FINGER PRINTS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 2695, 14 February 1924, Page 3

FINGER PRINTS.

VALUE IN THE COURTS. •JUDGE’S VIGOROUS DEFENCE Auckland. February 11. Finger print evidence in its relation to criminal cases was well to (lie fore in the trial of a man before Mr Justice Herdmnn at the Supreme Court last week on a. charge of breaking, entering and theft at Paeroa. A broken piece of glass from a door, bearing finger prints alleged by the Crown to be those of the accused, was produced in Court. Mr M‘Liver, prisoner’s counsel, addressing the jury, quoted a statement made by an Australian Chief Justice some years ago that finger prints supplied the kind of evidence which was particularly dangerous as carrying with it an atmosphere of mystery. His Honour, interposing, said that that view had been condemned by every Judge in New Zealand, and Mi’ Paterson, who appeared foT the Crown, remarked thajt every Judge in the world had condemned it. His Honour said the statement by the Chief Justice mentioned bad been made use of by various counsel when defending prisoners, but it had been, universally condemned and was of no value at all. It was a great pity it could not be removed from the law books of Australia. Finger print evidence as a means of identification was of supreme value. Sir Frederick Chapman had pointed out that finger markings remained absolutely unaltered from birth to death, unless they were destroyed by scars. When it came to having four or five points of resemblance. continued His Honour, the evidence was extremely valuable. Throughout British countries to-dav, he thought finger print evidence, where there was a number of points of resemblance, was regarded as most complete evidence of identification. The statement made by the Judge in Australia must be disregarded by juries when considering a matter of (hat kind. Despite expert police evidence that there ivas linger print evidence to show that the prisoner had handled the broken glass <>f the door of the premises, counsel contended that while the expert had said there were twelve points of similarity between the print on the glass and accused’s finger prints, obtained by' the police, no mention had been made of (be number of dissimilar features in the two prints He added that it was impossible for the accused to produce an expert who could say whether (he police expert was right or wrong.