FINGER PRINT EVIDENCE

Te Aroha News, Volume XXVI, Issue 4308, 20 April 1907, Page 4

FINGER PRINT EVIDENCE

The value of finger print evidence for the detection of crime has been proved in numerous case®, but another instance of the value of the system came under notice at the Quarter Sessions at Sydney <a few days ago- In this instance it proclaimed the innocence of a man. Arthur Lapey confessed to a charge of house-breaking at Mosmlan on February 7 th. Another man named Peter Byrne stood charged with the ®ame offence, but as a result of Lacey’s confession and other material fact® the Crown Prosecutor announced that Ihle would not proceed further with the case against Byrne. It appeared that Byrne had been found endeavouring to dispose of «.r----tides stolen from the Mosman house, and <as the best account he could give was that he had got them from “a man 'in the street,” he was arrested and subsequently Committed for trial. His finger prints were taken, but on 'being compared with impressions found on a pane of glass broken at the time of the robbery, they were found to be dissimilar. He was, however, kept in Custody as a possible accomplice. Lacey was arrested on another charge, and when 'his finger prints were taken they were found to be identical with those on the glass from the Mosman house. Lacey was also picked out by Byrne from ten others as the man who gave him the articles. Lacey then admitted his guilt to the police. In view of the announcement of the Crown Prosecutor, Judge Murray released Byrne on his entering into a recognisance for .£SO to appear

when called upon. In sentencing Lacey His Honor complimented the Fingerprint Department upon the work which, in this case, had saved an apparently innocent man from prosecution, and possible conviction.