New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1879-03-08
THE COUNTY CLERK'S CASE.

ARGUMENT ON The MANDAMUS APPEALS.
A REVIEW OF IHK MAIN POINTS N TIIE TWO SUITS
ARGUMENTS or WILLIAM A. BEACH AND
GEORGE DE FOREST LORE.
So soon as the argument in the case of
Pcrson against Fl. cman was ended IN the supreme
Court General Term, yesterday William A. Beach
called ~ the appeals in the two mandamus proceedings
against County Clerk Henry A. Gumblcton. They have
a general similarity In named the People IN Iela-
lion 10 Artenas II Holmes and Others the case i, de
rnand by the applicants. avowcjy comuittcc Of
m Bar Association 10 the book OF fees of Mechanics
Liens. TIE othc. is ia The name of Adnance j. Bush
and differ only in that M. Bush! though of the
committee made lis demand uot AS one Of TIE com
mi.tcc but as an individual cltz "a.
o. the first proc, edug Judge DAVIS. after some inter
mediate delays granted pcruuptory uauGanu- r.
curing the County Clerk to produce eXiuit t.
the above named REALTORS, any either OF tncm ana
10 allow them and any cItAsrc them to inspect and
examine at al times dunn. oir. hours OF each am
every day when they may demand such
inspection all books hcrt ~ him pur,u-
ant t. laws Of lsI7 chapter 1872, IN such case
made and prov containing an account Of all or any
fees perqusjtcs and cmoumouts actually received 10y
him for any services done by him h assistants
or their official c;pucy, ana containing account of
al or any fees, pcrqulses and cnolumcn, which said
Clerk j. or has been entitled 10 demand or receive from
any person for any service rendered by Inn IN mis- fro
capacity pursuant 10 law" Judge Barrett made sim
liar order in tie second case, AID the appeal is from botu
orders.
Nil Beach, i'll arguing the for M Gunbleton, de-
clar,d that the petitioners ia both cases. Mr. Busl
be,nr member Of the committee accd not ord nary
citizens, but curnwiitc' II tho Btr Association
under resolutions exceedingly iiiui.ous ard ,Iyc To
defendant adopted in September, ls7~; that it wa
charged and undcuird, thai The committee acting
m iurthcraucc Of political and partisan intrigue
- Iy tff, flt. inf, ,
the committee. MI Holmes Its chairman, PROPOSED to
Mr.. GumD .e'on mode OF establishing ana regulating
the fee, Of his Office, wLIch accepted by him an
equitable remedy for The uncertainty drcla.cd 10y he
Court Of Appeals cmhdrrase TINS subject that TIM
,,,. finally refused bv the committee and two months.
were allowed 10 ClJp~c before anything furthc. was
done. Then the petitioners aNoWcl -lcit dc,c 10 pro
0 'u 81 81 amen" 'pubn.bcd and Mr Beach ayInvcI
that he had advised thereafter street standing on
Int and , r.t,.., n AID " nat seemed 10 he iutnd
a, uersccuiIon He argued AT length That the supple
mental atldJyit- received 10y Judge DAVIS were nccc-
Inv IN n,l.irr M The prttunrr-' case. and wcI,
their unqualified Ground Of hostility, Mr. GumiIcton
mad uuqu i,dy of. I'D them al tAcy asked; that TIE
ou,'lo Il worst -iouli hav, gone before iury on an
when c nctitiuucl, rely has been SO altered by the
Az Of l-53 and OF 1861 IS 10 leave the petitioner, no
ground for The broad clam approved 10y the two wrt-
priIi~n,rs replied by George De Forest Lord that
tie provision ~ the statute Is clear ana explicit
that the hooks in question shall at all, times
without nny fee charge therefor, OF all per
son. drslriug examine the same. The petit
TONERS made their demands during office hours, and
10 sufficient ever given why they should not
have had immediately the inspection demanded. The
fact by the County Clerk that the petitioners had
been appointed a committee Of the Bar Association Of
Tins civ 10 examine these very matters did not
and could not-takc away from them the nights which
were given by the plain language Of the statute.
The pretended offer made by the County Clerk I'm his
letter OF December A. TO the petitioner Lord protesting
Willingness 10 permit the examination under certain
circumstances did not even II II had been sincere
away the effect Of hIs preceding reiusals. And the
rrpttjon uf refusal, first 10y his deputy after
wlrd couhmrd by the County Clerk through his counsel
an December 10, 1873, showed that the pretended
offer was not made In good faith, and was
suD. cqueutly withdraw; the case therefore,
stood IA II such offer had been made.
The statute confcrs upon the County Clerk right
question the motives of the REALTORS III demanding the
f< animation, nor any question Of their motives
affect their night TO the mauddmus III this proceeding
Iue object the statute ~ protect the public