Finger Print System.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIIIC, Issue 14211, 28 May 1910, Page 4 (Supplement)

Finger Print System.

FL'LL COURT ADMITS IT. The State Full Court at Sydney 01 May • lbtn was asked to say waether j or not' enlarged photugrapiis of linger prints were adimssabte in evidence against accused persons in circumstances disclosed at a trial. The matter came before came before the court byway of appeal on bthalf of Robert Stephen iiiaker against his conviction at Goulburn upon a charge of wounding a Chinese with intern:- to murder. According to the facts placed bei'or. the. com t, Ah Fung, a Chinese gardener in the employ 01 c-hun Jang, winle at work in his employer's garden near Afittagong on the -ith February, was struck, on the head and senouslv " wounded. The hut, was afterwards ransacked and some money stolen. A box belonging to Chun Jang was forced upon, and the contents scattered about the floor. Upon the b;>x the police found the imprints of a thumb, and in order to connect prisoner with the crime the Crown Prosecutor propose to show that the imprint corresponded Inspector Chi Ids, officer in charge ot with that of prisoner's thumb. "subthe finger-print department, stated he had on recuid about ■20,0; > 0 sets of finger prints, each set comprising ten | prints. As many other prints had passed through his hands. The linger- | prints of one man differed from those of every other, and the prints of the fingers of one man di.Teied amongst themselves. The print found on the box was examined and photographed. and tho prints of the | fingers of accused were taken. These witness produced in an enlarged form. and stated that, there were certain marked characteristic* in tho prints produced sufficient to enable him to say that both came from the same j thumb. . Tho-presiding judge admitted the photographs as evidenco in the ease, notwithstanding objections raised on behalf of accused that they could |no be used as evidence. It was now j submitted that his Honour was in error in admitting two photographs in evidence, on the ground that they were secondary evidence, and that the jury was not entitled to look at them. as the original printswere before the as the original prints were before the imprint of the man's thumb, and the «hotog4aph, taken by S uh-Inspect or Childs. One of the photographs objected to was an enlargement of thp print en the box, and the other an enlargement of the print photographs taken at the police office. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction confirmed, the court expressing the opinion that his Honour could i not have rejected the evidence.