Supreme Court

Southland Times, Issue 19551, 4 May 1905, Page 2

Supreme Court

Per United Press Association

GISBORNE, Moy 3

Panikina Carr, for theft fi'om the person, was placed on probation for two years on paying costs of prosecution, £6B ; Henare Waititi, horse stealing, probation for two years ; William Henry Tozea, carnal knowledge, 2| years. S NAPIER, May 3.

Edward Masters, found guilty of inflicting grievous bodily,, harm on his wife, was sentenced to ten years’ lienal servitude., MTSLLINGTON, May 3.

No bill was found against John Henshaw, charged with breaking and entering. Archibald -Morris, for theft, was sentenced to 12 mouths, to take effect from the end i?i a sentence he is now serving. Harry. M althexs, alias Dutch Harry, fir breaking and entering and theft, was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment and Robert McCarry, for :>t’.,empted arson, to two years' and a. half’s imprisonment.

FINGER PRINT EVIDENCE

WELLINGTON, May 3.

John Clancy was charged with breaking and entering and tin ft. The case is the first in N.Z. in which the solo evidence for the prosteution was tho print of part of a finger tip alleged to have been left by, the accused on a windovy pane of the house broken into. Counsel for the Crown said tho case was very important one. Theft was generally discovered by the way stolen property was disposed of by the calender. In this instance however the stolen property had not been recovered and as for the accused he had not' been seen in the locality of the dwelling on the day in question. The Crown would prove its case be-y-md the possibility of doubt solely upon a finger print on a piece of glass on which the print, was left, cut out by a glazier, photographed, and compared wit.h y the accused’s finger records in , the finger p- int branch of the Police Department. The result of the comparison was that twenty-four characteristics corresponded and the possibility of mistake was 1 absolutely eliminated. The Chief Justice in summing up said that if the jury was satisfied that the finger print on the glass was identical with the record put in by the department 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 .nan entered the house to commit crime. The prisoner was found guilty of breaking and entering and remanded for sentence.