Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1891-05-05
CAN COPY THE BOOKS
THE SUPREME COURT so DECIDES IN
The NEWPORT NEWS CASE.
Inspection Construed 90 Mean that as Full
Memorandum as Desired May DO Made
from the Lists.

In the Court Of Appeals yesterday the
decision was announced IN the registration
case from Newport News.
The petitioner, ii. de b. Clay, applied to
the court for mapdamus to compel the
defendant, w. p. Ballard, registrar, IN al
low the petitioner TO inspect and 10 take a
ccpg of his registration books.
The defendant answered that he had
offered to allow en- insDec'ioa of the books
but had refused 10 allow n copy 20 be
taken. And the question for decision was
whether the petitioner. as voter OF the
election district. was entitled rs well to
take n copy of the books as TO inspect
them.
rHErR POSITIONS STATED.
The president OF the court announced
that as the case had been finally decided
IN conference only few minutes before
the opening of the court. there had been
no time for the preparation Of q written
opinion He also said that as the case
was in the original jurisdiction OF the
court. no written opinion was required.
He stated. however. that he had been re-
quested by the judges TO prepare an
opinion embodying the views OF the court,
and that he would do so later and tleit
with the clerk.
The Judges, therefore. proceeded TO
state their views from the bench orally.
Judge Lacy. upon being called on, gave
il as his opinion that the case was not
proper one for a mandamus, and that the
writ ought to be denied. His position was
that an individual did not have the night
to make copy Of the books, but simply
10 inspect them so far as they concerned
him. IL copies OF the books were desired
for the purpose Of purging, the statue
made specific provision as 10 how they
might be obtained.
The other Judges were OF opinion that
the writ ought TO be awarded.
BOOKS ARE PUBLIC RECORDS.
Judge Lewis-with whom the other
Judges except Judge Lacy concurred-.
stated that after careful consideration OF
the case since the argument he was, OF
opinion that the. petitioner was entitled 70
the writ. He said the books In question
are public records, which section 81 OF
the Code declares expressly shall at all
times be open TO public Inspection; that
this provision was one OF the safe
guards provided by the Legislature
TO prevent fraud in elections, and
that, for the accomplishment of that end,
the statute ought to DC Literally rather
than strictly construed. he further sand
that the authorities at common law are
numerous and uniform; that the right to
inspect public record includes the right
10 take copies; that he had seen no case in
which this had ever been denied, and that
when the Legislature gave TO the public,
as il had done, the right of inspection, 1t
must be presumed to have intenced 10 give
IL with all the incidents attached to such
right by the common Law.
TIE RULE OF GREESLEAF.
He referred TO Greenleaf on evidence,
than whom, he said. there is no more accu-
a.. 49, IN who
IL down that tho inspection dad eren,phtcd-
lion of the records Of the Kings courts Is
the common right of the subject, and that
in the case of other public records, as TO
which the right of inspection exists, the
officer having them in custody VIII. upon
proper application. be commanded 70 per.
init the applicant 10 inspect them, Snd, II
desired, 10 take copies.
Reference was also made TO the work OF
Judge Dillon, who. in treating of he ,nspec-
ton of corporate records, lays IT down
upon the authority of numerous adJudged
cases, that as such records are in their ma
tire public. if the corporation refuses TO
give inspection thereof to any person
having an interest therein or. perhaps, for
any proper purpose to any inhabitant OF
the corporation, whether he has any spe-
cial or private interest or not, a mandamus
will lie to command the corporation TO
allow such inspection and copies 10 DC tdten
NEw YORK DECISION.
A case was also referred to in the 10th
Barbour's Reports, in which 1t was held
bv the Supreme Court of New YORK that
the defendant, an officer of anincOrpOrated
insurance company, was liable for pen
atty of $3.50 for refusing to allow the
plaintiff, stakeholder of the company, to
take q copy of the books containing the
names of the stockholders, under statute
of New York, which provided that the
books should be open TO ne examination of
every stakeholder, the court saying that
the right OF examination included the
right to take notes, and, If necessary TO
enable the stakeholder TO state the result
of his examination, 10 take copies.
THE PROPER REMEDY.
As to the right of the petitioner to the
writ of mandamus in the case under re-
view, II was said that as the duty, per-
tormance of which was sought TO be CO.
creed, is a public duty, mandamus Is the
proper remedy. And for this High on TX
lraOrdinary Remedies, among other au-
thorities. was referred to, who lays it down
that where the question is ono of public
right and the object of the mandamus is to
procure the enforcement of q public duty,
the people are regarded as the real party,
aud the relator at whose instigation the
proceedings are instituted need not show
that he has any legal or special interest In
the result, il being sufficient to show that
he is citizen and as such interested III
the execution OF the laws.
A peremptory mandaInus as prayed for
In the petition was accordingly awarded.
COUNSEL ASK QUESTIONS.
This case has attracted considerable at
tention and some fifteen or twenty men,
bers Of the bar were in court to hear the
decision. Judge Brlstow, Assistant United
States District Attorney, was present as
counsel for Mr. Clay. who was also in
court, and Mr.. G. V. Meredith and Major
II. Taylor Scott represented the registrar.
When the decision had been pronounced
Mr., Meredith arose and briefly addressed
the Court, SAYING that he desired guidance
in the matter, as he did not wish to advise
his client wrongly. He wished the Court
10 inform him under what conditions the
registrar would be expected to open his
books TO be copied, and whether he would
be allowed any compensation
Judge Lewis replied that those were
matters with which the court had nothing
TO do. An order would be entered direct
ing the registrar to allow the copy to be
made. and he took it for granted that there
would be no unnecessary delay, and he
supposed the books could be copied in one
day. He knew of no provision IN the
statute for allowing compensation to re-
glstrars Tor opening then DOCKS lot III
spection. Certainly this court had nothing
TO do with providing any. A man IN as
Stunning public office, the Judge added.
must assume all of It's duties aud respon-
sioilities.
Mr.. Meredith repeated that he was only
asking for guidance. He said he knew Of
no statutory provision for compensating
registrars in such cases. nor did ne know
of any such provision for allowing copies
20 be made. The Court had construed the
law TO authorize the latter. and he did not
think it was expected of men TO lose time
from business TO keep their books open
without being paid therefor.
The Court declined To suspend the
order for a rehcaTlDg to which effect
motion was made by Major Scott, and d.
rected the Clerk 10 enter a general decree re-
curing the registrar to allow the books Of
the First Newport News precinct 10 be
copied.
The Court Adiourns.
On motion Of Mr.. Pollard, the case of
Henly us. Atkinson was put on the
privilege docket for the November tenn,
and after signing the final orders the
Court adjourned for the term.
FIFTY-slx INDICTMENTS FOUND.