BURGLARY AT PEROA.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18631, 12 February 1924, Page 5

BURGLARY AT PEROA.

FINGER-PRINTS . DEPUTED. y' : y -■ <• 1 » %!' REHEARING OP THE CUBE. . DOCTOR CELLED FOB DEFENCE. , ' The re-trial of George Scothem (Mr, Mcßiver), farmer, of Ka-akati, on charges of breaking and entering with intent to commit a crime and theft, and recording, was heard by Mr. Justice Heidman in the Supremo Court yesterday. The cm* was originally tried by Ilia Honor on Tuesday and Wednesday last, when (he juiy filled to agree. Accused pleaded not guilty. Mr. Patorson, lor th« Crown, said that early in the morning of November 7 the Farmers' Union Traders' store at Paeroa was broken into and an attempt was made to blow up the sale. Finger-prints stated to be those of accused yere found on the glass of a door of the store. Identification by finger-prints was now known to he an exact science. Patient investigation over a long period of years had shown that no two persons had the same pattern markings on their fingers. Thers was, further, a number of circumstantial facts against accused. The manager of the etc re heard two explosions in the early hours of the morning, and upon going into the street saw accused outside the store. He wished him "Good morning" twice, but accused •walked away, without responding. Accused, when arrested at Faeroa railway station, had in his bag tobacco similar to that stolen from the store. An electrio torch was found near the safe, with finger-prints j imposed upon finger-prints, so that there | was no. clear prints for identification. It was not shown that accused had such a torch. John Joseph Gallagher, assistant in the criminal registration department, at Wellington, gave evidence of the three fingerprints on the glass. He found one clear impression. which proved to be identical with that of the right little finger of accused. He had found 12 points of similarity between the finger-print on the glass and the print taken by the polio© from accused. He had no doubt they, were the prints of one and the same person. Cross-examined, witness said he had been seven years in the finger-print department. He could definitely say whether prints were identical or not. Do you consider the imprint of the distinct finger-print is ft good one -The centre of it is. The rest is not. Did you find the other finger-prints did not show sufficient -[joints of resemblance to say they belonged to accused ?—I found several points of similarity in on© that would satisfy an expert. 1 On what did you base your assumption of identification? the ridge characteristics. Remarks by the Judge. After counsel had further questioned witness, His Honor raid the only question was whether the finger-print on the glass was identical with the finger-print. .taken by the police. He would tell the jury : that police officers had given finger-print evidence and it had bean accepted by juries and Judges. . To His Honor, witness said that whan they got so many resemblances they would not get any differences in finger-prinfft. Hii Honor: This is a system that has been in vogue all through Sew Zealand? Ye»; since it was first made use of in 1903. . v Addressing the jury, Mr. Mclaver said he would mdeavoirr to establish that there were marks in the finger-prints that were entirely distinct. He would submit that the print was little, better than a smudge. * Accused gave evidence of his movements on the date in question. He arrived at Paeroa, he said, on November 6. Later that evening he decided to walk to Waihi. He got! as far as Karangahake and then decided to return to Paeroa. His Honor: Why did you not stay at Karangahake -There is ho place to stav at, that I know of. You walked five miles to Karangahake and five miles back?— Yes; I rested on the way. Did' you go to sleep?— Yes. f How many times did you rest ?Five or six times, and three or four times I wantto sleep. .: V tv Witness, continuing, said he got back to Paeroa about 4.55 a.m. on November 7 and went to the station. He mat three or four people, including a motor car, with two men in it. Cross-examined, witness : denied borrowing money from a hotel-keepe/, to meet a cheque that had not been honoured He admitted he wafc ' familiar with explosives, as he had used them on his farm. He had no idea what time he got to Karangahake. He could not describe the three men ho saw in the street. i - < . Thcinas Tieraey spoke 'of accused as a hard-working, '• honest man. •• f , K. Question of Dissimilarity, ! ."Dr. G. de Clive Low stated he believed in finger-prints as a method of identification only in con unction with other mea- - surements. He had carefully - examined ; the photographs of the finger-prints in the case, and the first point he noticed was that they had been trimmed. They , were not the full photographs. His Honor: I have seen hundreds, and they have always been trimmed. : t ■ ■ ; Witness, continuing, said it - was necessary, in making an investigation,. to ex-, amine the lines, the intervals between the lines and ridges, and he . incurvature of the ridges. Witness then described the dissimilarities which he stated he had: found. The curving of the lines wes : not the same, neither was : the spacing the sama. There was not the same number of ridges. \ By means of the official photograph, witness indicated 11 - instances ~in .which - he had, he said, found f a difference and .he gave particulars of the measurements. In five instances the "points were similar. . He had found dissimilarity after* dissimilarity. He did aot agree that the whole practice in fin jar-print identification was in, the; points of : similarity. Most decidedly it was not a case of the more points they got of similarity the ■ more certain it was that tha finger-prints were identical. If one point of dissimil- • arity appeared in two finger-prints examl ined together they were not of the same finger. ■ '

His Honor: The odds against . ten similarities being found in impressions of two different people is over a million tc one. Here twelve points of similarity have been ' pointed " out. ' What about . the million, - > to one change?; Has the witness pointed out the points of dissimilarity ? That ia •what the caso hangs on. " "I should say they are not made by one and the same finger," was the closing remark of witness in regard' to .the. two finger prints. The case was adjourned till to-day.