for the cause. They were let in by the daughter Clarice, and found the body of Mr. Hiller lying near the bottom of the stairway, his nightgown saturated with blood. The shooting occurred about 2:25 a. m. The witnesses who reached the house shortly after found three revolver cartridges undischarged and two leaden slugs. Neither of the shots fired had lodged in the body of the deceased, one entering the upper part of the left arm and passing out through the shoulder and neck, and the other entering the right breast and passing out through the lung and heart. Shortly thereafter Mrs. Pickens, going upstairs to get a cover for the body, found particles of sand and gravel on Florence's bed near the foot. the same effect. It was testified that the holes in the sleeves of the shirts, which were introduced in evidence as exhibits, were continuous with this fresh cut in the arm. The officers took Jennings to the station on the street cars, and when examined there, sand was found in his shoes. Jennings, when arrested, first told the officers that he lived at 1244 State street, Chicago, and later 577 Twelfth street; that he left for Harvey about 7 or 8 o'clock the evening before to visit friends, and that when he started to return from Harvey, about 12 o'clock, not finding a street car, he had walked back to that point. In August, 1910, Jennings had been released on parole from the penitentiary at Joliet, where he had been sentenced on a charge of burglary. He had been paroled before, but had been returned for a violation of the parole. Two weeks after his second parole, on August 16, 1910, he purchased a new 38 caliber revolver, giving his name as Will Jones, of Peoria. On September 9th following he had pawned this revolver for $2 under the name of Will Jackson, getting it back September 16th. On the 18th he pawned it to Elroy Jones, a saloonkeeper, getting it back about 7:00 p. m. on the night of September 18, 1910. It was this revolver that the officers found on Jennings' person when he was arrested. It was loaded with five cartridges, which were marked, "A. P. C. 38 Smith & Wesson." The testimony showed that these cartridges were identical in appearance, size and markings with the three undischarged cartridges found in the hallway of the Hiller house near the dead body. Jennings testified that he had not fired the revolver since he owned it and knew of no one else firing it. The officers testified that in their judgment it had been fired twice within an hour before his arrest, arriving at this conclusion from the smell of fresh smoke and the burned powder in two chambers of the cylinder. Later, chemical tests and the evidence of a gunsmith corroborated this testimony that the chambers contained burned particles of powder. About three-quarters of a mile east of the Hiller house is Vincennes road, running southerly, with a slight inclination to the west, and which is occupied by a street car line. This street is intersected at 103d street by the tracks of the Panhandle railroad, which run southerly, with a slight inclination to the east. The street car line connects with the Chicago City Railway system at Seventy-Ninth street, and extends in a southerly direction from 103d street through Blue Island to Harvey, about 8% miles south of 103d street. On the west of Vincennes road, at 103d street, is a crossing gate. Early in the morning on which the murder occurred, four police officers, who shortly before had gone off duty in that neighborhood, were sitting on a bench just north of the gate, waiting for a north-bound street car. The gate was up, so that the officers were not easily seen by one approaching from the south. About 2:38 a. m., Jennings approached the place from the south. The officers spoke to him, and he continued walking for a few steps with his right hand in his trousers pocket, holding a loaded revolver. They searched him and took the weapon away. They did not know at this time of the murder. Jennings was perspiring, and the officers testified that fresh blood appeared at different places on his clothing. About three inches above his left wrist they found a slight wound, fresh and Over the objection of the plaintiff in error bleeding slightly. Jennings told the police- evidence was admitted to the effect that men that the blood came from a wound on his about 2:00 a. m. September 19, 1910, just left little finger, received from falling off the before the shooting of Hiller, some one enstreet car at Seventy-Ninth street the eve- tered the McNabb house. Mrs. McNabb was ning before, when he was on his way to Har- awakened and saw a man standing in the vey. Dr. Clement, who examined Jennings door with a lighted match over his head. about half-past 3 that morning at the police The man was tall, broad shouldered, and station, found the wound on the little finger very dark. He came over to her and placed scabbed over and not of recent origin. He his hand on her shoulder twice, then put also found the wound on the left arm fresh his hand under her clothes against her bare and bleeding, clean cut, with recent blood body. She kept shoving his hand away, coming from it, not coagulated. The