SENTENCE OF DEATH

New Zealand Herald, Volume LVII, Issue 17483, 29 May 1920, Page 8

SENTENCE OF DEATH

OTI CONVICTED. CONCURRENCE OF JUDGE. ' ■" TRUE AND JUST VERDICT." value OF FINC'BR prints* THE SYSTEM VINDICATED., " Guilty " was the Answer returned yesterday by the forerun of the jury * which had. been hearing iihe evidence since. Monday in the trial of Dennis Gunn, charged before Mr. Justice Chapman at 'the Supreme Court with the murder of . •Augustus Edward Braithwaite at Ponsonby on March IS. - The summing up by the" judge was concluded at ten minutes to six in the evening.. At- five and twenty minutes past eight tie jurymen filed back into the box. The comparative shortness of their delihera'tiocs had led to the idea that the decision was for a conviction. When it was sees that several of the jurymen vrere obviously suffering from mental stress, that conviction deepened, and a tense hush fell upon the Court, in which a considerable crowd had gathered to sSe the concluding scenes of the trial. His Honor had taken his seat, and the registrar had commenced his question to the foreman, when it was noticed that the accused had not yet appeared in the dock. A pause, for his arrival resulted in ft deepening of the suspense. Gunn took his stand at the bar, his demeanour showing no special signs of apprehension. All through the afternoon he had displayed increasing evidence 'of disquietude, his face gradually assuming a ghastly, pallor, but whoa ho faced the Court-for the last time this was . no moro noticeable that it had been previously, i■ ■ . . , . ■•'

The registrar then pot ,the question, "How say you gentlemen, guilty or not guilty!": The foreman promptly answered "Guilty." ; : And .so. say you all," the next* question, received a subdued murmur of ; assent: .'- - « Addressing the prisoner at the baV, the registrar then asked the prisoner if he had anything to say a3 to why the sentence of the Court should not be passed upon him. - tit. E. J. Prendergast said:--" On behalf of the 1 prisoner, Your Honor, I have nothing tpfsay.''■,:'• sv * • » Judge's to Prisoner. Mr- Justice Chapman, labouring under obvious emotion, then addressed Gunn "Prisoner at the bar, you have been found .guilty, after a long trial in which the jiury has shown the greatest care to , see that you should only be convicted on the most absolutely convincing evidence. . That they have given an absolutely true adjust? verdict there can be no possible doubt I do not wish to say more than that the evidence proves, in my mind, absolutely conclusively, that you deliberately murdered a worthy servant of the, State;' Mr. Braithwaite." .- '■ 'Assuming the blackcap, His Honor proceeded:—"The sentence of the Court is that you be taken to the place of execution and there be hanged by the neck until you, are dead." Gunn, who had listened without motion or change of expression, hire „ turned,., at . the direction of the Wilder, and left the dock.

■ Judge's Tribute to Jury. Tinning to the jury, His Honor said :— '.'Gentlemen, I havo to thank you for your most careful attention to your, very responsible duties, in this. most important case, and if it is any sc&factioa. to you to s have it from me, I am satisfied that, after giving the closest attention to the evidence, yea-have arrived at a proper result. I have to thank you in the namo of country. You will be discharged, and will be released for two years from jury duty." ' Good Work of the Police. "I wish to say this further," pursued His Honor; " that I consider the conduct of the 'police in this' case has called for 'my ' highest commendation. They have shown the greatest diligence and intelligence/and at the same time the most absolute fairness to the prisoner who has now been condemned. 1 do not propose, to mention any particular names, because . though some members of the police force have come into 'greater prominence than others, if I mentioned names I should be overlooking some, who while less prominent,, have wen possibly equally worthy of commendation. An Infallible System. "I wish to say that this case has once • and for all vindicated the system of fingerprint investigation and identification, if vindication were needed. This is a vary notable case of a pubic servant murdered in his home. That the jury should have arrived at a just and true conclusion and Based its verdict on finger-print evidence, is a vindication of a scientific system, which if properly applied is "infallible. I will make a special roport to tho Minister embodying what I have been saying concerning the police' in this case." The Court was ( then adjourned, and the crowd dispersed in silence.

