The Portland daily press., 1880-04-14
THE MANDAMUS CASE.
Judge Peters Reserves His Decision.

hoplISoii, tne Clty Clerk, to exhibit the
records of intentions of marriage, was tried.
c. P. Mattocks appeared for Armstrong and
City Solicitor Hale for Mr. Robinson
In the petition, the points of which were
lately published in the PRESS, it will be re-
membered that Mr.. Armstrong claimed that
Mr.. Robinson refused to allow him to inspect
the records in the presence Of witnesses, and
the petition was brought to compel him to ex-
hibit them
Mr.. Hale, in his answer, says that said Rob-
inson denies that he has ever refused to allow
said petitioner to examine and inspect any book
and record i'll his office and saws
that at all times his records, and
especially the book of "records of inten-
tons of marriages." have been within easy
access of said Armstrong, and that he, Robin
son, has ever been, and still is ready and
willing that Armstrong shall examine the pub
lie records of his office. But he AYERS that at
the time set forth by Armstrong he, Robin
son, did express unwllingness that Armstrong
should copy the records for the purpose of
publishing them in said Armstrong; paper,
and Robinson AYERS Armstrong had for long
time been in the habit of making such publ
cations in manner not suitable to public poll
cy but detrimental to the well-being of the
community, and merely to crafty an idle and
prurient curiosity, and that Robinson has re-
ceived many complaints of Armstrong; con-
duct from the public. Furthermore, Robinson
says the reator received no such damage, and
has no such interest as to entitle him to
the remedy sought by him in his petition.
The answer closes with Robinson's request that
he be discharged and dismissed with reasona-
BILE costs and charges.
Gen. Mattocks opened the case stating the
facts were that Mr.. Armstrong applied to the
City Clerk to see the records of the intentions
of marriage as citizen of Portland. That
the Clerk said if he wanted to see them for the
purpose of publication he couldn't do it. AS
far as the clerk, counsel or court were con-
cerned he didn't as the question of ill-taste
in the publication had anything to do with the
matter at issue. If Mr.. Armstrong had asked
his opinion on that point he might have agreed
with the clerk. The fact simply was the clerk
refused to let Armstrong see the records and
consequently counsel sent him back with wit
nesses, to make demand to see them as a citi-
zen. Counsel then quoted from cases to sup
port his position.
old, resident of Portland and always lived
here. On the 9th of April he called on the
clerk and asked him to let him see the records
of intentions of marriage. He replied 81 shall
HOT leu you. Ibis was Uno urSG Clmo. NO one
was with me. l don't remember his answer
distinctly but 1 remember he said "I'll be id
if you shall see them" In the course of con-
versation he said I couldn't see them unless I
would promise not to publish them: To this
made no reply. the clerk has known me a
dozen years. I didn't tell him the first time
was citizen. The second time I called with
two citizens and asked to see the records.
Then the clerk replied l couldn't see them UNI
less / would promise not to publish them.
then Oandpd fO coo than &c otizap Of
Portland and he still declined. L have not
been to his Office since.
On discrimination Mr.. Armstrong said he
was editor and newsgatherer for the Daily
Item. He worked for Mr.. Laughlin. He had
been in the habit, for several iweeks, of pub
fishing the intentions. The book was located
on the clerks desk He used to get the book
himself till the clerk objected The book is
kept in a public place. Couldn't say, whether
it is the custom for people to see it without
asking the clerk, He didn't try and get the
book after the clerk objected. He said the
clerk was quite boisterous in manner when he
refused to let him see the records. Witness
had never been in journalism elsewhere. Had
been in Bangor and remained several weeks.
(When asked what he was doing there and
why he was there witnesses counsel objected
and objection was sustained? Didn't remem-
Der Mr.. Shaw'S presence at the time of the con-
versation with Mr.. Robinson.
A. w. Laughlin testified he was publisher of
the City Item, and that he accompanied Arm
strong on his visit to the City Clerk; also cor
roborated Armstrong; testimony. Was a
resident of Portland
George W. Clarke testified he was resi-
dent of Portland, that he also accompanied
Mr.. Armstrong to the City Clerks office, and
corroborated his testimony.
Hosea l. Robinson testified he was citizen
of Portland, and was the City Clerk. Had
been for eleven years. He also testified to
Armstrong; coming in to his office and
taking the book of records to examine. The
book was kept in his desk for his convenience.
Usually when people wanted to see it he
would open it and lay it on the desk for their
inspection. Occasionally people take it down
themselves. On the occasion referred to Arm
strong came in, said he was citizen and de-
manded to see the records. Witness aid he
couldn't object to his seeing them but if he
desired to look at them with the intention of
publishing them in his paper he couldn't let
him see them. Couldn't say he had not been
in previously on. this errand, but he remem-
bered this occasion alone, when Laughlin and
Clarke accompanied him. He didn't recollect
Armstrong coming twice on that day, April
9th. Witness told Armstrong complaints had
been made to him by people that if their in
tentions were published in the Item they
would not be married in Portland. Witness
made no effort to prevent Armstrong seeing
the book.
j. L. Shaw City Messenger, testified Robin
son said Armstrong could see the records if he
wouldn't publish them, and that the book
was in public place where it could readily be
seen.
Mr.. Hale, for the defense, argued there was
no refusal to see the book as it was located in
public place where people could go and see
it. 1t was simply an unwillingness on the
part of the clerk. He had no intention of
stopping Armstrong from seeing the book.
His refusal was only such as public officer
might properly make who has proper regard
for records under his care. The law clothes
the clerk with reasonable amount of dis
erection and reasonable power. If man
wanted to see the records at an unreasonable
hour, or was tramp, the law was not sup
posed to compel him to exhibit them. He
argued wrts of mandamus were not writs of
right but If judge doesn't think the demand
equitableshe need not allow them He cited
number of cases in support of his argument
General Mattocks thought the case no light
matter. There was no more reason why
papers shouldn't publish intentions of mar
rage, than real estate transfers or mortgages
He couldn't see why people should be so
sensitive about their intentions of marriage
being published. But after all, that had
nothing to do with the question. The petit
toner had right to see the records and
publish them if he wanted to. The city clerk
makes sort of denial to petitioners claim
and yet his own witness, Mr. Shaw, testifies to
the refusal to let Armstrong see the book.
We are not here to discuss at what hour the
records can be seen, or what tramps shall see
them. We do say it is not the clerks province
to endeavor to regulate public morals. Mr..
uud1lOCho ClIOu Cdo0S III ouppOrb VI Ills til0Ory.
Judge Peters said think it is clear enough
there was request and refusal, except that
this request should be complied with on an an
nexed condition. I don't think the petitioner
would have been justified in touching the
book after the person in charge refused assent
except conditionally, so that as matter of fact
Immediately find in my own mind that upon
suitable occasion, and in q suitable manner,
and under proper circumstances, a request was
made and declined. The statute says, ''shall
be opened to the inspection of the public
Every citizen is a member of the public. The
idea of the statute is that they shall be public
records, open records. 1t early times they
were required to be much more public than
even now. I think the petitioner had right.
don't think the depositary of records should
have right to challenge inspection un ess the
| petitioner showed a particular interest. l
don't think the register of deeds could refuse
admission to the records to citizen unless he
was going to make or receive conveyance, or
anything of that sort. don't think an appli-
cant is obliged to disclose his motives or bust
ness in wanting to see any of the particulars of
public record. The only question is whether
| there is sufficient discretion in this Judge to
| say that there was such an exigency as would
allow the writ to ISSUE. Ny impression is that