Evening star., 1926-11-23
WILLIE" STEVENS
PUT ON STAND At
! HALL,;M|LLS TRIAL
Brother of Henry Is Second
of Three Accused in Muir
der to Testify.
FINGERPRINTS NOT HIS,
THREE EXPERTS SWEAR
Sanberg Of District Police Identif-
cation Bureau Is Called
by Defense
By the Associated Press.

SBy the Associated Press.
SOMERVILLE, n. J., November 23
d Willie Stevens took the stand in his
f,wn defense in the Hall-Mills trial
ehis afternoon. He is the second OF
.the defendants to testify in his be-
S.alfs his brother Henry having been
tn the stand the greater part of last
Saturday.
The first question asked of Willie
was as to his age, and he answered
S44." but It was later brought out he
tneant "54."
''Mr. Stevens" asked Case. 'have
tou ever suffered from, or now suffer
from. epilepsy"
NO, sir" answered the witness,
speaking in a firm voice.
In September, 1922, or prior, did
tou wear a derby hat?"
s"No, sir"
How long have you worn glasses"
Since l was "a boy. l can't see
without them.''
''On September IA, 1922. at any time,
were you in or near North Plainfield?"
mo, sir"
DO you wear a gold watch and
ehain?"
mo, sir"
Zach answer was given in the same
tone, as Mr.. Case asked the defendant
questions intended to offset the testi-
mony of two State witnesses, who
said they saw Willie Stevens in North
Plainffeld q few hours before the
double Staying.
Drummond First Witness.
Aubrey J. Drummond, a photogra.
pher of New York City, who made
for the State the engagements of
photographs of the fingerprint on a
calling card found at the scene of
the crime, and which the prosecution
contends Is that Of Willie Stevens
left index finger, was the first wit
ness. He testified he had made en-
Iargements and photographs for the
defense Of the finger print on the
small card and Of making subsequent
engagements.
Drummond said he photogra phed
the card in the Somerset County Jail
during the present trial in the pres
ence Of Edward Schwartz, Frederick
prewen and Joseph A. Faurot, finger
print experts, who testified for the
State.
Great map.like enlargements of the
flnger prints, with the ridges and
arches looking like mountain ranges,
hills and valleys, were introduced in
evidence and kept the jurors cram
ing their necks. The jurymen
showed great interest in the exhibits.
J.H. Taylor, who said yesterday that
he had been given permission by the
Secretary of the Navy to appear as a
defense witness in the present trial,
today testified definitely that the two
prints introduced by the State were
hot those of the same person.
Uses State Prints.
1t was largely on this f1ngerprint
evidence that the State had sought to
place Willie Stevens at the scene of
. the crime. Three fingerprint experts
for the State had testified that the
smprint on the calling card was that
OF Willie Stevens.
EnlargementS Of the States own
fngerprint figures were used by Tay-
lor during his testimony. One of the
enlargements was of a known photo
graph of Willie Stevens left index
finger, while the other enlargement
was of a photograph Of the fingerprint
on the calling card found at the scene
of the crime.
Taylor said that the print developed
from the calling card showed abrupt
ending of ridges in two places. while
on the print taken from Willie's fin
TO an abrupt end.
In two other places the calling card
print showed a bifurcation and a dot
respectively. while the official print
from the finger had no such mark
tngs at corresponding places.
Shows Other Differences.
At another part the official print
showed two lines between correspond
ing points, while that taken. from
Wilie's finger showed four.
Attorney McCarter then asked one
Of the longest questions Of the trial
II gave the history Of the calling card
from the time il is supposed to have
been dropped at the scene Of the kill
tnes up until Wednesday of the neXt
week, and asked If the exposure
handling and delay in developing the
print would not have made it almos
impossible for any print left on the
card to have survived.
Taylor said that the greater par
of the perspiratton which made the
print would have been obliterated oil
absorbed, in his opinion, by sucf
usage and delay in development.
Are these the fingerprints of the
same person?" asked McCarter in di
rect examination Of Taylor.
They are not" answered the wit
ness.
A large easel had been set up in
front of the jurors and two enor
.nously enlarged photographs OF
fingerprints were placed on It. The
one known to be the defendant
ffngerprint was in bold outline with
the ridges showing dark and heavy
while the other one was less pro
nounced in its contour.
Not the Same, He Insists.
The State in presenting this phase
Of its evidence had contended that the
! difference was because one was made
carefully, while the other one. that