That the system had taken root was soon evidenced by many newspaper paragraphs of subsequent date. Here is a bit of every-day evidence from a criminal case which resulted in conviction. It appeared in the columns of the _Daily Chronicle_, as far back as December 2nd, 1903. Many such cases were never reported at all. The witness, we are told, had “not the slightest shadow of a doubt that the finger-prints of Elliott were identical with those in the records of Scotland Yard. He might be considered an expert in the matter of finger-prints. Altogether he had dealt with about 500,000 cases of finger-prints.” To this report may be added a sentence from that of _The Times_, of the same date: “He had never known the finger-prints of different persons to agree.” The witness is significantly described as Detective-Sergeant Collins, of the Finger-Print Office, Scotland Yard. At a later date the same witness (now Inspector Collins), bearing evidence as to the Houndsditch murders, stated that they had now 170,000 different sets of prints recorded. He added that, “During the last ten years, since the introduction of the system in 1901, they had made upwards of 62,000 identifications and recognitions, and, so far as he knew, without error. They dealt, therefore, with pretty large numbers, and he was justified in saying that he had never found two impressions of different fingers to agree.” [_The Daily Mail_, February 25th, 1911.] In _The Daily Mail_ of August 10th, 1910, Inspector Munro, of the Finger-print Department of Scotland Yard, in giving evidence that an imprint on a broken window was that of the accused’s right middle finger, added: “There had never been any mistake yet in finger-print identification.” One Cris Keegan, who received five years’ penal servitude at Dublin in June, 1910, had left a finger-print on a broken church window at Rathmichael. His counsel, pleading guilty for him, said: [_The Daily Mail_, June 10th, 1910] “That when, before the magistrates the accused supplied the best testimony to the finger-print system which it had yet received, by saying ‘The taking of these finger-prints is the greatest invention for the detection of criminals. I throw myself on the mercy of the court. I did visit the church.’” This poor man had been convicted forty times before. Mr. William Henry, a witness in the case, who was in charge of the register for criminals in Dublin castle, said, “he had put through his hands about 150,000 finger-prints, and no two had ever been found alike. This system of identification had now superseded all other methods, and he regarded it as infallible.” Witness, having examined the prisoner’s fingers in the dock, then said, “the finger-print on the glass had been made by the prisoner’s right fore-finger.”