at great length, although he realised the position the jury had been, placed in during tlie past four weeks. The case had been presented in elaborate detail, which placed counsel for the defence in the position of having to deal with every matter, even though it might appear unimportant.

Counsel then said he proposed to deal With culpability in homicide liases, which were divided into two classes—murder and manslaughter—referring ,to the definition in New Zealand of each criihoi “ Unless you are satisfied the circumstances revealed ■ here como within those provisions, oven though there has been killing, they do not collie within ‘murder’; they tail in ‘ manslaughter,’ ” continued counsel. Sir Northcroft then declared that the elements of the journalism shown in this case were of a sensational order, “ 1 cannot escape feeling that the publicity this case has received long before it reached the Police Court, and also the publicity it received When it reached the Police Court, has had a very damaging effect on my client.” continued counsel. “ There has been an extraordinarily morbid interest hi this case by the public itself. 1 feel that every one of you before going into i!le jury box lias heard •extraordinary stories regarding this case.’ Alter warning the jury to disregard nil it had heard outside tlic court, counsel said the verdict was hot a matter of collective responsibility, but .individual, 1 dm confidents with this warning there is little danger that the view held Uy the public will affect you ill the slightest degree,” proceeded counsel, who then dealt with the respective duties of the Crown and of tile defence, laying emphasis on the onus pt the Crown to prove its case. 11 Our British system docs not require that an accused person should eofne here 10 prove his innocence. Whatever suspicions the jury might entertain, if the Crown fails to pl'OVe its case the accused must go free,” continued Mr Northcroft, who dealt with the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence, 'lf any of the circumstances yielded themselves to any ■ alternative,' he said, then one conclusion could not he arrived at, while if arty oile point in the circumstantial evidence could not be arrived at the whole evidence must go. If one link in the chain of circumstance was incapable of the task of proving guilt, the Others Were valueless. “ You must be careful to distinguish between matters of fact and matters of opinion,” declared Counsel, who said he would then turn id the question of motive. “ J suggest that unless you can see a proper motive, suggesting that the person concerned did it, the suggestion of the Crown will he repulsive to you.” Bayly was a happy - married man with two children, continued counsel, and was Comfortably placed on his farm, lie was friendly with the better class of bis neighbours, and was courteous with the police. He was a man of moral courage who told the police opeiily and candidly what his real relations with Lakey were, while he had not been shown to bo untruthful on any point, Mrs Bayly’s character was also important, because if the Crown case were believed she must have known of the happenings on Bayly’s farm that night. 'J he evidence showed that the relationship between Lakey and Bayly was friendly until August, 1932. Up till then they shared a common outlet through Lakey’s4 property. In August there was some quarrelling over sheep. Bayly had a perfect right to require Lakey to Open Up access by removing the fences, as was shown by the evidence. Bayly had then acted in a decent manner, avoiding further animosity by getting access without requiring Lakey to remove tlie fences. Counsel contended 'there was no evidence to show that the cream stand removed by Bayly was Lakey’s property. It was, he claimed, Bayly’s stand. The whole trouble, which arose at Christmas, 1932, was due to Stent, who then worked for Bayly. It was quite believable that Bayly went to Lakey’s at Stent's request. Bayly had never done what Stent alleged he declared he would do—namely', cut Lakey’s fences. The quarrel was over a bull, which, as related by the witness Baldick, Was not of the serious nature which the Clown alleged. Baldick had' admitted that when Bayly referred to Lakey’s physical infirmity Lakey had laughed. ” If matters of that sort are to be presented to the jurors it will bo a desperately unsafe position for any farmer who has quarrelled with another farmer if that farmer should come to an untimely end,” declared counsel, who then said that Bayly’s remarks to the police, had been perfectly candid. When asked what he know about Lakey’s disappearance' he had admitted candidly that he had nothing to do w'ith the Lakeys. “ Preconceived theories are the most dendlv enemies in all inquiries,” quoted counsel, reading a Continental legal work. 'Mr Northcroft then turned to the appearance of Lakey’s house when t(ie police arrived. The indications showed that Mrs Lakey had gone a long distance toward preparing the evehilig meal. The presence of a rice Custard showed that Mrs Lakey had come from the cowshed and had prepared and cooked the custard. As a Wood fire did not last long, it was absurd to suggest that the potatoes had been put on to cook before she went to the shed. On the evidence it was clear that Mrs Lakey must have been in the house going about her domestic duties for the time the potatoes took to cook, which was about twenty minutes. “ 1 suggest to you tbnt there is abundant evidence that the meal had been cooked and was just about-to be consumed,” continued counsel, who declared that the evidence also showed that Lakey had finished his day’s work. The cream had been brought up and put in tlic cans, and his pipe, when found, was filled and had hcen lighted, a significance that would lie dealt with.further at a inter stage. Tlic Crown case was

