CHARGE OF ROBBERY.

Marlborough Express, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 214, 7 September 1905, Page 1

CHARGE OF ROBBERY.

HEARING OF CASE IN POLICE COURT. INTERESTING EVIDENCE AS TO FOOTPRINTS. In the Police Court yesterday William Patrick Foley was charged with entering the house of Samuel Huggart, Blenheim, on the night of Tuesday, August 29bh, and stealing therefrom the sum of Ba. Mr T. Scott Smith, S.M., was on the Bench ; Sergt.-Major Mason conducted the prosecution; and Mr MoNab defended. At the request of Mr McNab, the witnesses for the prosecution were ordered out of hearing. Samuel Hoggart said he resided on his own property at Nicholson Terrace, Blenheim. He lived by himself. On Tuesday, the 29fch, be went to bed about ten o'clock. He locked the front door, and let the back door on the latch. The house, a four-roomed one, stood abont half a chain back from the road. There was a live fence around, and the entrance was by a small wicket gate. AbjQt midnight he was aroused from his sleep by the noise in the back room. He went out into that room s and saw someone going out of the door. He lifted an axe, and followed him. The man went round one side of the house, and jtbrough the front gate. iArififess went through the BcrtisS-aSfSr' out of the front door. Thought he heard voices along the road ; but did not see anyone. He went inside and fonnd that from six to eight shillings had been taken. A few coats had been taken down and rummaged. He lit the candle and looked at the clock. The time was twenty minutes to one. The clock was about ten minutes fast. The man he saw was about eighteen years old. Could not swear as to whether he had any hair on his face; but did not think so. It was too dark to gain any olose description of the man. The folI lowing morning he got up between 6 and 7. He noticed footprints going acr as the, garden, leading from the corner around which the man went to I the gate. He called Mr Lane, a ' neighbour, to look at them. As far as they could see, the prints had been made by a stockinged sole. He could not see whether the man bad boots on; he did not think so, or he would have made more noise on the wooden floor. By Mr McNab: He reported the matter to Constable Carmody and another constable. He was present when photographs of the footprints were taken on Friday. There were three or four prints,

Questioned as to the position of the camera when the photos of the foot* prints were taken, witness said that the lens were not perpendicular over the prints, but at an angle. The lens might have been a foot or a foot and a half from the ground. Bain fell in the morning; and it was raining when t:.e photographs were taken on the same day as the arrest. The ground was a bit wet when the photos were taken— not very wet. Constable Oarmody said that he arrested accused at 3 p.m. on Friday last at his father's bouse. Accused said, " I didn't do that; I know a bit about it; I saw the man coming out » he had a paresl in each hand, and was running." Witness asked, "Who did it?" Accused eaid, "I don'fc know the man ;ho was coming out; I was at the gate, ar d did cot go in." Witness took Fcley to Huggart's house. Accused also said that he did not 896 Huggart; that the man ran towards Manse Road—to the north; and that the man did not speak to him. Witness took accused inside the gate, where there were ■ four footprints, and asked him to take off his left boot. He did so, and made an. impression at witness's direction alongside a print that was already there. Witness remarked that the prints were similar in appearance ; and accused said, " They may be; but that one is not mine." Witness then covered the prints up with a sieve and a sack. He then went for the photographer, leaving Sergt.-Major Mason and Mr Huggart in charge of the footprints. He saw the photographs of the two comparative prints taken. He then went for a bootmaker (Mr James Brown) who examined the footprints and made notes. The general result of the examination was that the prints were exactly similar. (The photograph was produced in Court). Oa returning to the police station with Mr Brown, who had not sean.Foley (he being then in the cell), Constable Carrnody got Foley's left boot, Constable Steer's left boot, and his own left boot all of a sizo—and threw all three boots in front of Mr Brown, asking him if he could pick out a boot likely to be worn by the foot which made the impression. After examining each boot, Mr Brown picked! out Foley's boofc, and asked the constable to put his hand inside the boot.