doctor and cried out, "What is the matter?" The testified that it looked like a bullet wound man did not reply, but went to the dresser and not like an injury received from falling and stood there a minute and then went off a street car. Dr. Springer also examined down the stairs. Jessie McNabb, a daughter, Jennings, and his testimony, so far as it cov- who occupied the same bed with her mother, testified he wore a light-colored shirt and figured suspenders; that he was large, with broad shoulders. From the shirt and suspenders which were introduced in evidence, and from the build of Jennings, she was of the opinion he was the man that was in their room. Mrs. McNabb also testified that she thought the man in the room was Jennings, from his size and build and from what she saw of him. Jennings was 6 feet tall and weighed about 175 pounds. About 12:05 o'clock on the same morning, Clarence Halsted, living at 11,303 Church street, one block west of Vincennes road and about a mile and a quarter south of the Hiller house, was awakened by a man entering his bedroom window on the ground floor of his residence. The intruder, while he sat on the window sill with one leg in the room, lighted a match. When he saw Halsted, who had raised himself in bed on his elbow, he swung out of the window again. Halsted jumped up and grabbed at the man, his right hand catching in the curtain and | his left hand in the pocket of the man's coat. As the man pulled away he tore the pocket of the coat off from the right side, thus breaking loose. Jennings' coat was found thus torn when he was arrested. Halsted identified Jennings as the man in question. Jennings told several witnesses that this tear was caused by his fall from the street car, and he and his half-brother testified at the trial that it had been torn by the door of a sand car falling against him on the Tuesday preceding the murder. While Jennings told several witnesses, at the time of his arrest, that he left Chicago on the evening of September 18th to go to Harvey about 7 o'clock, he testified on the trial, and one or two other witnesses also testified, that he did not leave the downtown part of the city until after 10 o'clock on Sunday evening, September 18th. He stated once or twice after his arrest that he went to Harvey to visit acquaintances named Robinson, and gave the officers to understand that after visiting with them he missed the street car and walked back. The state proved by the Robinsons that he did not call on them on the night in question, and later Jennings testified in his own behalf that he knocked at the Robinsons' door and no one responded, so he went to a place called Phoenix, a short distance from Harvey, where he visited a saloon. No other witness corroborated him as to his presence in Harvey, Phoenix, or at any other point south of the Halsted residence on the night in question. He denied being at the Halsted house, the McNabb house or the Hiller house, or having anything to do with the shooting. When arrested he denied that he had ever been arrested before, giving his name as Will Jones. Mrs. Hiller testified that their house had which was the last part done, being completed on the Saturday preceding the shooting. Entrance to the house had been gained by the murderer through a rear window of the kitchen, from which he had first removed the window screen. Near the window was a porch, on the railing of which a person entering the window could support himself. On the railing in the fresh paint was the imprint of four fingers of some one's left hand. This railing was removed in the early morning after the murder by officers from the identification bureau of the Chicago police force and enlarged photographs were made of the prints. Jennings, when returned to the penitentiary for the violation of his parole, in March, 1910, had a print of his fingers taken and another print was taken after this arrest. These impressions were likewise enlarged for the purpose of comparison with the enlarged photographs of the prints on the railing. Four witnesses, over the objection and exception of counsel, testified that in their opinion the prints on the railing and the prints taken from Jennings' fingers by the identification bureau were made by the same person. Their testimony will be referred to later. The plaintiff in error insists that reversible error was committed in receiving the testimony of Halsted, Mrs. McNabb and Jessie McNabb. [1] The general rule is, that evidence of a distinct substantive offense cannot be admitted in support of another offense. Farris v. People, 129 Ill. 521, 21 N. E. 821, 4 L. R. A. 582, 16 Am. St. Rep. 283; Addison v. People, 193 Ill. 405, 62 N. E. 235; People v. Cleminson, 250 Ill. 135, 95 N. E. 157. But to this rule there are several well-known exceptions. If evidence is admissible on other general grounds, it is no objection to its admission that it discloses other offenses, even though they are the subject of indictment. 