<div1 type="SM_GOpage" id="LMSMGO55607GO556070239"> <xptr type="pageFacsimile" doc="LMSMGO556070239"></xptr>
<p n="1360"> <note type="authorial" place="margin">January 1779</note>
Secondly Whether as the Keeper of Newgate receives his appoint<obscured></obscured>
<lb></lb>
from and is under the immediate direction and Control<lb></lb>
of the Court of Aldermen of the <rs type="placeName" id="LMSMGO55607_geo1210">City of London</rs>
<interp inst="LMSMGO55607_geo1210" type="placeName" value="City of London"></interp>
<interp inst="LMSMGO55607_geo1210" type="type" value="undefined"></interp>
and as<lb></lb>
their Order of 1732 respecting the discharge of such prisons<lb></lb>
as should be acquitted without the payment of any fee<lb></lb>
the Goaler has not been repealed since by any order of<lb></lb>
the same Court The Keeper of Newgate can legally<lb></lb>
claim a right to the fee of 13s/4d by virtue of the said Act of<lb></lb>
the County <rs type="occupation" id="LMSMGO55607_occ606">Treasurer</rs>
<interp inst="LMSMGO55607_occ606" type="occupation" value="Treasurer"></interp>
for each person so acquitted and<lb></lb>
discharged out of his Custody</p>
<p n="1361">Some of the Expressions in the Order of the Court of Aldermn. made in 1732<lb></lb>
clash so much with the Report of the Committee agreed to by that Court in<lb></lb>
1744. that it is very difficult to reconcile them except by construing the first<lb></lb>
Order as meaning only to restrain the Goalers from detaining prisoners<lb></lb>
in Custody for their fees but leaving the demand in other respects as it stood<lb></lb>
before the Order. At the same time it must be allowed that the Words in<lb></lb>
the first Order directing acquitted prisoners to be "discharged without paying<lb></lb>
"any fees for or in respect thereof unless it shall be otherwise ordered by the Court<lb></lb>
(that is as I conceive by the Court in which they are tried) seem to abolish<lb></lb>
the right to demand any fee in such Case. Now if this latter be as I<lb></lb>
incline to think it is the true Construction the Question will be whether<lb></lb>
the Subsequent Order and Table of fees amount to a Repeal of the former<lb></lb>
Order as to which I am of Opinion that they do not amount to a repeal<lb></lb>
unless it can be shown that since 1744 the Goaler has frequently taken<lb></lb>
the fee set down in the Table which I believe has not in fact been the<lb></lb>
practice. The Act of Parliament certainly did no mean to create any<lb></lb>
New fees but only to give a Recompence for such as had been usually<lb></lb>
paid upon the whole therefore as it does not appear by any thing stated<lb></lb>
in this Case that any fee for discharge or Acquittal has been usually taken<lb></lb>
by the Goaler since 1732 I am of Opinion that the Goaler of <rs type="placeName" id="LMSMGO55607_geo1211">Newgate</rs>
<interp inst="LMSMGO55607_geo1211" type="placeName" value="Newgate"></interp>
<interp inst="LMSMGO55607_geo1211" type="type" value="undefined"></interp>
is not<lb></lb>
well founded in his present demand on the Treasr. of the Co. of <rs type="placeName" id="LMSMGO55607_geo1212">Middx</rs>
<interp inst="LMSMGO55607_geo1212" type="placeName" value="Middx"></interp>
<interp inst="LMSMGO55607_geo1212" type="type" value="undefined"></interp>
at<lb></lb>
all Events I shd. advise the demand not to be complied with without<lb></lb>
the determination of a Court of Law as to submit to it must fix a large<lb></lb>
and lasting Expence on the County</p>
<p n="1362">Edwd, Bearcroft<lb></lb>
Line: Inn 8th. Jany 1779</p>
<p n="1363">All which the Committee Submit Etc Etc<lb></lb>
Etc</p>
<p n="1364">And</p>
</div1>

View as Text