BREAKING, ENTERING AND THEFT

Dominion, Volume 34, Issue 112, 5 February 1941, Page 11

BREAKING, ENTERING AND THEFT

Finger Print Evidence Succeeds GOODS AND MONEY FROM CITY PREMISES A verdict of guilty on all counts was returned by the jury in the Supreme Court, Wellington, yesterday afternoon in the case in which Leo Sylvester Hannan, labourer, pleaded not guilty to six charges of breaking, entering and theft of goods and money from various business premises in Wellington between August 20 and October 13 last. Mr. Justice Johnston remanded him for sentence. The Crown’s case relied solely on linger print evidence and the lack of an adequate explanation by Hannan as to his whereabouts when the various crimes were committed. The premises were the Tui Bottling Company. Limited, Allen Street; B. J. Ball (N.Z.), Limited, Cuba Street; Ross and Glendining, Limited, Victoria Street; Makowcr, Mcßeath and Company, Limited, Victoria Street; the National Electrical and Engineering Company, Limited, AA’akefield Street; aud the Elite Lingerie Company, Limited, Wakelleld Street. The prosecution was conducted by Mr. C. H. Weston, K.C., with him Mr. AV. R. Birks. Hannan was represented by Mr. G. I. Joseph. The material point in the charges said Mr. Weston, was that linger prints were found on articles stolen end that, in the opinion of experts, they sufficiently coincided with the linger prints of accused as to prove that he had been the guilty party. In five instances the points of similarity between the prints on the stolen goods and those of accused were between 10 and 18, whereas it was possible for a jury to accept implicitly the evidence of finger prints providing there were nine points of similarity. Mr. Weston called witnesses to support the Crown’s case and supplied the jury with enlarged photographs of the finger prints taken by the Police. Evidence of Accused. Giving evidence in his own defence, Hannan said that during the period when the crimes were committed he had been in work, earning from £7 to £S a week. He denied ever having had house-breaking implements in his possession and said that the linger prints found on the stolen goods could not have been his, as he was not guilty of the offences with which he had been charged. Cross-examined by Mr. Weston, accused admitted that since 1926, he had been convicted on charges of theft, breaking, entering and theft, and wilful damage to a safe. He had been in jail six times for various offences. The only evidence connecting accused with the offences was that of finger prints, said Mr. Joseph to the jury. There was no evidence of anyone having seen accused on any of the premises broken into, nor had any of the stolen goods been found in his possession. The jury brought in a verdict of guilty on all charges after a retirement of 50 minutes.