The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1879-01-21
GUMBLETON's BOOKS.
ARGUMENT ON THE SECOND APPLICATION FOR
MANDAMUs-JuDGE BARRETT OF THE SAME

ARGUMENT ON THE SECOND APPLICATION FOR
MANDAMUs-JUDGE BARRETT OF THE SAME
OPINION AS JUDGE DAVIS.
There was another lengthy argument yesterday.
before Judge Barrett. in Supreme Court. Chambers.
the order to show cause why County Clerk Gum
bleton should not allow Adrance Bush permission
to examine the books and records in his office. Mr..
Bush was represented by Mr. Artemas II. Homes.
and the County Clerk by Mr.. William A. Beach, Sam
uel g. Courtney and Edwin b. Meade. Numerous az
fdavits read both Sides recitng the facts of
the case. which have already been fully published.
Mr.. Beach in discussing the legal points at issue
followed mainly the same line of argument taken by
him ON the previous motion before Judge Davis He
declared in addition however, that the present petit
ton for unworthy purpose. and not for any
public good that the application was through the
agency of political cabal. the behests of whose
chieftain in certain circles imperative and ON
nipotept He characterized the entire proceeding
political device to further political purposes having
for it's Interior object the removal of Mr.. Gumbleton
JUDGE BAnRErr's OPINION.
Judge Barrett said that the difference between the
present the former proceeding seemed to be that
in the first there a dispute to whether there
had been any refusal on the part of the County Clerk
conflict of fact on that subject 1T being conceded
that there demand and also a refusal to show
the additional element of the dispute as to demand
and refusal, and with, necessarily, all the
legal questions which were now raised as
to the general right to mandamus, granted
the writ 1t seemed to him. therefore, to
follow that it his duty. sitting special judge.
to follow Judge Davis decision far to hold that
the reStor entitled to the writ The statute
seemed to him imperative and the right to the writ
undoubted when there was demand and refusal.
1t was always the proper practice for the Court
follow the decision of brother judge until reversed
His own opinion that the object OF the statute
,,,a1,l upy p1f, IN ifnfn
Clerks office and examine the books under
BILE circumstances. while not interfering with the
business OF the Office. The question of motive had
very little to do with it. The object of the
of their duty and afford ample facility to citizen
to investigate even with the view of hostile pro-
ceedings against the officer. He agreed entirely with
the views OF Judge Davis but whether the relator
here was really the reator who applied before
and had obtained the relief he sought. he was not
clear. There would be no difhculty II any person
other than the members of the committee who had
applied before were the rcator in this proceedinq
1t would be no answer then that somebody else had
applied before. This application seemed to him to
be substantially the application of the committee
and that Mr.. Bush was acting for the COM
that the committee had obtained a mandamus
short time ago was bar to this
proceeding. That depended upon whether the right
to q mandamus like the right to recover in
action. whether this a running right. II u
running right 1t seemed to him that the committee
could apply again, II mandamus had once
been granted. II they desired to what had tran
spired within two or three weeks it would be
swer that a mandamus had been granted month
Court would not allow ii to be abused if the appca
ton made to harass and annoy. The only
question left whether the former application
q bar to this, and he would reflect upon that point.
Mr. Beach called the Court attention to the allie
CATION in the REALTORS affidavit that he had heard and
believed that there were no such books as he had
asked to inspect.
Judge Barrett said he would also consider that
point before giving his decision.