Trustees Records, Vol. 1, 1835 (page 148)

148.

Charges against Gate Keeper- Report on continued.-

by W^m Ward Esqr against Mr Hyde, the gate keeper at Mt
Auburn, have had a hearing the parties & beg leave to report
That in relation to the first charge (the refusal to admit Mr
Ward's carriage) Mr Ward seemed to be aware that he was not
entitled to enter the grounds with his carriage & complained
not so much of his exclusion, as of the manner in which
it was done. It appeared in evidence that Mr Ward rep-
resented the hack as a carriage belonging to Mr Henshaw
but shew no ticket, & on being refused entrance threatened
that he "would make trouble" for Mr Hyde for present
and past offences. Mr Ward had no right to drive into
the gate & was very properly excluded. It is not improbable
that Mr Hyde finding that an imposition was about
to be practived upon him, and supposing that Mr Ward
would order the carriage to be drive in, shut the gate
with what appeared to Mr Ward an "offensive allacrity," but
it does not appear to your committee that it was done " in
a manner rude cruel & uncalled for." or that any blame
attached to Mr Hyde on that occasion.

The next charge is in the opinion of your Com^ee of a
more serious nature character. Mr Ward states that he had
from time to time given the gate keeper money on leaving
the Cemetery. This Mr Hyde does not deny but says that
not unfrequently money is thrown to him by persons leav-
ing the grounds, but denies that he ever received money
for admission. In the opinion of your Com^ee the recieving
of money at the gate at any time, is highly improper &
should be discontinued. Mr Ward however is the last person
who should complain "he does not come into Court with clean
hands", he attempted a bribery and then complains that

148.

Charges against Gate Keeper- Report on continued.-

by W^m Ward Esqr against Mr Hyde, the gate keeper at Mt
Auburn, have had a hearing the parties & beg leave to report
That in relation to the first charge (the refusal to admit Mr
Ward's carriage) Mr Ward seemed to be aware that he was not
entitled to enter the grounds with his carriage & complained
not so much of his exclusion, as of the manner in which
it was done. It appeared in evidence that Mr Ward rep-
resented the hack as a carriage belonging to Mr Henshaw
but shew no ticket, & on being refused entrance threatened
that he "would make trouble" for Mr Hyde for present
and past offences. Mr Ward had no right to drive into
the gate & was very properly excluded. It is not improbable
that Mr Hyde finding that an imposition was about
to be practived upon him, and supposing that Mr Ward
would order the carriage to be drive in, shut the gate
with what appeared to Mr Ward an "offensive allacrity," but
it does not appear to your committee that it was done " in
a manner rude cruel & uncalled for." or that any blame
attached to Mr Hyde on that occasion.

The next charge is in the opinion of your Com^ee of a
more serious nature character. Mr Ward states that he had
from time to time given the gate keeper money on leaving
the Cemetery. This Mr Hyde does not deny but says that
not unfrequently money is thrown to him by persons leav-
ing the grounds, but denies that he ever received money
for admission. In the opinion of your Com^ee the recieving
of money at the gate at any time, is highly improper &
should be discontinued. Mr Ward however is the last person
who should complain "he does not come into Court with clean
hands", he attempted a bribery and then complains that