Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

FINGER PRINTS AS
EVIDENCE.
CHARGE OF BREAKING AND
ENTERING.
ACCUSED COMMITTED FOR TRIAL.
Sydney, April 28.
A good deal of time was taken up this
morning at the Newtown Police Court by a
case in which finger print evidence was relied
on. Denis Carney (34), a laborer, was
charged with breaking and entering, the
dwelling-house of Lydia Turtle, of King
street, Newtown, and stealing therein a
handbag, purse, wedding ring, and money.
Airs. Turtle was downstairs when the robbery
took place, the balcony room being
entered and ransacked. A box produced,
and bearing finger prints, was in the room.
Carney was arrested while at work wood
blocking in the street, and said he knew
nothing of the affair.
Sub-Inspector Childs, the officer in charge
of the finger print branch, said on April 23
the box produced was handed to him, and
he saw a finger print on it. in the afternoon
of the same day the accused was
taken to his office, and the witness took his
finger prints. After taking them he said to
the accused, "I will tell you now why I
have taken off your prints. This box was
taken from the residence of Mrs. Turtle,
at Newtown, which was entered last night.
There is a print on the end of the box
which I find is the print of your right little
finger. The accused said, "I know all about
your prints. It is not mine." The witness
said, "Yes, it is. You need not say anything
unless you like. You know that, of course.
However, your position is this There is
a print on one box I have shown you which
land others will swear is the print of your
right little finger." He said, "You ' have
got to do that to keep your job." The witness
examined the print on the . box-care-
fully, and compared it with the print of
the accused's right little finger. He would
swear that the accused was the person who
made the print on the box produced. Photographic
enlargements of the little finger
print on the box and also a similar enlarge-
ment of the accused's right little finger
prints were produced, there being duplicate
copies of each for the accused.
Cross-examined, Sub-Inspector Childs
fully admitted that the print was incomplete,
but added that there was more than
enough of it for practical purposes, and the
space in the centre did not make the
slightest difference as far as identity was
concerned. No two men had finger prints
the same, and he would swear that the
print on the box was made by the accused.
Sergeant Fowler (assistant finger print de-
tective) corroborated.
After further evidence the accused
pleaded not guilty, and stated that the
finger print on the box was not his. He
reserved his defence, and was committed
for trial to the Quarter Sessions, bail being
allowed.
$