The record-union., 1897-09-11
JUDGE HUGHES DECISION.
HE DENIES THE REQUEST OF
PLAINTIFF WEINSTOCK.
NO Inspection of the Papers in Pos
session Of the Defendants Will
be Allowed.

S~Ss4oA OI IAe OeI6uCaAbS T" AA
be Allowed.
Judge Hughes yesterday decided the
case of H. Weinstock vs.. c. x Nc
Clatchy ct al, in which an order OF
court was asked compelling the defend
ants 70 permit the plaintiff TO inspect
and take copies of certain documents
alleged to be in possession of defend
ants, the request being made under
Section 1000 of the Code Of Civil Pro
cedure.
The full text Of the decision is given
below:
In the Superior Court in and for the
County Of Sacramento, State of Cali
fornia.
H. Weinstock, plaintiff. vs.. c. K. Nc
Clatchy, ct al. defendants
This is an action brought BIZ the
plaintiff to recover damages from the
defendants for an alleged libel.
After issue joined the plaintiff gave
notice of an application to the court,
under Section 1000 of the Code of Civil
Procedure of this State, for an order Of
the court compelling the defendants to
permit the plaintiff to inspect and to
take copies of certain documents al
legged to be in the possession of the de-
fendants.
That portion of Section 1000 of the
Code of Civil Procedure under which
the right TO the order prayed for is
claimed, reads as follows;
Section 1000 any court in which
an action is pending, or a Judge thereof
may, upon notice, order either aprty to
give to the other. within specified
time, an inspection and copy. or per-
mission to take a copy, of entries of ac-
counts in any book or of any document
or paper in his possession, or under his
control containing evidence relating to
the merits of the action, or the defense
therein" c. c. P. 1000.
The documents of which plaintiff
seeks inspection consist of the contents
Of a red pocketbook, mentioned in the
issue of the paper containing the article
which it is alleged was libelous. and
written afhdavits and reports made by
Won Arnold, Shuman and other detec-
tives employed by the defendants in the
investigation of an alleged combine in
the Board Of Trustees, etc. together
with any other written documents fur
nished to the defendants by any one
assisting them in the alleged investiga-
ton.
The notice on which this motion is
based is accompanied by the affidavit
of plaintiff, in which he sets forth that
the documents and papers mentioned in
the accompanying notice. according to
atlantis information and belief, con-
tain evidence relating to the merits
of the above entitled action upon the
part of the PLAINTIFF and believes that
said documents are in the possession
and under the control OF the defend
ants"
There is no attempt, either in the no
tice or the affidavit which constitute
the only moving papers in this behalf,
TO describe the contents of the dOcu-
ments sought to be inspected, or in any
manner to show in what way their con-
tents would be material to the estab-
lishment of the plaintiffs cause Of
action set out in his complaint
1t is somewhat remarkable. yet
nevertheless true, that, although Sec
ton 1000 Of the Code Of Civil Procedure
has been a part of that Code since 1880,
there is not single decision of the
Supreme Court of this State wherein
the rights of litigant parties or the
duty of the court in reference thereto
are explained or laid down, therefore
he who seeks to ascertain the meaning
and intent of the lawmaking power in
the adoption of this Section Of the Code
must look to other States, where SINH
lar laws have been adopted, for light
upon the subject. An examination of
the statutes of the State of New York
discloses that for a great number of
years the courts of that State have
been working under a very similar pro-
vision in the Code Of Civil Procedure
of that State. Section SOB. c. c. P. of
New York, reads as follows:
"A Court of Record, other than a
Justice Court in the city, has power to
compel a party to an action pending
therein. to produce and discover, or to
give to the other party, an inspection
and copy, or permission to take copy,
of a book document or other paper
in his possession or under his control,
relating to the merits of the action OF
the defense therein
Prior to the adoption of the Code OF
Civn Procedure by the Legislature Of
the State of New York. the Revised
Statutes of that State contained almost
u similar provision, and the courts o1
that State, by numerous decisions, have
held that the code did not repeal the
statute, but was auxiliary thereto, and
the decisions of the New York courts
are based upon the foregoing section OF