CLOSING STAGES OP THE TRIAL. COUNSEL .REVIEW EVIDENCE. When the Court resumed in the morning, the case for the defer.ee was continued by Mr. J. R. Reed, K.C., and Mr. I!, J. Prcndergast, the Hon. J. A. Tole, K.C., and Mr. J. C. Martin re-1 presenting the Crown. Sydney Henry Gregory, of Symonds Street, said he had known the accused for a matter of four years. On Saturday, March 13, he saw the accused outside the Princess Picture Theatre in the* vicinity of eight o'clock. Witness remembered that fact quite clearly when he read of Guiin's arrest, No questions were asked by counsel for the prosecution, and this witness closed the evidence, for the defence. Evidence in rebuttal was called by the prosecution. David Hyauiason said he had examined the lock of the lavatory in His Majesty's Arcade, spoken of by" the witness Sullivan. The new Yale lock on Sullivan's own- door was perfectly intact, but the lock Sullivan stated he opened with bit key was not intact. Witness opened it with tho bladn of his knife. To Mr. Reed: The lock on tho lavatory kept the door closed. It could, however, be opened with almost anything. A penholder would be sufficient. To His Honor: The lock had been tampered with. To Mr. Reed: He tried other Yalo keys on it, and two keys he produced opened the lock. He repeated that a 1 ale lock would not open for two keys provided it had not been tampered with. He had not dismantled the lock in the Arcade in any way. Rudolph Petersen, manager of the Trincess Picture Theatre, stated that on the night of March 13 the house was full at the time of the eight o'clock session, and there was not accommodation for all who wanted to get in. Between flight o'clock and a quarter-past eight there were from 100 to 150 people waiting from the box office down the aisle. They would have to wait their turn to get in. People wore waiting as late as a. quarter to nine, ty was an exceptional

house ,-even for a Saturday , flight. RO programmes showing a ; list :of the pictures were ? issued. The programme consisted. of an : Australian Gazette, a ■ Paramount Magazine, a scenic film' depicting scenery, and the 'principal, film the "Breed of Men." There was no comic picture on that programme. . •To Mr. Reed:"He could not remember the programme of Saturday before last* .

f;■ Counsel Addresses Jury, ""•' *• Addressing the, jury;, Mr. Reed said that Mr. Martin in his opening address had told them that in the event of a verdict of • guilty the whole circumstances would be reviewed . before the sentence was executed. He maintained, however, that while the Governor-Geaeral-in-Coun-cii was required to confirm the sentenco it was quite absurd to suggest that a, verdict of guilty in a caw of the kind under' review could have &ny but the one result— He would not have referred to that matter had it not been previously mentioned. He did not for that reason ask the jury to, find Gjinn not , guilty. It was,. however, the strongest reason why they should subject the evidenoe to the closest scrutiny and review. . There was another charge against the accused, which was not now being heard, a charge of burglary. .In the event of acquittal on this charge Gunn would be tried again on the other charge, so that if they had any suspicion that he was implicated in the burglary a verdict of not guilty on this charge would not moan they were acquitting him on the other, Crown's Evidence Reviewed. A great deal of evidence- had been given for the Crown. To what did it amount? First there was the testimony of Mr. Hughes and Miss Sadler that accused was seen in the vicinity of the Ponsonby post office between 2 p.m. and 7.15 p.m on March 13. The second point was the discovery of the revolfers and other things near accused's home., the third the postal memo, 'forms, the fourth his failure to account for his movements on the Saturday evening when questioned by the police, the fifth his remark, "You'll have a hard job to prove that," and sixth, the finger-print evidence. If it were not for the finger-prints, particularly that on the revolver, there would be no evidence at all. . . . '