1 Roscoe on Crim. Evidence (8th Ed.) 138; People v. Hagenow, 236 Ill. 514, 86 N. E. 370; People v. Molineux, 168 N. Y. 264, 61 N. E. 286, 62 L. R. A. 193. "Whatever testimony tends directly to show the defendant guilty of the crime charged is competent, although it also tends to show him guilty of another and distinct offense. A party cannot, by multiplying his crimes, diminish the volume of competent testimony against him." State v. Adams, 20 Kan. 311. The test of admissibility is the connection of the facts proved with the offense charged. Billings v. State, 52 Ark. 303, 12 S. W. 574; People v. Walters, 98 Cal. 138, 32 Pac. 864; State v. Sebastian, 81 Conn. 1, 69 Atl. 1054; 1 Wigmore on Evidence, § 216. Evidence which has "a natural tendency to establish the fact in controversy" should be admitted. Commonwealth v. Merriam, 14 Pick. 518, 25 Am. Dec. 420; Lanphere v. State, 114 Wis. 193, 89 N. W. 128. One of the well-known mission of evidence as to collateral crimes with robbery. On the trial one Martin and is when evidence of an extraneous crime tends to identify the accused as the perpetrator of the crime charged. 6 Ency. of Evidence, 677; People v. Molineux, 168 N. Y. 268, 61 N. E. 286, 62 L. R. A. 193. When an alibi is disputed it is admissible to prove a collateral offense to prove that at the time the accused was in the vicinity. Wharton on Crim. Evidence (8th Ed.) § 47, note 1; 21 Cyc. 900, 901; State v. Johnson, 111 La. 935, 36 South. 30, and cases cited; Richardson v. State, 145 Ala. 46, 41 South. 82; State v. Bates, 182 Mo. 70, 81 S. W. 408; Johnson v. Commonwealth, 115 Pa. 369, 9 Atl. 78. [2] In view of plaintiff in error's statements, after his arrest and before the trial, as to his whereabouts on that night, it was competent for the state to prove that shortly before the crime was committed he was near the scene of the crime, even though when seen by some of the witnesses he was engaged in the commission of other crimes. The evidence objected to tended strongly to contradict his statements as to his whereabouts at that time. his wife and daughter, who had known the accused for 10 years, testified that he came to their house at night with his face wrapped in red flannel and ordered them to deliver up their money. They testified positively to his identification, recognizing his voice. The court held the testimony competent, and affirmed the judgment. It has been frequently held that a witness may testify to a person's identity from his voice or from observing his stature, complexion, or other marks. See 1 Wigmore on Evidence, § 660, and authorities cited in note 1; State v. Lytle, 117 N. C. 799, 23 S. E. 476. This testimony was competent. The weight to be given it was a question for the jury, in view of all the other circumstances and evidence in the case. [4] It is further contended that the evidence as to the comparison of photographs of the finger marks on the railing with the enlarged finger prints of plaintiff in error was improperly admitted. No question is raised as to the accuracy of the photographic exhibits, the method of identifying the photographs, the taking of the finger prints of the plaintiff in error or the correctness of the enlargements, as shown by the exhibits It is earnestly in introduced in evidence. No case [3] It is further insisted in this connection by plaintiff in error that the evidence of Halsted, Mrs. McNabb, and Miss McNabb was inadmissible because of the uncertain char-sisted, however, that this class of testimony acter of the identification. A great deal has is not admissible under the common-law rules been written and said in the past concerning the doubtful nature of testimony identifying persons. Men's faces, like their handwriting, may be so similar that the keenest observer may be baffled in seeking to discover differences. "The witness," says Wharton, "is asked how he knows that the prisoner at the bar is the person who fired the fatal shot, and his answer is, I infer it from a similarity of eyes, of hair, of height, of manner, of expression, of dress.' Human identity, therefore, is an inference drawn from a series of facts, some of them veiled, it may be, by disguise and all of of evidence, and as there is no statute in this an investigating commission from the United States, on whose favorable report a bureau was established by the United States government in the war and other departments. Four witnesses testified for the state as to the finger prints. William M. Evans stated that he began the study of the subject in 1904; that he had been connected with the bureau of identification of the Chicago police department in work of this character for about a year; that he had personally studied between 4,000 and 5,000 finger prints and had himself made about 2,000; that the bureau of identification had some 25,000 different impressions classified; that he had examined the exhibits in question, and on the forefinger he found 14 points of identity, and on the second finger 11 points; that in his judgment the finger prints on the railing were made by the same person as those taken from the plaintiff in error's fingers by the identification bureau. [5] When photography was first introduced it was seriously questioned whether pictures thus created could properly be introduced in evidence, but this method of proof, as well as by