The principal witnesses were the wives of Robert Perreau and John Moody. Mrs. Perreau stated that she had seen Mrs. Rudd hand a bond to her husband, Robert Perreau, which was signed "William Adair." In cross-examination she admitted that she had never before seen a bond, and when asked how she could recall, after three months, the names, amounts, date, and other particulars upon it replied, "I have the happiness to have a good memory." At the same time she was unable to remember the date or sum in any other document which had been shown to her. John Moody, Daniel Perreau's servant, again gave evidence as to Mrs. Rudd's using two kinds of handwriting, and asserted that he believed that the signature of Mr. William Adair upon the bond was in the handwriting of the prisoner. In cross-examination he admitted that he had never seen Mrs. Rudd sign the name of Mr. Adair. The defence was that there had been a conspiracy on the part of the relatives and friends of the Perreaus against Mrs. Rudd, and Christian Hart, a friend of the prisoner, gave some evidence in support of this. A short speech was then made by Mrs. Rudd, who concluded with an appeal to the jury: "Gentlemen, ye are honest men, and I am safe in your hands." After a short retirement the jury gave their verdict in the following curious form: "According to the evidence before us, not guilty." For many years after these trials sides were taken for and against the Perreaus, and an appeal even was made to Mrs. Rudd to "discover the secrets of a transaction concerning which public opinion has been so much divided." It was plausibly suggested that a declaration of the fact if she was guilty could not then affect her since she had been acquitted by the laws of her country. Two years after the trial of the Perreaus and Mrs. Rudd came another notorious forgery trial, which created a still greater sensation, owing to the fame of the prisoner as a clergyman and an author. On the 8th of February the Reverend Dr. Dodd, editor of _Dodd's Beauties of Shakespeare_, once one of the King's Chaplains, and a preacher whom Sunday after Sunday fashionable London had flocked to hear, was arrested on the charge of forging the signature of his former pupil, the Earl of Chesterfield. For years he had been attempting to live in the style which he thought his position required, and had been in constant difficulties with his trades-people. At length to satisfy some of the more importunate, he borrowed £4,000 in the name of Lord Chesterfield, whose agent he represented himself to be, and gave a false bond for the sum. The manner in which the forgery was discovered is especially interesting, as being one of the earliest cases in which the appearance of the ink led to the detection of a fraud.