The* statement by Hughes that he saw accused and his Mother Charles at the Three Lamps about two o'clock was supported by the. evidence of both of them. Accused, when arrested, gave a certain account of his movements on the Saturday afternoon. His brother Charles, questioned independently, when there had been no chance of communication with accused, gave an account in which the times tallied with those given by accused. Much importance, said Mr. 'Reed, had been attached to the incident"where accused first said he was at homo all the afternoon and then gave the other account of his movements. That he had not an account of his doings ready on the tip of his' tongue was a strong point in' his favour. 'Che statement which he made on- second thoughts was made promptly, without communicating-with fee brother, who afterwards confirmed it in every detail The Evening of the Murder. Much had been made of Gunn's failure to reply to the question as So his movements between seven and nine. But aocused ,had already accounted for these movements, by saying he had been down to- the pictures. Counsel suggested that, in view of the consistency of the evidence to the contrary, Hughes must have been entirely mistaken in his assertion that he saw th two brothers Gunn in the vicinity of the Ponsonby post office at' intervals throughout the afternoon. Miss Sadler's statement that she had seen accused outside the office- was made subsequent to the publication of accused's photograph. No doubt she believed aha saw him, but she had persisted - in her statement that the man 6he's&w had a black hat, and there were other inconsistencies in her statement. Nothing more' than suspicion could attach to the discovery of the revolvers and other- articles in the gully off Somerset Place. There was nothing in the find, ins which would not be applicable to any other person residing in the vicinity. With regard to the memo, forms, not only had their presence in Gunn's home been satisfactorily accounted for, but there was nothing to show that any such forms had been missed from the post office. The remark, "You'll have a hard job to prove it," might mean anything, and might be indicative of guilt or of innocence, equally. Eliminating the finger-prints, that was the evidence. What did it mean? It was the weakest chain of circumstantial evidence ever brought before a Court, without the finger-prints, and without them would undobtediy never have been brought. As had been slated in. evidence, possibly 100 people had offered evidence to the police. It would be interesting to knew -what that evidence was. Out of that preferred testimony it might be possible to build up a charge against an entirely different person. However upright, I and desirous of doing their full duty the police might be, there was always the j tendency to discard as unreliable any evidence which did not fit in with their 1 ,theory.

Tho Finger-print Evidence. , " Now I come to the finger-print evidence," proceeded Mr. Reed, "fully confident that I have removed from vow minds any idea that without the fingerprint evidence there is any evidence at all in this case . worth -consideration." Finger-print evidence, he added was expert evidence, and expert evidence was necessarily largely a matter of opinion. In expert evidence it was a common thing for there to be half-a-dozen witnesses on each side expressing the contrary opinion. If there were exports available to scrutinI iso this evidence he felt confident that it j would be possible to put men in the box prepared to tear to pieces the evidence of identification given to the Court. But in that particular the defence was At a tremendous disadvantage. He quoted an j opinion from Taylor's text-book on evidence which said that experts' reliability was vitiated by their long-continued habit of regarding their subject from one point ! of view, and this, he claimed, applied with [ particular force to finger-print experts. J Their whole impulse was to find resemblances between the pj lata submitted to them, Refusal to Give Print. Mr. Reed said that the sum total of the opinions he had quoted was that expert evidence must be very closely scrutinised. "How much more closely must you scrutinise it when we are absolutely in the hands I of the experts, when it is quite impossible 1 for us to call evidence against it? That I is why I took the grave responsibility of Advising my client not to give his handprint. Had there been no prints at all, had the Crown said a print had been dis covered and asked him for an impression for comparison, the answer would have been "Certainly." Look at the difference This man says '1 was not there." 'Die experts say 'Ton were there ; these arc your prints." What could you expect? These people are going to find lines and points ana marks corresponding, and if they could net find them they would say it. was because they were filled up with dirt, or something of the kind. They have sworn that the fingers identified were from Ounn's hand. If they were to say after that that it was not his palm-print on the box it would sweep away the whole previous evidence. It was "not to be conceived that they would do anything of the kind. That was the reason why he had advised his client not to give that nrint. An Australian Opinion. An opinion from the Chief Justice of Victoria was quoted by Mr. Reed. In expressing it tho Chief Justice, said that the Court wae asked to accept the theory that tho correspondence between two sets of finger-prints was evidence of the identity of the people who made those two prints as an established fact, in the same Way as a proposition of Euclid. His difficulty in accepting this arose from the fact that the study of finger-prints bad not been sufficiently laid down for this to bo accepted as a proposition. A police witness had stated that he had examined 29,00 C prints and had never found two to correspond. No doubt the witness was honest, nut suppose he were not, what possible check was there upon his statement? The Court ou that occasion had accepted the i finger-print evidence, the Chief Justice I dissenting.

