The Iowa transcript. (Toledo, Tama County, Iowa) 1858-1866, 1861-01-10

service demanded. Or for any services
rendered, he may retain any papers or
documents in his possession in and
about Which he has bestowed labor,
until the reasonable value Of said SER
vic shall be paid. Thus il the Clerk Of
the Supreme Court, or u Justice or the
Peace, is required to issue m execution,
hc may either demand the prepayment
of his fee therefor. OF refuse to deliver
the snn,c after it, preparation, until
such Zee shall be paid. After the first
Of January 1861, the law tchapter 20,
Article :, Revision Of ls6o) Provides
4 fee bill for the Clerk Of the District,
Court /: and after the first Monday III
the same Mouth. there is Il similar pro
vision for the County Judge article 4,
Chapter 29.) When these provisions
shall be i'll force, therefore, all difficulty
rs To these officers will he removed
Under Section 3l40, these costs, il
accrning in az action pending III Court,
are to be recovered by the successful
against the losing party. As to the
fees Of the Sheriff, the difficulty is not
obvia,ed. Nor can the Supervisors
under the power given by clause "a,
Chapter 81, fix these fees. That pro-
vision primarily has reference to such
eases as arc contemplated in Section
43O-whcrv the clerk renders services
for which, no fees arc provided. It was
not intended to confer tho powc: Of pro.
viding al entire fee bill for all officers,
| when none had been provided BY The
Legislature. The language that they
shall not only fix the compensation.
but also provide for the payment Of
| the same" shows that it contemplated
those eases where payment was to be
mule from ,hcComnty Treasury.
It has been suggested that Section
alG5 gives the Court power 10 fix tho
compensation 1T its officers. This See
ton is found III Chapter 1870, which
LAYS down some general rules on The
subject 1T costs in judicial PROCEEDINGS,
And after giving these general rules
Section 1906 provides that if i ease
shall occnf not embraced II tie express
provisions III the law, neither directly
nor by fair implication, the eonvt may
make such IiSlnstian IT tie cps's, IS i;
liz sound discretion ,nne seem right
This, rs We cons,rua i, only gives tn
power to dispose If tho costs ii. amy
tease which may arise not I. Hing with
III the previous general provisions .,
other parts Of the law. The DISPOSE
ton here contemplated, relates 10 til
taxing OF the costs against one part,
or the other, rs may seem right in III,
exercise of Il sound dis,r ton. under
the peculiar circumstance cf The cnsr
We are not aware that it l. III tho
power Of the Courts, to fix III advance
what costs or fees the several officer.
shall charge. The statute, however
has no, left the rule In all respects rs i
stood at common law. For We have
seen that il il declared that costs shall
be recovered by the successful agains1
the losing party. What these costs
shall be, however, is not declared
We know Of no remedy, therefore
other than rs above suggested, unles.
the officers, when no fee bin is provided
shall tax costs rs heretofore, ahd leave
parties aggrieved, if any, to resort Il
the Courts f6s their correction or avoid
atce. And when $ Q appealed to, Courts
We doubt not, would feel bound. as Il,
rs possible, 10 render full and just
compensation To those Who hv n
unusual anil extraordinary Legislative
omission. havcsbeen 1T without M,
certain rule for their guidance. Affirm
| cd,