Page:The Trial, at Large, of William Booth and his Associates.pdf/35

 John Ingeley stated the circumstances as in the former trial, and said, on the Saturday week before he was taken he had seen Mrs. Booth and Chidlow at work at the printing press, and he described their manner of working in the same way his brother had done, and that the plate they used was similar to the one now shewn to him (a 1l, note plate—he then mentioned the directions he had received from Booth, and his planting the trunk, plates, and lines accordingly, and afterwards his shewing them to the officers, precisely as before.

Mr. Chirm proved the manner of getting into the house, &c, as in former trials, and that he saw a rolling press similar to that in Court in the chamber of Booth's house; he then gave an account of the finding the plates and trunks, as before.

Joseph Chillingworth repeated his former evidence as to getting into the house, the rolling press being in the chamber, his finding the singed notes in the chamber and parlour chimneys, and the plate shewn by Richard Ingeley.

Thomas Dale received the three plates from Mr. Chirm.

Mr. Linwood's evidence was the same as on Booth's first trial, only he did not go so much into detail: the particular part which affected the prisoners, on this charge, was the finding the rollers, boards, cloths, printing ink, and woollen boss, and Booth's situation, dress, and dirty hands, when taken.

Mr. Baker identified the boss and can in which the printing ink was contained.

Mr. Harper, engraver to the Bank of England, proved the blank Bank bills produced to be forgeries, and that they were printed from the plate now shewn to him—the plates and lines are all made of copper.

Mr. Glover, the inspector to the Bank, proved the blank Bank note set forth in the indictment to be a forgery, as well as several of the others.

No defence, or witnesses for prisoners.

The learned, in summing up the evidence, observed, that the blank Bank notes were those in which the printing part was performed, but were without signature, and the one particularly in question without date too—that there was no proof in what situation Chidlow was, but even were she a servant to Booth, that would be no excuse for her having committed this offence, for though