FINGER-PRINT EVIDENCE

NZ Truth, Issue 1239, 29 August 1929, Page 4

FINGER-PRINT EVIDENCE

Tell-tale Clue Oh The Bottle Could Not Be Disputed

FIVE YEARS FOR GRAVE CRIME

(Erom "N.Z. Truth's" Special. Christchurch' Representative).

Though New Zealand has had its own finger print branch attached to the Criminal Investigation Department for many years, its work, has not often been brought to light m criminal trials, though it has been the means, of running many wanted men to earth.

THE system is more often used m cases of robbery and crimes of violence, but a new one was put

'over by' the ' department a few days ago m Christchurch where a man.; arrested for ah attempted offence iri respect of a young boy, had one of his previous offences . traced to him by means of his finger-prints. The accused, a young man named Adolphus James Curline, though denying his guilt, had. his crime, one of ah unusually abominable nature, sheeted home to him, and for the next five years will pay the penalty for his depravity. -

The police brought a strong case against him, supported by the testimony of Claude Montague Francis, a finger-print expert; attached- to the C.I.D. m Wellington. ...

He stated that a set of fingerprints of. Curline's forwarded from Paparua gaol were identical with those taken from the' bottle which the police had found m the washhouse m Barbadoes Street, where the offence occurred, there being twenty-four points of similarity.

Mr. Frank Sargent, who appeared for Curline, raised the defence of mistaken identity, drawing attention to the fact that the boy had identified Curline by his green teeth and by a soldier's coat he was wearing.

■Curline actually did. not haye green teeth, and the police had visited his lodgings after he was arrested, and had not found a military coat.

' : Though . Detective-sergeant E. F: O'Brien had given evidence to the effect that Curline had not touched the bottle once it came into the possession df the police, counsel • suggested that

there was a possibility of Curline having picked up the bottle and thus left his finger-prints on it.

Mr. Justice Adams, m a brief summing, up, commented that the orjly evidence oh this point was , quite definite that Curline had not been allowed to touch the bottle.

The. jury deliberated for over three hours before deciding to convict the accused on both charges. "The repulsive details m this case are probably the worst I have had the unhappiness to listen to m this court," said the Judge m sentencing Curline to five years' imprisonmet.