§ Lord Lyndhurstpresented a Petition from Mr. Radford Roe, an Irish Barrister, who had been convicted in Ireland, and had brought a writ of error from the judgment of the Court of King's-Bench there to the House of Lords. Upon that writ of error, his Lordship said, that that House had reversed the judgment of the Irish Court of King's-Bench. There were fees due to the officers of that House, which Mr. Roe was not in a condition to pay. Though the judgment of the Court below had been reversed, Mr. Roe was still detained in custody for the payment of the fees. Mr. Roe said, that the demand of those fees was erroneous, and he quoted some Acts of Parliament to show that they were so. It was his opinion, that these Acts of Parliament were not applicable to the present case; but he thought that the case was one of hardship, calling for some interposition on the part of the House or of the Government.
§ Earl Greyat once admitted the extreme hardship of the case. He had no hesitation in saying, that those fees ought not to be exacted. These fees did not now belong to the officers, they were now the property of the public. He thought, therefore, that they might be remitted. That had been done in a former case, and justice would be abused by a demand that they should be paid before the petitioner was set at liberty. Mr. Radford Roe proposed to bring a writ of error, but desired it might stand over. He had not been prepared, but at the trial never had been the humane fiction of the law more exemplified than on that occasion. He had not had counsel, but the Judge interfered and acted as his counsel throughout. He mentioned these facts to show that Mr. Roe had no present reason to complain of the administration of justice.
§ Petition to lie on the Table.