FINGER PRINT EVIDENCE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 14926, 26 February 1912, Page 5

FINGER PRINT EVIDENCE.

IS IT INFALLIBLE ?

An important case involving considerations as to the value of finger-prints as legal evidence, and their acceptability without corroborative testimony, was before the City Court, Melbourne, on Thursday, February 15. Edward Parker was charged with having broken into the jewellery establishment of Messrs. Webster and Cohen, on or about February 4, and having stolen jewellery variously valued at from £300 to £500.

Mr. O'Hara Wood, who prosecuted, stated that finger-prints were the only evidence which the police had to rely on. A story was told of how two bottles of ginger beer were purchased by Mr. Cohen on Saturday morning, prior to his.locking up the premises for the week-end, and how, when the premises wero reopened on the Monday morning one bottle was empty. On this bottle Detective Potter focussed attention, and he stated in evidence that on the neck of the bottle was a finger-print, which he had developed. In a photographic enlargement he submitted it to the chairman of the Bench, Mr. V. Tanner, P.M., for consideration. A print from the seco il finger on the left hand of Parker was photographed at the gaol, and, according to the witness, it was identical with the finger-print on tho bottle. In addition to fjtt ordinary points of similarity in the prints, there wero two corresponding scars. Scientifically, it had been proved that the finger-prints of no two person could be alike. Walter Edward Childs, inspector of. tho New South Wales police finger-print department, gave evidence as to the infallibility of finger-prints. He, too, was positively certain that tho finger-print on the bottle was that of Parker's second finger. Parker was committed for trial, but was admitted to bail.