CONVICTED BY A FINGER PRINT. WELLINGTON, May 3.

Otago Witness, Issue 2669, 10 May 1905, Page 18

CONVICTED BY A FINGER PRINT. WELLINGTON, May 3.

Ai the Supreme Court to-day John Clancy, a young man, was charged with breaking and entering and theft at Wellington on February 23. There were two counts — one of breaking and entering with intent to commit a crime, and the other of breaking and entering and stealing two gold rings and two brooches, the property of Mary Ann Williams. The case is unique in New Ze-aland in that it is the first in which the sole evidence for the prosecution was th-e print of part of the finger-tip alleged to have been left by accused on a window-pane of the house broken into. "Counsel for the Crown said the- case was a very important one to Che public. Theft was generally discovered by the Avay the stolen property was disposed of by the offender ; in this instance, however, such was not the case. The stolen property had not been recovered. As for accused, he had not tieen seen in the locality of Mrs Williams's dwelling-house on the day in question. The Crown would prove its ca^e beyond the possibility of doubt, solely upon a finger-print. The piece of glass on which the print was left was cut out by a glazier, photographed, and compared with accused's finger records in the Finger-print Branch of tho Police Department. The result of tho comparison was that 2 4 characteristics corresponded. The -possibility of a mistake was absolutely eliminated. The

Chief Justice, fn summing up, said if the jury was satisfied that the finger-print on the glass was identical with the record put in by the department's officers it was a reasonable inference that that print belonged to the man who went into the house, and a further reasonable inference was that the man entered the house to commit a crime. The prisoner was found guilty of breaking and entering, and remanded for sentence.