SAVED BY THE MOON.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19947, 15 November 1926, Page 7

SAVED BY THE MOON.

THE WEATHER AND CRIME. LINCOLN AS AN ADVOCATE. An assistant of the Astronomer-Royal, Greenwich Observatory, was a witness in the Divorce Division of the Royal Courts of Justice a short time ago. He was rsquired to give evidence as to the state of the moon on certain dates vital to the petitioner’s case. Unknown to most people, weather experts are called as witnesses in a large number of court cases. Some of these experts are officials of the Meteorological Office, or, as in the instance quoted above, of the Royal Observatory. Others have no official standiHg, but are recognised private authorities on weather conditions. In one important law suit the precise moment of the setting of the sun, sworn to by an expert, was an essential feature of the evidence. The case arose out of a motor accident, one of the parties to which declared that the glare of the sun on his wind screen prevented mm, at a given moment, seeing the approach of another car, and thus avoiding the crash. Abraham Lincoln, who early in his career practised as a lawyer, proved the innocence of a man charged with murder, by producing expert testimony to show that on the night of the crime the moon was full and bright. Directly as the outcome of this evidence, given by a prominent weather student, the prisoner escaped the gallows. Another case in which moonlight was a vital factor was that, in which a Russian murdered a man and afterwards fled to England, whsre he was arrested. Ihe evidence was so conflicting that finally the meteorological departments of the two countries were consulted by Scotland Yard. Records showed that on the night of the murder there was bright moonlight all over Northern Europe. As a result of this, it was contended that the murderer could not have escaped recognition by those witnesses who. although they admitted having seen him, declared that they did not recognise him. In the end the man was extradited and eventually paid the penalty of his crime. , , The weather expert’s testimony, in fact, is often sought on this question of visibility. Recent investigations by a number of authorities show that, in broad day. a person with average eyesight is able to identify persons well known to him at a distance of about 300 ft. At 250 ft he will be able to distinguish the approaching person’s eyes, vvhile limb movements are observable at anything up to 400 ft. At distances hsyond 2500 ft it is practically impossible to detect movement of any kind. A burglar got his deserts not long ago as the outcome of meteorolqgical evidence Two residents in the house that was robbed swore that they had a clear view of the burglar in a vivid flash of lightning. Tire burglar’s case was that the flash was not sufficiently vivid to permit of his being seen. Weather experts were called to show that, not only was the lightning in that particular storm unusually vivid, hut that.the most intense flash of all occurred at the exact moment sworn to by the witnesses for the prosecution.