May Session 1790
I thing Mr. Akerman is intitled to the Fee of 14s..10d for each
convicted Felon removed by him in order to be Transported and is
intitled to be paid such Fee by the Treasurer of the County as it
appears to me to be the Fee usually paid on that occasion before the
24th. Geo: 3d. and that Act having expressly directed such Fee to be
paid by the Treasurer of the County, I do not see how this Fee
(which is not for conveying the Felon but merely a Fee for the
discharge of the Felon independant of the Expence of Removal, can
constitute any Claim against the Contractor unless Government had
imposed that burthen upon the Contractor in their bargain with him
I take it to have been originally due from Government but now
imposed by Statute on the County.
Qu: 2d. Whether if you should be of Opinion he is intitled
to it for Felons found Guilty and ordered to be
Transported for Grand Larceny Etc. you think he is
intitled to it for Persons Convicted of Petit Larceny and
ordered to be Transported Etc for till within this few years
no distinction was ever thought of and the Contractor
or Government paid the whole Expences only once or
twice when the County paid it as mentioned in the first
Query.
I am of Opinion he is intitled to the same Fee in both Cases as
as the Act of the 24th. Geo: 3d. makes no distinction as the 19 G. 3
C. 74 does but even according to the latter Statute I think the Gaoler
would be intitled to his Fee even in Petit Larceny if the Offender was
ordered to be Transported instead of being sent to hard labour.
Qu: 3d. As the Act of 24th. Geo: 3d. C56 Directs all Fees (as
have been usually paid) to the Gaoler on Transportation of
Felons together with the Expences of their Removal to be
paid by the County It also directs two Justices to Contract
and settle the Expences and as Government (as they ever
before did) have still thought proper to Contract for their
Transportation and the County are no Parties or Privy to
such Contracts can the County be justly chargeable with
the Expence so incurred.