FINGER-PRINT PROOF.

Press, Volume L, Issue 14971, 19 May 1914, Page 3

FINGER-PRINT PROOF.

AUSTRALIAN CRIMINAL BROUGHT

TO BOOK

By means of finger-prints taken ten years ago in Western Australia, an ''habitual" Australian criminal was. yesterday, identified in the Supreme Court, and. in the light of the bad record revealed by that identification, was sentenced to five years' imprisonment. The prisoner was a powerfully-built, red-headed man named Albert Gordon Lmith. Last week he pleaded guilty to two charges of breaking and entering, but sentence was deferred to permit of his record boiug investigated.

Yesterday E. "W. Dinnie, \ fingerprint expert, stationed at Wellington, was called to give evidence. He produced finger-prints and a photograph of accused from West Australia, where they were taken in 1904. These fin-ger-prints, he declared, were identicx! with those received from Detectivo Ward as taken from accused recently. Copies of the New Zealand finger-prints had been sent to Melbourne, and in reply there had been received a photograph of accused and » record ot nis offences t!:ere.

Detective Ward deposed that on April 2nd last he took.the finger-prints of accused at Kaiapoi. ■ '■ Warder Beazloy. Lyttelton, gave evidence as to one "scar upon accused's shoulder, which corresponded with on« particular in a list of, scars forwarded trom West Australia. There were certain tattoo marks which were not mentioned, but some of these tattoo marks had been altered since they were placed there. -

His Honour said that tattoo marks could bo altered and .changed, bnt the finger-prints constituted undoubted proof of identity. The photograph from Melbourne showed that accused was known there. His Honour referred to accused's list of convictions, which showed that.be had been declared in habitual criminal in Australia and sentenced to two years' imprisonment. "If "ou had come over hero and led a respectable life," said his Honour to the K-isoner.' "I can't say you would have b?en welcomed, but at all events you would have bad no reason to appear before this" Court." It was clear, he added, that a man who, with his Australian record, took to crime again in this country, was incorriorible. Mr Macassey, for the Crown, stated that.accused had been only a week in Auckland when he had committed certain offences for which ho was to-be s°nt North to stand his trial. Wh<>n arrested prisoner had in his possession a revolver ard cartridges, as well as burglar's gloves and an electric flashlight. . . . A sentence of five years imprisonment on each of two charges was.imposed, the terms to be concurrent.