CAUGHT NAPPING

New Zealand Times, Volume LII, Issue 12247, 19 September 1925, Page 4

CAUGHT NAPPING

DETECTIVE’S CLEVER MOVE AN ARROGANT YOUNG THIEF “I DON’T WANT TO HEAR YOU" It is asserted amongst criminologists that the two surest things in life are death and fingerprints. The enterprising burglar who allows his thumb to make an impression on the object of his intentions is both a fool and a knave, and should be known to the everwatching polioe. The hunters of the wrongdoers have made a scentific study of fingerprints, and their research into those tale-telling' marks have been the downfall of many a person, who has embarked on a career of crime. Such proved the undoing of Leslie Daniel Berry, a well-dressed young Sydneyite, who had assurance enough to move mountains. He met hie master, however, in Chief-Detective Kemp at the. Magistrate's Court yesterday morning. Berry was charged before Mr J. G. L. Hewitt, S.M., with attempting to obtain by false pretences a suit of clothes valued at £ll 11s from Henry Gotlieb by representing that he was a member of the firm of Henry Berry and Co., Ltd. “CONNECTED WITH BIG FIRMS” The chief-detective said that the accused visited the complainant’s shop on August 29th, and inspected various cloths before selecting a material that caught his fancy. He told the tailor that he was a member of the firm of Henry Berry and Co., Ltd., but left without getting measured. After a few days had elapsed the complainant wondered what had become of his client, and he communicated with Henry Berry and Co., who denied that the accused had any connection with them. On being approached by Detectives Jar. rold and McLennan the accused stated that his father was a big business man with an establishment at the corner of Castlereigh and Hunter streets, Sydney, and denied having represented himself as a member of .the Wellington firm. However, this point of evidence would also he proved by a Mr Sim, of Magnuß Motors, Ltd., who met the accused at the Waverley Hotel. There the latter told him that he was a son of William Berry, of the firm of Henry Berry and Co., and had been sent over to look into the affairs of the Wellington branch. The chief-detective said that whether the attempt was a definite one or a mere preparation did not matter. Evidence was then called along the lines indicated above, and His Worship, in reply to the accused’s counsel, Mr W. E. Leicester, said that there was a technical case to answer. ACCUSED IN THE BOX CONFRONTED WITH FINGERPRINTS. “No doubt the accused will he able to give an account of what he meant,” said the chief-detective, wishing to get him into the box. The detective, dur ing the time the accused had been on remand, had sent his fingerprints over to Sydney, and unknown to the accused or. his counsel had come into the court with a list of previous convictions in Australia. In answer to Mr Leicester, accused said that he was a bookkeeper by occupation, and had come over on behalf of his father’s firm to look into prospective businesses in land agency. His firm would be guided by whatever steps he took. Then came the bombshell. “I don’t want to hear you,” said the accused when the chief-detective questioned him on the previous convictions—two for theft and three while a juvenile. “It may not he very palatable to you, but I am going to ask you a few questions,” replied the detective. The accused had an extraordinary lapse of memory for a while, but being questioned by tile magistrate admitted the previous convictions. He still denied the charge of misrepresentation. The chief-detective: Do you ask the court to take th« word of a confessed prejurer against that of the other witness ? The accused: Yes. However, His Worship held that the case had been proved. Ha would take into consideration the fact that the accused had not obtained the suit, and would fine him £2. The chicf-detective said that he would look into the Undesirable Im migration Restriction Act to see if he could not he sent back to Sydney. ■ar ■ " -ii