:',--• Dealing with the statements of the exi pert-witnessed in further detail, -Mr. Reed j referred to the teat which' Inspector Fowler I had undergone. ;? He ;6a id the a inspector had himself stated tl'mWn his first scrutiny he sorted out half a dozen cards, and from I these selected the right olio. What sort |of a test was, that? he asked.' It was ob I vioUs : that the bulk of the prints were of a • type; quite dissimilar from the one to be. identified. Had it'been a matter of minute differences, necessarily to ,'bo closely scrutinised, there might be something in the test. '•' y *..<•■ Dealing with the print on the revolver, Mr Reed said it was the only one which might possibly connect the accused with | the murder. It did not necessarily tdo eo, .because it was stated that the revolver had been cleaned prior to, being deposited where it was discovered. Now. in both the registered print* of that finger, a scar mark showed. ' The jury could appreciate a scar mark, where other points were not apparent to them. In both the print from the revolver, and from the' aide of one of the cashboxes, the mark of, that scar was missing. ■ The expert's. explanation was a smudge, or a piece of dirt. From the absence.of that scar mark, ho Bug. gested that the jury would be quite justi. tied in discarding' evidence altogether. Referring to some of the points of similaxity attested to by the experts, Mr. Reed suggested that it was for the ex. pert's simply to indicate them and leave it to the jury to decide whether they were points of similarity or not. He declared that tlie prints alone comprised theevidence with which the Crown had any chance to connect the accused with the murder. Unless, therefore, they felt the finger-print evidence absolutely coercive in that direction, the jury must give the accused the benefit of th e doubt. A point might be made •of accused having denied the burglary as well as the murder. This jury at present was not called upon to decide. concerning tho burglary. Neither, if they had concluded that he committed the burglary were they, bound to find him guilty of the murder. After warning the niry against their indignation ' at the brutality of the'crime betraying them into a hasty determination of the guilt of accused, Mr. Reed concluded'his speech, which had occupied 2$ hours, with a further suggestion that the Crown evidence had not seen sufficient to establish that certainty necessary to establish a conviction.

■ Mr. Mr-rtla's Address. . In his concluding address, Mr. Martin asked the jury to consider the cose, so far! as possible, without emotion or human fooling, and to put themselves in the position of an investigating machine. The defence had not offered anything against the assumption that Mr. Braithwaite was murdered, or that the keys were token from his body. It was not a question that the post office was broken into, nor that the strong-room was opened by his key. These points were clear, and need not be considered. The jury must guard themselves againiit the reflection that even if acquitted of murder Gunn might be convicted of burglary, and punished. If thero were anything in the duty of citizenship and the juryman's oath, they must guard against that reflection, and consider the case as if it stood alone. If they did not, the public security and the safeguard of the jury system would be swept away. Credibility of Witnesses. Witnesses must be considered in the lighb of the interests which they might have in the case and in their general character as bearing upon their credibility. As regarded credibility, nothing had been suggested against the character of any witness. As regarded interest, setting aside for the moment the finger-print experts and Detective-Sergeant Curamings, who would be considered separately, there was not a witness on the side of the Crown who was in any way an interested party. On the other side, this could not be said. It was true that an "accused generally found his witnesses from among his friends or his family. Nevertheless, the fact remained that the witnesses for the defence were vety deeply interested in his acquittal. Gunn's mother | had given her evidence clearly and ! straightforwardly; it was not material, j however. His sister would naturally I try to stretch her evidence in accused's 'favour: what sister would not? Take, 1 however, his friend, who said he saw I accused outside the, picture theatre, He was in such a physical condition that he almost collapsed in the bos. Also after accused was committed for trial Jin's witlnftss went to Charles Gunn andnold the latter what he knew " to see, if he could do him any good "in his own words. A person of the temperament and the physical condition of this witness could not be expected to be certain of the time at which he saw accused, and the difference of & quarter of an hour might easily determine whether it was possible for Gunn to have committed the murder or not. The witness would perhaps unconsciously be inclined to put the time more in favour of the accused. The same op- ' plied to Charles Gunn as to his sister, Mrs. Skinner. This was the character of the witnesses for the defenCe. j

Tho suggestion had been made that the witness Hughes might have been more or less under the influence of drink. Though there had been plenty of time to gather it, not one tittle of evidence on this head had been brought, nor had Hughes, himself been asked the question in tho box, If that suggestion were made in the ease of Hughes, how much more mictht the 'same have been said of Dennis and Charles Gunn, and its effect on the reliability of their evidence ? Ho did not wish to suggest that, however.

