The New York herald., 1879-03-08
COUNTY CLERK GUNBLETON.
Tile Mandamus Writ Directing an Ex-
animation Of His Books.
AN APPEAL TAKEN.
Heated Argument in the Supreme
Court, General Term.


While Governor Robinson has still under consider
alton the question whether he shall remove from
ofice County Clerk Gumbleton. there is abatement
In the hoty contested proceedings in the courts here
the examination of the books and records in the
latter's ofice-a project. as is well known set on
foot nearly three months ago by tile Bar Association
and for the carrying OF which special committee
of that body appointed At the outset Mr. Gumble
ton resisted these proposed inquistoria researches
Application was made to Judge Davis. in Supreme
Court Chambers. for q peremptory mandamus on
behalf OF Artemus II. Holmes. one Of the members
of the Bar Association Committee. which, after an
extended argument, granted Mr. Gumbleton.
however, did not yield prompt obedience to this
judicial mandate, but appealed from the order to
the Supreme Court. Pending this appeal ]. Adriance
Bush. another member of the committee but who in
this matter acted al independent citizen. sought
permission to look over certain books In Gumble-
toms Office. This latter effort regarded q sort
OF supplementary attempt from tho same to
achieve the object sought to be gained in the first
proceeding. and again Mr.. Gumbleton unyield-
ing. Then Mr.. Bush invoked the majesty of the
law, and on this occasion the alleged
grievance was laid before Judge Barrett who in
was asked to give a peremptory mandamus
directing Mr.. Gumbleton to allow an inspec-
ton Of his books. 1t the fight
substantially fought over again. and with similar
rcsult--the writ of mandanus asked for being
granted. Still Mr.. Gumbeton was on the warpath
andunyieding. He again appealed to the supreme
pcals was heard yesterday before Judges Brady. In
gals and Daniels. Mossrs William A. Beach and ex.
Mr. Gumbleton, and Mr.. George De Forrest Lord for
Messrs. Holmes and Bush.
The argument Of Mr.. Beach lengthy. but lis
tened to with the closest attention. He seemed to
speak with more than his usual eoquence and fell
city was forcible and effective and of his crit
cisms Of the opinion of Judge Davis In the Court
below were extremely pungent. He began with re-
citing the facts Of the case already fully given
the HERALD and then began his legal argument
which, though highly appreciated, no doubt. by the
technical except when he stepped aside to comment
On Judge Davis opinion. He contended that
hs In the sh f@ng had fudge Das
answered the petition Of the relators by showing all
their demands conceded to allow new demands to be
made post litem molum and proven. He submitted
that the principle upoc which the Court acted is
vicious and dangerous 1t had no power to subject
mental test Of prior good faith 1t said in efect-I
will give you twenty -four hours to exhibit your
duct from the outset disingenuous and evasive and
your offer to have the books examined neither real
made in good faith" He contended further that
the petition of reators was perfectly answered by
the undenied fact that the defendant previous its
had fully and explicitly compiled with it's
qurements. The REALTORS show neither sufficient
son nor worthy purpose. Their petition silent
to motive aud object. The jurat AYERS their
purpose to be to satisfy themselves whether de-
fenant charged no other than legal fees. They thus
that they moved only by amiable curiosity.
He urged in conclusion that the learned 5ustice
md unqualified He held that defendant had no
right question their motiveor object exert any
discretion in the control OF records intrusted
to his custody. 1t is respectfully submitted
that this is an erroneous and mschievous
application of the right OF inspection. and the
duty and power OF the clerk. Such absolute and i'm
perative privilege aoes not attach under the aot OF
interest and specific and laudabe object to examine
official records much less does 1t to crowd OF deie-
gates seeking no personal object. claiming no per
sonal right. complaining OF no personal wrong. ask
CASE AGAINST aUMBLEToN.
Mr.. Lord spoke with equal impassioned earnest
In opposition tothe appeal. He caustic aud
critical too. but his arrows and vindictve speech
counsel He urged that the provision Of the statute
IL clear and explicit that the books in question sha
st all times during oce hours be open to the inspee
sons desiring to examine the same" The re-
lators made their successive demands during
office hours each occasion, and sufficient reason
ever given why they should not have had immedi
ately the inspection demanded The fact alleged by
the Clerk that the REALTORS had been appointed
committee OF the Bar Association of this city to
examine into these very matters did not, and could
not, take away from them the rights which
given by the plain language Of the statute. The
statute authorizes all persons desiring to examine
the books to have such examination; and it made
1t the duty of the County Clerk to grant it
ut all times during Office hours Tho statute confers
upon the County Clerk right to question the
tives OF the relators in demanding the examination,
nor any question OF their motives affect their
right to the Inantiamus In this proceeding The OBJ
ject OF the statute to protect the public from
improper fees by securing the widest publicity anu
the fullest opportunity for examining into the deal
lngs OF the County Clerk in relation thereto The
right to the examination demanded was. therefore,
he urged. such public right any citizen could
insist upon. and If refused be made the foundation
Tor an application for mandamus.
Both appeals separately argued. but very
nearly the same points were raised in each. In
the Bush case Mr.. Beach closed by stating that
the Court cannot now,. from the record
sign any avowed reason for this proceeding SO far
there pears. ii IN aimess and vexatous attack
upon the defendant. The side lights the real
motive. but not that conlmends itself to the
law. In the Bush case Mr. Lord urged that it is
not necessary that the reator in this proceed
lug should show any personal grievance to DO
reincded. nor any special matter to which he
wishes to prosecute inquiries The statute gives q
right of examination TO all persons Tor purposes
resting public policy, the object being anifesty
enable each individual to CONSTITUTES himself IN
measure the guardian of the public right. by examine
ing and necessarily making complaints against tho
acts Of public officer.
The argument concluded. the Court took the papers,
the foregone conclusion being that, whatever may be
decision, the will be carried to tho Court of
Appeals.