that Mrs Lakey had been assailed and that Lakey had been attacked when be arrived from the cowshed. The distance from the house to the cowshed was not so great that ohe Would not expect Mrs Lakey to call her husband’s aid. As far as Mrs Lakey’s clothing was concerned, if her clothes were about her waist it was difficult to seb the significance of that. "T suggest that all the abrasions on Mrs. Lakey could quite well have conic from being dragged into the pond, or. if in the pond, being dragged to another position, submitted counsel, who said that two blows of the nature described by the Crown, if they were hnodk-out blows, were not only unhecesstuy but impossible. Had Mrs tinker been placed face downward with the arms crossed and the body bearing on the arms, before rigor (norths set in, they would have been crushed into the chest, where they would have been found when the body was lifted next morning. “ It may be that Mrs Lakey fell and received one or even two bruises on the chin and died in that position, and that her body was not* taken to the diickpond until long after .death had supervened,” continued Mr Northeroft, who stated that Mr Meredith had said the deceased here bruises but no cuts, while Detective Allsopp had said that she bole a cut. One might expect the man responsible to shoot both and place the bodies in stiell a manner as to suggest suicide and murder or a double suicide, place the bodies in the house, and then set fire to both, “ Is it likely that a murder could bo committed in tbe manner indicated by the Crown—that is, to knock out'Mrs Lakey when she was free to call out and then wait for Lakey and destroy him?” asked counsel. Why incur the risk of waiting when Mrs.Lakey might come to and warn Lakey?”

“ J hate always made it clear that the sequence of events that night was such as we cilnnot say definitely hoW they occurred,” observed Mr Meredith “ The Crown- is quite incapable ol putting before yon any sensible theory bow this thing'could have occurred.” replied Mr Northcroft, who declared that whoever killed Mrs Lakey cpitld not have placed her in the dnekpond before Lakey calne up to the house, as he would have seen her on the way. with the result that an ambush would have failed.

Counsel then commented on the finding of a cherrywood pipe in . Lakey’S garden, “It was utterly impossible for the Crown to invite you, on the evidence.” he said, “to take the view tlirft Mrs taker was struck down by some man. Who then proceeded to destroy Lakey.” Counsel then dealt with the two cartridge cates, stating that the. Crown had said nothing in the Police Court about the shell foilfid in Lakey’s garden, which was supposed to tit Burly’s rifle. “ ’rim only inference which can be drawn is that Bayly whs there with his ride, If lie had a rille we can believe that he had ammunition, po matter for wluil reason lie was carrying the rifle,” continued counsel. “In those circumstances how can anyone fit in With the use by Bayly of his rifle his action ill taking Lakey’s rifle a lid using it. and then conveniently carrying oft the spent shell In his clothes so that it can be found by the' police? No evidence bad shown Unit Bayly’s rifle had jammed, as suggested by Sir Meredith. Counsel for the defence could , got no Information about the two shells from tile Caown. The Crown to-day irnd .no explanation of the two shells. “ You have heard the experts who, with supreme confidence, have told yon that the cartridge case found at Bayly’s was undoubtedly fired from Lakey’s rifle, apd, also equally, undoubtedly said that the cartridge found at Lakey’s was fired from Baylv’s rifle,” continued Mr NortluTofl. " The cartridge found at Lakey’s was old and tarnished; Bayly had only acquired In's rifle prior to Thursday. According to the Crown this cartridge liadlieeii fired on Sunday, yet within a few da vs the shell became old and tarnished.”

Counsel then suggested that during the handling of the many exhibits the two shells com let have been mixed, an explanation which absolved Bnyly by lending to the conclusion thgt the shell found at Lakey's had been Heed froth Lakey’s rifle, and the shell found at Bilyk's had been fired from Bayly’s rifle, “.1 suggest that the evidence given by the experts Is iinbossiblo of acceptance,*’ concluded Mr Nortbcroft. The court tben adjourned ilntil tomorrow morning, when Mr Nortbcroft will continue bis address.