The Sun.
London, England, 1821-11-28 00:00:00

PI PSTAFFS' FEES.

A person named :Salsbury on a former day' obtained a .rul4
calling upon Mr. Gibbons, the Chief J.ustiee's• Tipstati, to an-
swer the matters of an affidavit, which complained that Mr.
Gibbons had demanded and taken of him a fee of half a guinea;
for taking him tas we'understood) frOm the Judge's chambers
to the King's Bench Prison, to be charged in execution. . •
ultitEi* and Mr. PLATT now produced affidavits on
behalf of Mr.- Gibbons, which chewed that the fee in question
was such as had.alwaya been taken by his predecessors, and
had been allowed by the Masters of both. sides of the C-outt
in the taxation of costs. \o-less than 500 respectable Attorneys
bore testimony to Mr. Gibbons' uniform good conduct, and ad-
mitted that this fee had always been paid to the officer, and al-
lowed by the Masters of the Court on the taxation of costs.
The COURT, after referring to the statute, 4 -Geo. 11. for the'
regulation of Gaolers' Fees, were of Opinion, that as Mr.
bons was appointed- to hisofficoby the Marshal of the King's
Bench Prison, he must be considered as that Gentleman's
officer, and therefore had no right to take the fee; and order-‘.
ed it to be returned to the -applicant, with costst but they
completely acquitted Mr. Gibbons of any improper, or undue
motives.

THE KING V. THE WEST MIDDLESEX wATER•wOHIs

COMPANY.

This was.a rule obtained in last Michaelmas Term, by alr.
• Brougham, calling. upon -the defendants to shcw cause why a
mandamus should not issue, commanding them again to lay
pipes for the supply of water .to the Parishes of St. Pancras,
31arylebone, anti Paddington, at the rates formerly chaMei.l.
This apPlication; it will be recollected; arose out Of the compe-
tition between certain Water Work Companies 'in the Metro- •
polls, who undertook to supply the western part of the Metro-,
polls with water, and they respectively laid on pipes in different
parishes for that purpose, charging very moderate rates. Find-
ing that to continue the supply of water on such toms, would
soon be attended with utter ruin to all parties concerned, they
pulled up the pipes, and refused to supply water any longer un-
less higher rates were paid. This was resisted on the part of
certain individuals, two of whom applied to this Court for the
mandamus in question, for the purposes above-mentioned; and •
the question was, whether upon the due construction of the Act
of Parliament, which erected the defendants into a•Corporation,
the mandamus would lie ? .
Mr. SCAHLETT and Mr. DENMAN- resisted the motion, and
Mr. LITTLEDALE, Mr. BROUGHAM, and Mr. 11. COOPER.
were heard in support of it.
The CpuitT were clearly of opiniisn that a mandamus would
not lie for the purposes mentioned. It might lie to compel the •
defendants to supply water at reasonable and proper rates, pr 0,...
vided a proper ground were laid before the Court for that pur-
pose ; but according to the terms of the Actof Parliament,' a
mandamus, in the-large and extensive terms now prayed for,.
could not be granted. If the Act of Parliament was ineffectual •
for the purposes intended by the Legislature, recourse must be.
had again to the wisdom of Parliament, to amend any defects lilt
the present enactrnents of the statute. •
Rule discharged without costs. • -
[For the Proceedings in the Court of Common FleaS,' &c. see
the Fourth Page.] ". •
. _