Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1906-02-11

to-, and to copy, the records. fl
People ex. rel. Guarantee Co.. VI
Reilly 80 Hun 431, People v. Cody, i
80 N. Y. $40.
Under Sec. 700. Re. Stat. of Wis
consin, providing that the Register of
Deeds shall open to the examination |
of any person all books and papers
required to be kept in his Office, and
permit any person SO examining to
take notes and copies of such books.
records or papers, or minutes there
from, sit was held that this right was
not limited to lands in which such
person or his clients were pecuniariiy
interested, and that any person might
examine and take notes and copies
of the record for use in making alb
stract books.
! The court said: "ln so far as the
Alabama and Michigan courts may
! have indicated that statute giving
! certain enumerated rights respecting
| records to any person is mere
! confirmation of rule at common .
law, giving similar rights to oniy =,
particular class of persons. we must
decline to follow them"
State v. Rachac. 81 MINI. 373, So
~. w. Z, is fair sample of the class
of cases which uphold the right of ab-
stract companies to copy all the rec
Ords and illustrative of the fact that
this privilege is conferred only by
plain legislative enactment. The
court said: The counsel for appel
liant plants himself squarely upon the
5 broad proposition that respondents are
not entitled to any such privileges. be-
cause they have no interest in the
2 records which they desire to examine.
: His contention may be briefly stated
; thus: % At common law Nc pe~-
son had right to examine or copy
? the records of public Office in which
he had no interest, present or pros
: pective. q That the statute does
: not extend this right to others. but
e merely regulates its exercise by those
0 who already possessed it at common
: law. Conceding that the rule at coin
mon law was as stated the question
l. is. how far has this been changed by
Gen. St 1878. C. s. par. 179, as amend
5 ell by laws 1885. C. lie?
, I'VE think the matter is entirely
- put, at rest by the amendment of
, 1885. 1t is matter of common know
=. ledge that at the time this amend.
- ment was passed, in large majority
D. of counties in this State. persons hal
, engaged in the abstract business
and at much expenditure of time and
money had prepared, or were prepar-
: ing, these abstract books or tract
- indexes" These abstract offices. #
: properly conducted. are of great pub
lie convenience.
a Under this state of affairs the
;. legislature enacted the amendment
l. referred to- which. throughout, bears
.. clear evidences of being intended tc
! define and fix the right of all who
q might desire to make copies of d
!, abstracts from any Of these records
d The original statute gave to every
one demanding it the right to in
% spect' these records. But as there
- might be doubt as to what the righ
=. of inspection included the amendment
n adds either for examination or fol
g the purpose of making or completing
- an abstract or transcript therefrom.'
1t In Vermont. under statute provid
:; ing that the books Of record of jus
~ ~ tees of the peace should at all time!
20 be subject to the inspection of an.
N person interested in such record. i
/, was held that a citizen was not EMIT
:, led to see the complaint and warran
n. in criminal proceeding. Perkins v
w Cummings, 6 VT. 4S6.
N BY statute in Connecticut coroner
ID are required to reduce to writing AM
ut return to the clerk of the Superio
u. Court. the testimony Of witnesses a
ct inquests, with his findings. The
" court held, three of the justices cor
IN curing, and two dissenting, that thes
T. documents in the hands of the clerl
IN were open to inspection by the defend
ant charged with the crime, and b
ct all persons interested. Daily " Din
i'd ock, 55 Conn. $40.
ne In State ex rel v. Hoblitzelle.
ey Mo. 624, the court stated: "Whil
n we regard the poll boxes as belongin
to to that class of public records. ope
ke to inspection when the appellant VIII
desires to inspect them, shows tina
no the purpose of the inspection is t
IN vindicate some public or private RICH
on the courts will, by mandamus, compe
of the inspection on condition that tn
nv inspection be made under such reason
on able rules and regulations as the coul
er or officer having them in charge ma
of impose Whether mandamus will G
ID will not lie to compel an inspection {
MS poll books when il is sought simpl
m, for the qualification of curiosity will
T out any purpose to vindicate eithe
a private or public right, is not nece
a sary to determine in this Droceedin;
'tv as it does not present such cas-,
es The relatCr claims that by reason
re his receiving. a majority of the vote
an cast at the election, he acquired
right to the Office of city marshall, an
oil desires the INSPECTION asked for j
IN a means of enforcing this right
Iva In Payne v. Staunton, 46 S. E. 80
~ w. Va, decided in 1904, it was soug1
~ to inspect the poll books of speci;
election, and the court held that
- pecuniary interest in an individus
~ in the act sought to be compelled b
~ mandamus must exist to maintain j
For that inspection is not right veste