means of X-rays and the microscop2. is now admitted without question. Wharton on Crim. Evidence (8th Ed.) § 544; 1 Wigmore on Evidence, § 795; Rogers on Expert Testimony (2d Ed.) § 140; Jones on Evidence (2d Ed.) § 581. We are disposed to hold from the evidence of the four witnesses who testified, and from the writings we have referred to on this subject, that there is a scientific basis for the system of finger print identification, and that the courts are justified in admitting this class of evidence; that this method of identification is in such general and common use that the courts cannot refuse to take judicial cognizance of it. Such evidence may or may not be of independent strength, but it is admissible, the same as other proof, as tending to make out a case. Edward Foster testified that he was in- If inferences as to the identity of persons spector of dominion police at Ottawa, Cana- based on the voice, the appearance, or age da, connected with the bureau of identifica- are admissible, why does not this record tion; that he had a good deal to do with justify the admission of this finger print tesfinger prints for six years or more; that he timony under common-law rules of evidence? had special work along that line in Vancouver The general rule is that whatever tends to and elsewhere in Canada; that he had stud-prove any material fact is relevant and comied the subject at Scotland Yard; that he petent. People v. Gray, 251 Ill. 431, 96 N. began the study in St. Louis in 1904 under Thayer's Prelim. Treatise on Evia Scotland Yard man and had taken about dence at Common Law [1898 Ed.] 226. 2,500 finger prints; that he had studied the timony as to footprints has frequently been exhibits in question and found 14 points of held admissible. Wharton on Crim. Evidence resemblance on the forefinger; that the two (8th Ed.) § 796; 1 Wigmore on Evidence, § sets of prints were made by the fingers of 413; State v. Fuller, 34 Mont. 12, 85 Pac. the same person. 369, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 762, 9 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 648, and note. In Carleton v. People, 150 Ill. 181, 37 N. E. 244, 41 Am. St. Rep. 346, on a trial for arson, evidence of footprints near or leading to a barn and their correspondence with the feet of the accused was held competent. It was also proved that the accused was lame and walked with a kind of hop, and that the foot he limped on corresponded to the irregular tracks in the field. See Jones on Evidence, (2d Ed.) § 400; 1 Wigmore on Evidence, § 660, and note 2; State v. Ah Chuey, 14 Ner. 79, 33 Am. Rep. 530, and note; Commonwealth v. Pope, 103 Mass. 440. Mary E. Holland testified that she resided in Chicago; that she began investigation of finger print impressions in 1904, studied at Scotland Yard in 1908, passed an examination on the subject, and started the first bureau of identification in this country for the United States government at Washington; that they have over 100,000 prints at Scotland Yard; that she also had studied the two sets of prints and believed them to have been made by the fingers of the same person. Michael P. Evans testified that he had been in the bureau of identification of the Chicago police department for 27 years; that the bureau had been using the system of finger print impressions since January 1, 1905, and that they also used the Bertillon system; that he had studied the question since 1905 or 1906 and had made between 6,000 and 7,000 finger prints; that he had charge of the making of the photographs of the prints on the railing; that in his judgment the various impressions were made by the fingers of the same person. All of these witnesses testified at more or less length as to the basis of the system and the various markings found on the human hand, stating that they were classified from the various forms of markings, including those known as "arches," "loops," "whorls" E. 268; Tes [6] It is further insisted, as we understand the briefs and oral argument, that expert testimony on this subject was not permissible. Expert testimony is admissible when the subject-matter of the inquiry is of such a character that only persons of skill and experience in it are capable of forming a correct judgment as to any facts connected therewith. Yarber v. Chicago & Alton Railway Co., 235 Ill. 589, 85 N. E 928. It is, an elementary rule that where the court or jury can make their own deductions they shall not be made by those testifying. Evans v. People, 12 Mich. 27. Expert evidence is not confined to classed and specified professions, but is applicable wherever peculiar subject are required to explain results or to | trace them to their causes. McFadden v. Murdock, 1 Ir. Rep. 1867, C. L. 211. Expert evidence is admissible when the witnesses offered as experts have peculiar knowledge or experience not common to the world, which renders their opinions, founded on such knowledge or experience, an aid to the court or jury in determining the questions at issue. Taylor v. Monroe, 43 Conn. 36; Ellingwood v. Bragg, 52 N. H. 488; Rogers on Expert Testimony (2d Ed.) § 6; 1 Greenleaf on Evidence (Lewis' Ed.) § 