JUSTICES DECIDE NOT TO SEND ONEPU MAN BEFORE JURY FOR RECENT BURGLARY AT HAMILL’S

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 13, Issue 5, 8 October 1948, Page 5

JUSTICES DECIDE NOT TO SEND ONEPU MAN BEFORE JURY FOR RECENT BURGLARY AT HAMILL’S

Prima Facie Case Not Established

After a lengthy Court hearing of Police evidence against Anthony Barbarieh, of Onepu, charged with breaking into Hamill’s garage on the night of August 10 and converting a car belonging to Mr P. G. Hammond, Messrs L. H. Brown S. S. Shapley, J’s P., decided yesterday that a prima facie case had not been established. They dismissed the informations.

Detective T. Sneddon, prosecuted, .and Mr B. S. Barry appeared for the .accused. Pplice evidence included the tes- , -timony of a finger-print expert from Wellington, Sergeant Jack • Colclough, officer in charge of the ‘Criminal Registration Branch at Wellington, who said he was satisfied that a palm print on two pieces' •of glass taken from Hamill’s door by Constable A. J. Puddick and sent to him by Detective Sneddon was made by the same hand as a print •of Barbarich’s left hand taken here by the Police. • • Mr Barry pointed out in his ad- < dress that, though it was’established fact that no two people had the : same fingerprints, there was no evidence before the Court that the rsame applied to palm prints. Aubrey D. O’Rourke, service manager at Hamill’s, gave evidence that when he was called to check the premises in the early hours of August 11 he found a glass-panel not far from the lock of the front door 'broken, the back door leading from the workshop and, down the ramp t-open and Hammond’s car missing from the workshop. Harold B. Johnston, foreman mechanic, corroborated. Visit To Saloon George J. Hanright, billiard saloon proprietor, said on the evening of . August 10, the accused was at the billiard saloon. He guessed that would have been between 8 o’clock and 9 o’clock. Barbarieh asked him to' change some threepences, of which he had a handful. One of Barbarich’s fingers was bandaged: He played about three games of pool before going away. Only time witness had seen Barbarieh since then Was at the police station when he identified accused as the man who 'had been at the saloon that night. 'Constable’s Evidence Constable R. F.* Julian said about midnight on August 10 he accompanied the night watchman around -the business premises, several of which had been broken into. About 1.30 a.m. he noticed a small glass panel near the lock in the front door of Hamill’s had been broken. ’'The door was locked and seemed to be jammed. Examination of the of:fice and showroom found everything .apparently in order. Upstairs in the .showroom a sliding room leading to \.a ramp was open. He called Mr • O’Rourke, who told him Hammond’s •ear ;was missing. Witness interviewed accused at -the police station on August 17, when the latter said he had nothing to hide and expressed willingmess to answer questions. ' Counsel’s Objection

Mr B. S. Barry, for the accused, ..objected to the production of the •.statement on the ground that parts of it were inadmissible. In it the . accused detailed his movements . about August 10. At the time of the interview Bar'barich had a healing wound on his left thumb, Constable Julian went • on. Fingerprints were taken. The . accused was quite frank and readily answered all questions. Palm Print Constable A. J. Puddick said he had examined the broken panel at ;HamiH’s on the morning of August 11, and found palm prints on two pieces of broken glass still in the ; panel. The pieces were later hand- . ed to Detective Sneddon. Constable J. A. Maloney, of Ham- : ilton, said that on August 11 he was • on duty at the Tauranga police station when he got a telephone message from the Whakatane police that a number of business premises had been broken into and a car stolen. \ At 11.45 a.m. that day he found the *car abandoned and parked on the side of the road in McLean Street, ' Tauranga. Inquiries in the neighbourhood showed it had been there before 7 a.m. that day. About the middle of the front seat there was . a bloodstain and there was another ■ on the gear lever. Further Objection Detective T. Sneddon, of Gisborne, - said he had .interviewed Barbarich ;.at Whakatane on August 18. Mr Barry objected to the admission of anything -the Detective obtained from the accused at that interview, on the ground that Barbarich had already made one statement and should not have been further questioned. Detective Sneddon said inquiries .at that stage concerned premises

which had been broken into and Barbarieh had been invited to explain his movements on August 10 and 11 and had done so. The pieces of glass referred to by Constable Puttick were sent to the Criminal Registration Branch in Wellington. Palm prints were taken after the accused was arrested and sent to Wellington for comparison with those found on the glass from Hamill’s door. Expert’s Testimony Sergeant Colcolugh said for the past ten years he had been continuously engaged on fingerprint work. Two of the pieces of glass sent by Detective Sneddon, when fitted together, showed a complete palm print, which he compared with.the prints taken of accused’s hand. He was satisfied they were made by the same palm. Counsel’s Address Addressing the Court, Mr Barry claimed there. v was no evidence to connect the accused with the offences alleged. Hanright’s evidence did not, because there was no evidence that any small money was taken from Hamill’s, nor that the person who broke into Hamill’s cut himself there. Dealing with the fingerprint expert’s evidence, Mr Barry said it seemed strange there was no evidence of any fingerprints. Yet sorpe must have been left by the person who broke into Hamill’s and took the car. The only evidence to connect the accused with the crime was the palm print. Though it was established as fact that no two men had the same fingerprints, he submitted no attempt had been made on this occasion to establish that the same applied to palm prints.