Page:The Trial, at Large, of William Booth and his Associates.pdf/27

 if these proofs brought home to their minds the conviction that the prisoner was guilty of forging the note in question, it would be for them to say so. This note was proved to have been in the trunk which prisoner had directed John Ingeley to bury on the day when the officers came to his house; for it had been shewn that when Dorothy Ingeley came to him, and told him that the runners were coming, the first act of the prisoner was to direct Ingeley to take that trunk and bury it.—His Lordship then stated in what manner the house was fortified, and the way in which the officers were obliged to obtain entrance—the situation in which the prisoner was found—the implements and materials found in the house, every thing necessary for making paper, with the water-marks similar to those of the Bank of England, the plates, the lines, the small stamp or punch, the rags, the pulp, &c. &c, were all there: and putting all these together, the question was, whether they proved that the prisoner, with the assistance of those about him, did make those forged Bank notes, or whether all these things could be in that house, and so used, and the different articles so buried, without his knowledge, if he forged the notes in that trunk, then he must have forged the note in question, that being one of them. To be sure, the proof against the prisoner was circumstantial, but even in murder, as well as many other offences, the offenders were often found guilty on circumstantial evidence, which might be more satisfactory than the bare proof of the fact, as less liable to be invented.

The Jury almost immediately returned a verdict of Guilty.

On the same day, WILLIAM BOOTH and GEORGE SCOT were tried, upon an indictment against the statute of the 13th of his present Majesty, for making paper, and having in their possession and using a mould for making paper, with words "Bank of England" therein.

Mr. said, this salutary Act was passed for protecting the Bank of England, this mark being in their paper for the purpose of distinguishing it from other paper—the charge against the prisoners was for making such paper, for having possession of a mould for that purpose, and for using such mould. It was sufficient if he