¶1 Appellant lists sixty-four assignments of error in the record on this appeal, of which thirty are based upon exceptions to the admission of evidence, and twenty-five or more upon exceptions to the charge of the court, — covey shots, so to speak. Upon these, ten questions are stated in brief of appellant, as being involved. We find, however, *616 upon careful consideration, that only a few of them require express treatment.
¶2 1. Defendant in bis brief contends that tbe court erred in admitting into evidence “pictures of tbe glass, fingerprints and other objects in explanation of tbe testimony of tbe witness,” tbe fingerprint expert. Tbis contention is based upon numerous exceptions. It is without merit.
¶3 While tbe decisions of tbis Court uniformly bold that in tbe trial of cases, civil or criminal, in tbis State, photographs may not be admitted as substantive evidence, Honeycutt v. Brick Co., 196 N.C. 556, 146 S.E. 227; S. v. Perry, 212 N.C. 533, 193 S.E. 727, tbe decisions bold that where there is evidence of tbe accuracy of a photograph, a witness may use it for tbe restricted purpose of explaining or illustrating to tbe jury bis testimony relevant and material to some matter in controversy. See S. v. Gardner, 228 N.C. 567, 46 S.E. 2d 824, citing cases.
¶4 Among tbe cases there cited is Elliott v. Power Co., 190 N.C. 62, 128 S.E. 730, in which tbis Court said: “Plaintiff excepted because certain pictures were submitted to the jury. All of these pictures were used to explain tbe witnesses’ testimony to tbe jury. It was not error for tbe court to allow tbe jury to consider tbe pictures for tbis purpose and to give them such weight, if any, as tbe jury may find they are entitled to in explaining tbe testimony.”
¶5 Defendant cites and relies upon S. v. Hooks, 228 N.C. 689, 47 S.E. 2d 234, and S. v. Palmer, 230 N.C. 205, 52 S.E. 2d 908. It does not seem, however, that tbe decisions in these cases are in conflict with tbe principles hereinabove stated.
¶6 2. Tbe next group of assignments of error treated in defendant’s brief is based upon exceptions to testimony of tbe representative of the State Bureau of Investigation, tbe fingerprint expert, given on direct examination as to comparison of fingerprints lifted from tbe broken glass at tbe scene of tbe alleged crime, and photographed by him, with fingerprints of Hubert Tew, tbe defendant here, taken by some other person, at a local prison camp, and then on file in tbe files of tbe Bureau, and that they corresponded. It is noted that when tbe testimony was admitted, defendant entered a general objection. But in tbe brief of defendant tbe .objection is expressly limited to tbe effect of tbe testimony, that is, that, by tbe admission of it, “defendant’s character was placed in issue . . . without legal justification.” It is contended that by tbis testimony tbe jury was informed that defendant bad previously served in a prison camp. — ■ which bad tbe effect of bringing bis character in issue.
¶7 Tbe well settled rule, as restated by Denny, J., in S. v. Godwin, 224 N.C. 846, 32 S.E. 2d 609, that when incompetent evidence is admitted over objection and tbe same evidence has theretofore or thereafter been admitted without objection, the benefit of tbe objection is ordinarily lost; *617 but, as stated by Brogden, J., in Shelton v. R. R., 193 N.C. 670, 139 S.E. 232, “The rule does not mean that the adverse party may not, on cross-examination, explain the evidence, or destroy its probative value, or even contradict it with other evidence, upon peril of losing the benefit of his exception.”
¶8 Applying this rule, as so interpreted, to the situation in hand, if it be conceded that the testimony to which objection was made is objectionable, testimony to the same effect was brought out on cross-examination. Moreover, it appears that the cross-examination was not kept within the bounds of the rule as above stated. It developed testimony that the State Bureau of Investigation had five sets of fingerprints of defendant in its files. And, indeed there is testimony, admitted without objection, that defendant stated that he had learned “after being arrested for different cases that it is best to keep your mouth shut.” Hence on this record these assignments of error fail to show prejudicial error.
¶9 3. The assignment of error based upon exception to denial of defendant’s motion for judgment as of nonsuit was properly overruled. S. v. Huffman, 209 N.C. 10, 182 S.E. 705; S. v. Combs, 200 N.C. 671, 158 S.E. 252; S. v. Helms, 218 N.C. 592, 12 S.E. 2d 243.
¶10 It is well established that evidence of the correspondence of fingerprints found at the scene of an alleged crime with those of an accused person, when given by a fingerprint expert, is admissible to prove the identity •of the perpetrator of the offense. See S. v. Combs, supra; S. v. Huffman, supra; S. v. Helms, supra; S. v. Hooks, supra. See also 20 Am. Jur. 329, Evidence, Sec. 357; 23 C.J.S. 755, Criminal Law, Sees. 876, 877, 878; Rogers on Expert Testimony, 3rd Ed. (Verne), Sec. 88; Wig-more on Evidence, 3rd Ed., Section 414; N. C. Evidence by Stansbury, Sec. 86 and Sec. 134; see also Annotations 16 A.L.R. 370; 63 A.L.R. 1324.
¶11 In S. v. Huffman, supra, this Court said : “The testimony of the fingerprint expert was competent as evidence tending to show that defendant was present when the crime was committed and that he at least participated in its commission,” citing S. v. Combs, supra.
¶12 And in S. v. Helms, supra, it is stated that evidence of fingerprint identification, that is, proof of fingerprints corresponding to those of the accused, found in a place where the crime was committed under such circumstances that they could only have been impressed at the time when the crime was committed, may be sufficient to support a conviction in a criminal prosecution. 20 Am. Jur. pp. 329 and 1076.
¶13 In the light of these principles the testimony of the fingerprint expert tending to show that fingerprints found at the scene of the crime corre•spond with those of defendant, taken after his arrest in this action, coupled with the testimony of Mrs. George tending to show that, though -she personally attended her service station, she did not know, and had not *618 seen defendant before tbe date of the crime, is sufficient to take the case to the jury and to support a finding by the jury that defendant was present when the crime was committed and that he, at least, participated in its commission. S. v. Huffman, supra.
¶14 4. The assignments based upon exceptions to the charge, upon careful consideration, fail to point out prejudicial error.
¶15 5. Other assignments of error have been given due consideration, and fail to disclose reason for disturbing the judgment on the verdict rendered by the jury.
¶16 No error.