CAMERA EVIDENCE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXVI, Issue 23504, 15 November 1939, Page 8

CAMERA EVIDENCE

! [IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES f JUDGE COMMENTS ON VALUE [BY TELEGRAPH PHESS ASSOCIATION] , _ CHE.ISTCHTJRCH, Tuesday The desirability of identifying nbsent parties in proceedings by their photographs rather than by their signatures was emphasised by Mr. Justice Northcroft during the hearing of an undefended divorce case in the Supreme Court this inorning. - When the marriage certificate was produced, the Judge asked the petitioner when he had last seen his wife's signature. The petitioner said he had his wife's signature on an insurance paper.; - " I do not propose to set myself up a.", an authority on handwriting, but there- does not 'seem to bo anj-thing distinctive about this signature," said the Judge an referring to the marriage certificate. " There was a time when identity was always established by photographs. It is surprising they are riot used more often. With a multiplicity of photographs, it ought not to be difficult to revert to tho practice of former years." " Unfortunately in this case there are no photographs available," replied counsel. " It seems an unusual affair," the 'Judge observed. "Most people are photographed ad naiiseum." Identification of the signature was accepted, however, and tho decree was granted. • '