<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2008-05-05</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Emma Leeson Huber</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>Proofed and reviewed as part of batch Z080411.pdcc.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="OX" ID="B02601">
<STC T="W">C968</STC>
<BIBNO T="oclc">52211922</BIBNO>
<VID>175491</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="text">
<PB REF="1" MS="y"><!-- PDF PAGE 14 -->
<HEAD>The Ca&s;e of R. Gee, <ABBR>E&s;q</ABBR></HEAD>
<HEAD TYPE="sub">Humbly recommended to the Commons of <HI>England,</HI> a&s;&s;em|bled in Parliament.</HEAD>
<P>IN the la&s;t Se&s;&s;ion of Parliament, there was exhibited a Peti|tion to the Hou&s;e of Commons, by the Hackney Coach|men again&s;t <HI>R. Gee,</HI> and other Commi&s;&s;ioners for the Regula|ting of Coaches, complaining again&s;t the &s;aid <HI>R. Gee</HI> for &s;everal Mi&s;deameanors by him committed, contrary to the Directions of a late Act of Parliament, Entitled, <HI>An Act for Licencing and Re|gulating Hackney Coaches and Stage Coaches,</HI> &amp;c. charging the &s;aid <HI>R. Gee,</HI> one of the Commi&s;&s;ioners, as follows.</P>
<LIST>
<ITEM>1. For refu&s;ing Licences to per&s;ons qualified by the Act.</ITEM>
<ITEM>2. For granting Licences to per&s;ons not qualified by the Act.</ITEM>
<ITEM>3. For licen&s;ing above 700.</ITEM>
<ITEM>4. For exacting more Money than the Law allows.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>The matter was taken into Con&s;ideration, but &s;o intricated, with a Confu&s;ion and Contradiction of Witne&s;&s;es, fal&s;e Sugge|&s;tions in the Evidence, and other Irregularities in the manner and order of the Proceeding, that <HI>R. Gee</HI> addre&s;t him&s;elf, by Peti|tion, to the Honourable Hou&s;e of Commons for Redre&s;s, com|plaining of hard mea&s;ure (to fall under a Sentence that looks like a Conviction of Perjury, without &s;o much as one Witne&s;s upon Oath) and only de&s;iring to be heard upon the matter in Que&s;tion, the &s;aid Petition was tender'd to the Hou&s;e, but other bu&s;ine&s;s intervening, it fell to the ground.</P>
<P>By this di&s;appointment the Petitioner finds him&s;elf, now in a manner forced upon a Second Application to the &s;ame Authority, and upon the &s;ame Account, not doubting of &s;uch Encourage|ment from the Wi&s;dom and Equity of the Hou&s;e, as &s;hall be found agreeable to Honor and Ju&s;tice at lea&s;t if the&s;e following Articles, which the &s;aid <HI>R Gee takes upon him&s;elf to make good, may be admitted in proof of his inocency.</HI> As under favour for in|&s;tance.</P>
<LIST>
<ITEM>1. There is a dead man produced for a Witne&s;s.</ITEM>
<ITEM>2. A Witne&s;s &s;aid to be &s;ummoned and appear, that was nei|ther &s;ummoned, nor did appear.</ITEM>
<ITEM>3. A Charge exhibited impo&s;&s;ible to be true.</ITEM>
<ITEM>4. Witne&s;&s;es heard <HI>ex parte.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>5. A Copy of the Defendants Charge promi&s;ed them, and then forced to an An&s;wer without it.</ITEM>
</LIST>
<P>The&s;e are &s;ome few Exceptions, of many, to &s;ave time and trouble; and <HI>R. Gee</HI> humbly &s;ubmits him&s;elf upon the whole to this Impartial Equity, <HI>either to be repair'd in his reputation, if he make good his charge, or to &s;uffer if he does not.</HI></P>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