Mr McNab interposed, and. said it was his duty to object The evidence cctuld go on if the police wished, but he would not like a Supreme Court judge to think him so foolish as not to object. He did not see that the inside of a boot bad anything to do with the case* Sergt.-M&jor Mason said he was callicg Constable Carmody at this early stage of the case to give the defence every opportunity of meeting the evidenes. Continuing, witness said that Brown called his attention to a depression made by the big toe, and also to a cor* responding note he made in Huggart's garden. Counsel pointed out that 65 hours elapsed from the half past 12 on the Tuesday to the taking of the photographs, and asked if it was reasonable to suppose that the print would be reliable after almost continuous rain for that period* Constable Oarmody said there bad not been continuous rain. Connsel said that fortunately he weald be able to call scientific evidence as to the rainfall. Counsel cross-examined at soaae length as to the position of the camera with whioh the photos were taken. Herbert Patehett gave evidenco as to seeing and talking to Foley in Manse Buad just before eleven o'clock on Tuesday night. Witness, Duncan MeCaUum, Ed. Healy, and Foley talked together for a few minutes where .Opawa Street rans into Mansa Road, their conversation being wholly about football; and those three went off along Opawa Street, in the direction of Mr Huggart's house, while witness went off home along Manse Road. Edward P. Healy, auctioneer, saic!h^ lived i»j Stepbeiison Strenf-, off Mange Road. Going past Huggarfc'p, ■ Foley stopped and eaid he was going in to see old Sam Huggart. They saw Foley go into the gate, and witness and Me Callura went on. He did not see Foley again* That street also led to Foley's home. By Mr MoNab: He know tbafi Foley's father aud Mr Hoggart were old friends. Foley's action in going in to Huggart's bouse did not create any suspicion in his mind. Duncan MeCalhun, clerk, said he resided with Mr Healy. He corroborated the foregoing evidence. A. "W. Akersten, photographer, said be had, been engaged tp make photo-

graphs of certain footprints in front of Mr Huggart's place on Friday last. One was a new footprint, the other an old one. The photographed footprint on the right marked B was the more recent one. His impression of the footprints, from a view with the naked eye, was that they were most similar. He should say they were both left foot impressions. The older footprint was indistinct through the action of the weather, but the general outline appeared to be the same as the more recent cue. By Mr MoNab: His lens were four ■ or five feet from the ground when tab ing the photograph. He could nob give the scale of the photograph, not having measured the distance from Itjns to object. The camera and lens were not perpendicular but at an angle of afcoat 45 deg. to the objects on the plane. He did not measure the number of. degrees. At this height and angle the effect would not have been to enlarge the portion further from the lens; although a truer picture" would be obtained by taking it from, an absolutely perpendicular position. Footprints had been disfigured by the stress of weather. James Browne, bootmaker, said he had had over 18 years' experience at his trade, and had been in business as a bootmaker in Sydney. On Friday last he was called by the police to . examine certain footprints at Mr Huggart's place, just subsequent to the photographing, The footprints "werinnTuxta^e»»ißß, as shown in the^. photo. The one was olde^tbsfi^^he other, although the older one was sufficiently distinct to give him an opportunity of comparison. Witness made notes of his observations, which he detailed. The length of the newel! impression was llf inches; width at the joint, or the broadest portiohj'4f inches. He found the length and breadth of the older impression* after allowing for the slight disturbances of the soil on the surf ace, practically the same as that of the newer one. He found that in both impressions that the ball of the i ig toe showed prominently; also that there was a rather unusual curve on the outside of the footprint* They were both left foot impressions* The unusual curve was distinct in each. The inside waist or hollow of the foot had left a very high aieh in both cases. He believed that both impressions were made by the one person. After inspecting the footprints he went to" the Police Station, where he was shown three left boots for ex* amination. These were nearly similar in size; he should say there were two " nines " and one " ten?' He did nob know to whom the boots belonged. The examination resulted in his picking out the boot which would It the foot making the „ more recent impression. In doing this he was guided by the shape into which the foot had been worn. It showed ,the peculiar curv« referred to—that was, the fulless on the inside. On patting his hand inside the boot he found what he had expected—a hollow in the sole caused" by the prominent ball of thebig lioe;'^ By Mr McNab A* Itoan ' ruianiil: without boots would make a far deeper impression with the fore and toe part of the foot than if he simply put his foot down for the purpose of making an impression. From the back of the older footprint be allowed half an inch in length for obliteration caused by the rain. The bottom measurement^ would have been the truer one, but he; could uot get such in soft earth. In width he allowed a quarter of an incS on the older point* His allowance in measuring the comparative length* and width of the two footprints dt« pended upon the state'of the weather during the 65 hours which elapsed between the making of each impression; The weather had been wet during thaSl time; it had not, however, obliterated the mark o! the ball of the big toe fn the old impression. He took the measurement of the clearer footprint first, which guided him to * certain extent in the measurement of: $he other. -, .. . .u','. Re-examined i J£rom bis examination of the older footprint, ho should say it was left by a man cunning, because of the heavy impression on. the fere-part of the loot. The peculiarities So which he had referred could not have,bean greatly affected by the necessary allowance in measurement. He still held the opinion that both impressions , were made by the one foot. This closed the case for the prosecution, and the Court adjourned till X) o'clock this morning.