The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1902-10-12
Judge feathers Overrules the Demur-
rer Filed to the Answer of
Armin C. koehne.
APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT
BOND Is FILED AND NOTICE GIVEN
TO THAT EFFECT.
Case Reviewed at Length by the
Court I'm Rendering His Decision
-Reasons Assigned.


McCaslin against Armin c. Koehne. treas
urer Of Marion county, asking the court
for an order compelling Koehne to allow
him within the treasurer's office to com
plete a search of the books of the office.
Judge feathers read his decision yesterday
morning to McCaslin and his attorneys, p.
w. Bartholomew and Charles Remster, and
Armin c. Koehne, through his attorney.
The case OF McCaslin against the treas
urer will be appealed to the Supreme Court
Immediately, permission for an appeal
within sixty days having been granted
after a bond of 500 to insure the costs of
the proceedings had been approved McCas-
Inns contention has been that he is entitled
as a taxpayer to go through the treasurers
records and because of his connection with
the Democratic county organization and his
employment by 1t to search the records in
the hope of finding irregularities in the
accounts, Koehne refused him entrance to
his office account OF the business of the
office being in such a shape at the present
time as to make ii not only impracticable,
but impossible to allow his presence in the
office.
Judge Leathers's opinion in the case was
based on the demurrer of the plaintiff to
the answer and he held in short that the
plaintiff in demurring to the answer of the
complaint admitted the facts of the answer,
and the only question to be decided was on
the right of the defendant to deny him ad-
mission to a public office. Judge feathers
holds that. assuming the facts alleged in
Koehne's answer to the complaint to be
true, he is authorized and warranted by
law in making his Office rules and the rule
in question which denied McCaslin the
right of entrance to the Office and access to
the books and records of the treasurer.
THE OPINION.
In part Judge Leathers's opinion reads:
1.-The material allegations set forth in the
petition of the relator, George II. McCaslin,
are in substance that he prosecutes this
suit in his own behalf and also on behalf
of all other citizens and taxpayers OF
Marion county, who are aggrieved by the
wrongs set forth in his petition; that on
Oct. l, 1902 the defendant Armin C..
Koehne, was and still is the treasurer of
Marion county, and in possession of all the
books, records and papers belonging to the
office; that on the said date the said re-
examine all the public records, books and
papers of said Office for the purpose of
searching and ascertaining whether the
same were legally kept and especially the
paid to the treasurer of said county by the
taxpayers thereof had been properly and
legally accounted for; that he did not in
tend to interrupt the affairs or business OF
said office; that upon presenting himself
at said office he requested that he be adj
mitted therein for said purposes; that de-
PENDANT had erected a railing or barrier
to prevent your petitioners access to said
office, and demand of said relator was de-
MED. Said relator further alleges that II
is the general belief of the citizens OF
are due to said county which have not been
legally accounted for; that one of the pur-
poses OF said examination is to ascertain
the truth or falsty of said rumor."
ants answer to the complaint are, in SUBJ
stance, that in the discharge of his duties
of the Office Of treasurer it has been found
that during the greater portion Of the year
from Nov. Is to April l, and from the Isl
day Of May TO the 1st of October, the public
and all persons having an interest in know.
may be admitted behind the counter and
permitted to inspect, examine, take mem
oranda or copies from the books for such
purposes as they may desire, without seri
Gus detriment, inconvenience or impairment
of the rights of the public and of the EN-
ployes of said office, but that IL has beer
ascertained to be the fact, and IL Is the
fact. that during the period from April
is not only impracticable but impossible fo
the public business of said office tn be sat
isfactorily and properly performed If othe
persons than the employees of said oftic,
are permitted to have access behind IN,
counter, by reason of the enormous amour
of business required to be transacted dur
of taxes that are due and collectable b,
this respondent are paid in during sucl
ALLEGATIONS IN ANSWER.
defendants answer alleges that durins
the period in question, towit, from Oct
! to Nov. Is, an enormous amount of bust
ness is transacted in said office, requiring
the services of from twenty to thirty dep
uties; that an average of 1900 citizens anC
taxpayers are in daily attendance upol
said office for the purpose of paying thei
taxes or to receive moneys upon warrant
issued to them by the auditor or city con
troller; that in the neighborhood of s., 900 90
is paid into said office, and that abou
$4,000 is discussed; that the books, pa
pers and records Of said office are during
such period In constant use by the dep
uties, and that during the period interven
ing between the LIST of November and tn
18th of November the entire clerical fore
of said Office will be engaged in verifying
and correcting the books of said office
that the order in controversy was not mad
in respect to the relator or any particula
person, but was made with reference to al
persons other than those connected witt
proper and just one, and one, under tn
| law, which he ought to make and enforc
! TO the end that the confidence of the pub
| lie may be subserved. their interests pro
tected and the work of the custodian
''The question here presented Is whethe
| such rule or order entered by the defend
ant. although prohibitory in its character
| is reasonable and just one under tn
/ facts stated in the defendants return.
| "As already shown. defendants answe
/ contains the express averment that h
could not permit the relator or any othe
! person or persons at such period to hav
/ access to the books and records of bis offic
without causing great Inconvenience TO tn
/ public and without materially interferin
with and hindering the business and cor
duct of said office.
MY opinion. therefore, is, that, assumin
| the facts alleged In defendants return an
answer to be true, he was authorized an
/ warranted by law In making the rule
Il question whereby the relator or any othe
I persons I'm whose behalf he prosecutes thi
I action. has been denied access to the pa
| pers. books and records of which he ha
/ custody. The demurrer of relator TO IN
/ return and answer of the defendant to III
alternative writ Of mandate heretofore il
sued in this case will. therefore, be over
/ ruled"