280, and authorities cited. are within his own knowledge, yet there is no rule that requires him to speak with such expression of certainty as to exclude all doubt in his mind." 1 Greenleaf on Evidence (Lewis' Ed.) § 440. Opinion, so far as it consists of a statement of an effect produced on the mind, becomes primary evidence, and hence admissible whenever a condition of things is such that it cannot be reproduced and made palpable in the concrete to the jury. 1 Wharton on Crim. Evidence (8th Ed.) § 459. It has been said that a witness must not be examined in chief as to his belief or persuasion but only as to his knowledge of the fact. "As far as regards mere belief or persuasion which does not rest upon a sufficient and legal foundation this position is correct, as where a man believes a fact to be true mere [7] From the evidence in this record we are disposed to hold that the classification of finger print impressions and their method of identification is a science requiring study. While some of the reasons which guide anly because he has heard it said to be so; but expert to his conclusions are such as may be with respect to persuasion or belief as foundweighed by any intelligent person with good ed on facts within the actual knowledge of the eyesight from such exhibits as we have here witness the position is not true. On questions in the record, after being pointed out to him of identity of persons and of handwriting by one versed in the study of finger prints, it is every day's practice for witnesses to the evidence in question does not come with-swear that they believe the person to be the in the common experience of all men of common education in the ordinary walks of life, and therefore the court and jury were properly aided by witnesses of peculiar and special experience on this subject. same or the handwriting to be that of a particular individual, although they will not swear positively, and the degree of credit to be attached to the evidence is a question for the jury." 1 Starkie on Evidence (10th [8] It is objected that some of these wit-Am. Ed.) 172; Wharton on Crim. Evidence nesses were not qualified by such special experience. The question of the qualification of an expert rests largely in the discretion of the trial court. Bonato v. Peabody Coal Co., 248 Ill. 422, 94 N. E. 69, and cases cited. There can be no arbitrary or fixed test but necessarily only a relative one, dependent somewhat on the subject and the particular witness. 3 Wigmore on Evidence, § 1823, and cases cited. (8th Ed.) § 459, note 2; Underhill on Crim. Evidence (2d Ed.) § 55; 1 Wigmore on Evidence, §§ 656-659. In Ogden v. People, supra, this court, in discussing the identification of a defendant by his voice, said (at page 601 of 134 Ill., at page 756 of 25 N. E.): "The statement by the witnesses for the prosecution of a fact which they ascertained through the sense of hearing was not the statement of mere matter of opinion, but the and primarily from an operation of the sense of hearing. A witness can learn and know facts by and through the exercise of his perceptive faculties-his five senses-and such facts he may state. City of Aurora v. Hillman, 90 Ill. 61. It was a question of fact for the determination of the jury whether or not the testimony in question sufficiently established the matter of identification." While it is usual for expert witnesses to testify that they believe or think, or in their best judgment, that such and such a thing is true, no rule of law prevents them from testifying positively on such subjects. It is for the jury to determine the weight to be given to their testimony. [9] These witnesses were qualified to testi-statement of a conclusion reached directly fy as experts on this subject. In view of the knowledge and experience of men in identifying by footprints as compared with their knowledge and experience in identifying finger prints, it is manifest that opinions by experts might be entirely proper as to the latter class of testimony when they would not be with reference to footprints. The jury, if the facts were all stated, would be able to draw conclusions as to footprints as well as could expert witnesses. Thus, the case of Heidelbaugh v. State, 79 Neb. 499, 113 N. W. | 145, and others of like nature relied on by counsel, do not conflict with the conclusions we have reached in this case that the opinion evidence of the experts on finger prints was competent. [10] It is further insisted that some of the witnesses testified positively that the finger prints represented by the photographs were made by a certain person whose finger print impressions had been photographed, enlarged, and introduced in evidence, when they should have only been permitted to testify that such was their opinion. "In general, though a It was further insisted on oral argument and in the briefs of the plaintiff in error that the evidence is not sufficient to support the verdict. [11] Neither the motion for a new trial nor any exception thereto was preserved in the bill of exceptions, and therefore the sufficiency of the evidence here to support the verdict cannot properly be raised. People v. |