The Notebook Episode. The suggestion had been made by Mr. Reed, under instructions, that an alteration might have been made in DetectiveSergeant Cummings' notebook. Mr. Heed on inspecting tho book had at once declared there was no foundation for tho statement. That was tho sort of material that was put in the hands of counsel for the defence. It threw an atmosphere of suspicion over the whole of tho defence. If those were the sort of instructions they had to give to their counsel, that reliability could be placed on their evidence ?

I The Expert Evidence. I Expert evidence had been attacked, continued Mr. Martin. With very much of what had been said, anybody accustomed to practising in tho courts would agree Where the same set of circumstances was laid before fully qualified experts, however, did their conclusions disagree? No 'instance had been quoted of fully qualified and honest experts disagreeing on identically the same facts. The quotation from Taylor on Evidence, in which export testimony was attacked, was after all only the opinion of an English County Court judge. It was not an authority in the sense that the judgment of a Court was an authority in law. Experts were only liable to give a decision for the side which had placed the facts before them, because that side would put before them only the facts which would give the decision their way. Tn assessing expert evidence tho two inquiries to be made were whether the experts wore fully qualified, and whether all the .a/-t< were placed before them. A Lonely Chief Justice. Dealing with tho remarks made by the Victorian Chief Justice, as quoted by counsel for the defence, Mr. Martin said that there was, so far as he knew, not a single other judge in the world who had agreed with the Chief Justice. His own colleagues had disagreed with him. An application in that case was made to tho High Court of Australia for lcavo to appeal aeainst the conviction on the grounds that the finger-print evidence wa s the only evidence of identification. Leave to argue the question was refused by the Chief Justice of the Commonwealth. It said the Chief Just-ice in effect, that identity could be established by means of finger-prints, which woro an "unforgeable signature." This was recognised practically all the world over. "I invite you to say, gentlemen, whether anything could have been fairer than the way in which Senior Sergeant Dinnic and Inspector Fowler gave their evidence in the first instance,' declared Mr. Martin, Had either of them shown signs of straining for a conviction! The qualifications of both were! beyond doubt

>■ The feat of Inspector Fowler in!' finding Gunn's pint from 1000 others had been described as no. test. '.';■«■ It was not meant as a test. Inspector Fowler .had just arrived from Sydney/ Ho had not given evidence in the lower .Court,, and they knew nothing of his qualifications. The accused's counsel wag • given the opportunity to see his qualifications made plain. The form in which the experiment was performed' was . decided by accused's counsel, He chose the print and himself placed it in the bundle. Could any test in reality have been more conclusive? .It had been" said that all"exports were on one side, and there was no means of testing their evidence. But there was ample opportunity, which .was not used. The defence, had actually " forged" a finger print. Why did they not carry this further, produce half a dozen of these "forged" prints, and challenge the cx«, ports to detect tho fabrication among genuine prints ? Why had they nob done Oils? Because they had no doubts of the capability of the experts, or of their honesty. • This case did not depend upon any partial' print. It depended upon two prints each of two different fingers, found on the boxes and revolver. If the Courts had found that a jury was justified in convicting on one portion of one thumbas they had decided— much imore would they be .justified in deciding on **wo prints of each of two separate fingers.

The Theatre Programme. i After traversing much of the evidonce. Mr. Martin dealt with what ( Gunn had! had to say in the box concerning tho proSammo at tho theatre on the night of r. Braithwaite's death. He had said there was a gazette, of which he could remember nothing, a comio picture, and the "Breed of Mon." It turned out there was an Australian Gazette, & magazine, a scenic film, and thon the "Breed of Men," which could not bo on until about nine o'clock. He submitted that, the theory of the Crown, that Gunn did not get there until -considerably later than he alleged, was the more credible. Gunn gayo none of the details, and stated one fact which proved' to be wrong. Also, on the evidence of the manager of the theatre, Gunn could not have got into the theatre when ho said ho did, because there was no room, and a .queue of people was waiting. The Situation Reviewed. " How then, does' the case stand?" pursued Mr. Martin. Mr. Braithwaito was murdered; the bullets came from the re'volver produced; the keys wero taken from the dead man; the post office was opened with those keys; and on tho boxes in the post office were four specimens of what tho Chief Justice of Australia had called the " unforgeablo signature of tho accused; if he did not .commit the murder, whore did he got the keys I On the revolver also, pursued counsel, ' there was another specimen of that "unforgeable signature. The onlyevidenco against that was accused's own statement, "1 was- at the pictures." . ( Proceeding' to the moment of Gunn i arrest, Mr. Martin asked, if ho was able to account for the afternoon in such detail, why was it that for the evening there was a blaak, save .for the statement that he went to the pictures? With regard to the palm print on the cash box, the prosecution did not know whose it was. There was nothing to compare it with. The accused was asked for a print of his palm, and refused it. What would an innocent man have done? Other finger-prints wero found on tho box, those of Mr. Braithwaite and of members of tho staff. These were identified and declared. Why did accused refuse and say that even without his counset's advico he would have refused? Would it not havo been a golden opportunity to test the capability of these experts, and would not an innocent man havo given the imprint? Summing up the evidence, Mr. Martin said: Do not the facts point to one con'elusion.and one only? If you think they do, you are bound bv tho oath you havo sworn, and by your duty to your country to bring in one verdict only, irrespective of what may result. Mr. Martin concluded after having spoken for two hours and five minutes.

