Which was the party committing fraud?

Question

https://www.londonlives.org/browse.jsp?id=LMSMPS50645_n246-2&div=LMSMPS50645PS506450037#highlight

The text reads:

The King agt. Daniel Jewers on the Pros:
of John Stanway for Fraud
Duke Street oxford Tin Plate worker
The above named John Stanway acknowledge
himself indebtd. to our Sovereign
Lord the King in the sum of £40

upon Cond Etc pros: the deft. Jewers
at the next Sessionwith effect

Taken and acknowledge
[..] pent. Butler

Answer 1

I read it as John Stanway, the tin plate worker was charged with fraud.

Daniel Jewer was the prosecutor.

Comments

But was the king against (agt) Daniel's prosecution of John?

---

Daniel was acting as the King’s agent for the prosecution.

---

Or does 'agt' mean 'agent' rather than 'against'?

---

In this case, I think it means agent.

---

I don't believe it means agent. The abbreviation is used in several other documents in the same series and seems to have its normal meaning of against.(see for example  https://www.londonlives.org/browse.jsp?div=LMSMPS50645PS506450054 where the defendent is female no king's agent would be a woman (  EDIT this was not a woman as Ros points out; this one https://www.londonlives.org/browse.jsp?div=LMSMPS50645PS506450072

I agree it seems to read as if John was the defendent (thats what I first thought)   but if he was the defendent  I'm perplexed as to why it was that  he that owed the crown money. (a defendent remanded to gaol would pay gaol fees but £40 is a lot; the paupers gaol fees  charged for Dorchester gaol in the 19th C were  shillings a week There weren't really any fines. )

 It makes more sense if Jewers is about to appear in court for fraud and that the prosecution of means the prosecution brought by John Stanway.

My guess  (and it is just a guess) is that the cost has  something to do with the payment of costs for witnesses and court expenses. Note the debt is acknowleged on condition of the ''pros: the deft. Jewers.

 Until the 19th C except for a few cases such as forgery and treason the crown didn't bring prosecutions. It was the person alleging the crime who decided to prosecute and was therefore liable for  the costs of the prosecution .From the mid 1700s the court had the power to repay these costs and you often see justices awarding expenses to cover the costs of witnesses. However, until 1778 in the event of an unsuccessful prosecution the person bringing the prosecution was liable for all costs.

See http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/England_18thc./England_18thc.html

(Note; I went for that article because its well explained but it is written by an American so his comparisons are to the US today, not England )

---

I have looked more closely at it, and it does not say £40.  It is actually L10 or ten pounds - still quite a lot, but maybe the crime was a big one!

---

@Helen - in your londonlives.org link above, you said the defendant was a woman.  I only saw 'Elisha' - and that is not a female name. (Remember Elisha, the disciple of Elijah in the Bible?)

---

Whoops, thankyou Ros, carelessness loses the point.  I have edited the answer. This ones an Elizabeth.  I saw several women and looking back for one as an example missread it as Eliza!

---

Um...you've put in the same one

---

Give up Helen, go back to pen and paper : it is,  I hope correct now.

Answer 2

Presumably this is for non-payment of tax, or some other payment due to the crown.  

I read it as:

 "The Kings agent Daniel Jewers prosecuted Stanway (a tin plate worker from Duke Street) for fraud.  John Stanway pleaded guilty and acknowledged (his indebtedness) that he owed the King the sum of £40.  Conditions were attached to Stanway appearing at the next Middlesex Sessions, but (presumably he then paid the amount due with interest) those conditions were met (effect) so he then did not have to attend the next sessions"