SUPREME COURT.

Timaru Herald, Volume LXXXII, Issue 12669, 4 May 1905, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

Par Press Association. ■ WELLINGTON, May 3. At the Supreme Court this morning, Archibald Morris, for theft, was .sentenced to 12 months' irnprisonment, to take effect at the end of the. sentence he is now serving. . Henry Walthers, "Dutch Harry," for breaking and-, entering and the.t, was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment. Robert McCarry, for attempted arson, was sentenced to two-years and six months imprisonment ..,-'".. CONVICTED BY FINGER-PRINT. At the Supreme Court to-day John Clancy, a young man, was charged with breaking and entering and'theft at Wellington "on February 23rd. 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 go3d rings and two brooches, the • property of Mary Ann Williams. The case is unique in New Zealand, the sole evidence for the prosecution was the print/of part of a finger-tip alleged to have been left by accused on a window pane of the house broken into. Counsel for the Crown said that the case was a very important one to the public. Theft was generally discovered by the way stolen property was 'disposed of by an offender. In this instance, however, such was not the case. The stolen property had jjot been recovered. As for the accused he had not been seen in the locality of Mrs Williams' dweliing-house on the day in question. The Crown would prove its case beyond possibility of doubt solely upon the 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 the Police Department. The result of the comparison was that twenty four characteristics corresponded. The possibility of mistake was 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 bv the department's officers it was a reasonable inference that that print belonged to the man who. went into the house; and further reasonable inference was that the man entered, the house to commit a crime. The prisoner was found guilty of breaking and entering, and was remanded for sentence. -..-■-