" Judge's Summing Up. . The thoroughness with which the evidence had been adduced and discussed by counsel, said His Honor in summing up, wouid relieve him froml the necessity of dealing with it in the detail that ho would otherwise have had to. The duty of the jury was not to ttttke a general inquiry concerning the death of Mr. Braithwaite. but to determine whether the Crown had proved that Dennis Gunn had killed him. Traversing what waa known of tho circumstances surrounding Mr. Braithwaite's death. His Honor said it might reasonably be' in/erred that only one man was concerned. It might also reasonably be inferred that only one man was there. Mr. Braithwaite was killed for the sake of his keys. They could not be obtained in any other way. It was reasonable to infer that the man who killed Mr. Braithwaitc went to his house with a pistol for the purpose of killing him, and that he afterwards went to the post office. He detailed what might reasonably be expected to have occurred at the post office, stating that he had so done because it also might reasonably be supposed to have been the work of ono man. That was not. material in one sense, but it Vas most important if it pointed to tho inference that the murder and the burglary were the work of the same man.

The Hour of the Crime. As to the hour, it was no doubr. somewhere in the region of eight o'clock. "So far you have* one man at tho house and one man at the post office, So far you have not been asked to connect any man with the affair. Now, gentlemen, you are asked to believe that Dennis Gunn is the man," proceeded His Honor. Tho Crown claimed that tho police had found on the cashboxes and the revolver the marks of accused's fingers as unmistakoably as if he had left his signature there. Traversing the claims made for the invariable differentiation of tho prints His Honor concluded that what the expert witnesses advanced was that neither race nor family predetermined the pattern', and that in their experience neither the position of the ridges nor tho distinctive, points varied. Counsel for tho defence had complained that tho fingerprint evidence was the testimony of expelts and that there was no opportunity of obtaining other expert evidence to counteract it. The same thing might have been said ut any time in the last" 17 years. In his own rather lengthy experience of legal business no one had produced a conflict of evidence regarding finger-print*. So far as the witnesses knew, so far ,v Judges knew no conflict of evidence had ever been found. Others had had Outlives at stake in this way—in other countries if not in New Zealand—and others had had their liberty nt stake, but no one had produced a conflict. An Apt Illustration. So far as invariability of prints was eoncorned, there were points ranging from 40„ down discovered in those produced. Illustrating the chances of these coints corresponding in other prints, His Honor drew the parallel of the number of different ways tho twelve jurvmen could be arranged in their seats. With eiulit. of them, ho explained, there were 40,000 different arrangements, and with twelve, the number ran into millions. What wit« the chance of the jury arranging itself in exactly tho same way twice, supposing they took their places by (banco each* time they came in? In the light of this what were the chances of the number of points discussed in the prints being found in the same relative position in other prints? The Crown asked the jury, having regard to the fixity of the points on the human finger, to consider the probability of tho points indicated occurring on anv fingers other than those of accused. They went further and asked the jury to say whether it was not even morn unlikely that there wero three' fingers such as those described, on the hand of any man savo the one they designated. Tho ultimate decision of this point rested entirely with the jury. Had the man accused left a hat or other article in the post office, he would be called upon to explain his movement* and its prosenco there. The Crown case was that in the placo of some such article the accused had left his finger-prints which.

had been unmistakeably ;'identified." It! was claimed that there could hot be two seta of prints showing "«the 'points the police had identified; Circumstances might had the jury . to reject Borne of these joints, but the- '-.- experts ' said ■ there were more than enough to establish identity; It was not for him to express an opinion' on that, said His Honor. ... ; '. Different from Outside Experts, ' It had been urged to the jury that the finger-print witnesses were experts, and that it was natural for experts to take a side, and to stand by that side. His own experience, His Honor added, had fully confirmed that' opinion. But" had they that impulse in this case? He read out an opinion from the English bench iff which it was stated that professional experts often showed a bias, conscious or unconscious, towards tho side by .which they were engaged; and generally paid. This was the more so in that, while under oath, (hoy were called upon merely to express opinions. Was this the position in this case, asked His Honor. SeniorSargt. Dinnie was a permanent official of the Police Department in New Zealand. Inspector Fowler was in the same position in New South Wales. ( Both, in consequence, were in *& position different from the ordinary expert witness.. It was as fa\r to the prisoner as to the Crown that Inspector Fowler should hive been brought over in order that two opinions might bo given. If there had been only ono finger-print, there might have been a conflict of ovidonce. But the Crown did not rely on only one print. There was one produced upon which they did not rely at all. They had placed other prints before the jury, marking tho pomto, and asking tho jurymen not to rely on points which were doubtful. They left the determination to the 'jury. That was a very different thing from relying upon the sort of expert evidonco which had been condemned. The case which the Crown put before the jury was whether a man, putting his fingers on a box left enough to identify him, and upon them fell the duty of deciding. To his,mind the rf.-al point to be determined was the relative position and value of the characteristics, and then the likelihood of the same set of points occurring in that position on two different fingers, in accordance with the law of probabilities. The whole thing was subject to th e law of probabilities if the jury was satisfied thatf the occurrence and position of points on a finger *wcr e fixed in accordance with a biological law. Crown's Case Must bo Flawless. The jury had heard counsel for the dofence in cross-examination and in criticism of the evidence. This part of the case must bo considered very carefully, especially if it pointed to any flaws, for a casa of the kind turned upon its being flawless so far as the Crown Was .concerned. The jury was asked by the Crown to say that the murder and robbery were committed by ono and tho same man, and tliat the man who left his prints on the cash boxes was. tho man. They were asked also to believe that of the many houses round tho district where the proceeds of the robbery and the revolvers were found 'the guilty man lived in one particular house. The case for the Crown depended ultimately on finger-prints, but he did not know that it depended on the finger-print on the revolver. If there were no revolver, but the jury was satisfied that tho one man who committed the burglary was the accused, they might not need the revolver or the print on it. The Accused's Evidence. A few words would now be devoted to the accused's evidence, continued Hie Honor. It was a trying position for him to be in. They would remember he was asked to give a print of the palm of hie hand, so that it might be eden if it was the same as thofiprint on the box, which was said to be identifiable. Why had the young man refused ? It roust be remembered that finger-print evidence was used as ranch to clear suspects as to convict thsra. If the palm-print had not been the accused's, that fact might not have, cleared him, but it might havo gone a long way in that direction. Every allowance could be made for a man in accused's position. They were entitled to consider, however, what an innocent man would have done in 'ihoee circumstances. He did not care to ittreesHhat, said His Honor, but the jury could not overlook it, and had to consider whether they attached any motive to it.

The Evidence ot an Alibi.

In regard to the evidence of the alibi, it was mostly a family matter. Without going deeply into that, he would say that in the interests of friends people often persuaded themselves of the truth of mistaken estimates in regard to times and dates. If the jury credited the Angerprint evidence, that in itself was an answer to the alibi. It was for the jury to say how much importance they attached to the family evidence. Now, concluded His Honor, he had said all he wished to say about the matter. The jury had heard the evidence, had hearfl a very able defence, and the summing up on behalf of t'he Crown. Tho decision was in their hands. They represented the highest institution in the State. They had been drawn from the jurymen of Auckland to decide the case according to their conscience, and ho had every confidence that they would do so. A case of the kind could not be decided in the light of its consequences, but purely in the light of reason and iho evidence put before them.

The jury then retired, and returned their verdict as stated.