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

he basis for writ of mandate /,
In Pennsylvania it has been held that t
n the absence of legislation, records, I
although public in their nature. are
lot open to inspection except 30
hose who have definite interest in
hem. Owens v. Woodbridge, 8 Pa. ,
Dist. P. 305.
In Herbert v. Ashburner. l Wilson /
POI the court said that the books Of
the sessions of the corporation of
were public and that every
body had a right to see them, and III
Rex v. Chapman l Wilson 3O5, tina.
the books of the poors rates were
public and ought to be delivered by
one overseer to another, and that all
the Pensioners might have access to
them. 1t is apparent that in these
cases members CT the body polite had,
and were deemed to have. an interest
which entitled them to see these
books.
In King v. Shelley, Ill Term Rep. /
.42, and Talbot v. Villebeys M, 70
Geo. B. R., it was said THAT the de-
PENDANT was not entitled to an in
spection, for no man has a right TO
look into anothers title deeds and rec
ords, when he has no interest in the
deeds or rolls himself, as tenants of
manors have
In King v. BabD III Term $50, Lord
Kenyon, Oh. ]. said:
This. therefore, is like the case
Of an application by stranger to the
corporation. And in such case
think we should transgress the line Of
our duty, if we were to grant gen
eral unlimited inspection of all papers
respecting the corporation
Inspection of records in criminal
cases was refused in King V. Purnell
, and King v Cornelius, l Black 81 !
Wilson 239.
In Sloan Filter Co. V. Ell Paso Co.,
III Fed 504. it wcs held that users
of machines claimed to infringe a
patent had such an interest in suit
between other parties in which the
validity Of the patent is in issue as en-
titled them to inspect and to have
a copy of the court records. Hailet, j.
said:
IF strangers in a suit can be in any
manner or to any extent bound by the
result, they ought to be at liberty to
inquire how the controversy is carried
/, on. At the bar it was said that this
petition is without precedent This
| may he true in respect to to the cir
cumstances of this case. but the mat
ter of inspecting and taking copies
Of public records is as old in the law
as the records are old. In English
law tenants of a manor could always
, inspect the court rolls and books Of
! the manor in order to ascertain their
titles Rex. V. Shelley. 3 Term R. 141
So, also. where the authority of a
!; mayor was in question. citizens could
inspect the books and papers of the
borough in order to determine the
fact Rex " Babb. 3 Term R. $40
These cases and others support the
common law rule that a party may
have inspection of any document OF
;. paper in which he may be interested
4 l Wharf Ev. Par. 745.''
4 Act Cong Aug II, 1913, provides
that all books in the Offices of the
, clerks of the circuit and district courts
of the United States containing tn:
docket of the judgments or DEGREES
shall, during Office hours, be open t.
the inspection of any person desirins
to examine the same without any fet
or charge therefor. Act Feb. &c, 1853
allows the clerk p certain fee fol
searching the records for Judgment
i or DEGREES. Act Aug. 1, 1888, provide
that the induces and records of judg
ments that the clerk is by that ac
required to keep. shall at all times b.
open to the inspection and examina
ton of the public
In re Chambers. A Fed. 7S6. it wa
held that these provisions secure t,
: the citizens the right to examin,
( these records free of charge. and tn
: clerk is entitled to the fee only whe,
= he is required to make the search him
i self
Under the acts of Congress men
, toned it was held that a corporation
e engaged in the business of insurin
titles had the right to examine tn
induces and cross inoices of Judgment
, kept by the clerks of United State
t Circuit and District Courts when sue
0 examination relates to current trans
:, actions. and does not Interfere wit
\ the rights of other persons to hav
e access to them. Bell " Common
/ wealth Title and Trust Co.. los Fec
{ 54S. affirmed 40 Feu S2S. 40 C. C. A
| -oo, hLII lucu 100 u. =. l0l. - IL. &c
r 74f, G3 Sup. CT r. $50. 1903. 1t wa
4 said. 40 c. C. A. 200. and 40 Fed. 80:
y 1--WE do not regard it at all materia
/ that the words without fee or charge
r therefor are not repeated in the &C
) of 1885, Under the decree the It'll
: insurance company was given no gel
:: eral access to the Judgment indice:
u but simplv the right of inspection an
$ examination in particular transaction
a at the time current or pending.
Q Although the opinions in such case
5 = State V. Donovan 10 N. Oak. 90!
State V. Cummins, 76 Iowa, 1876 an
:, Johnson v. Wakulla % Fla. 731. cite
u by relator contain eta+~7,>n~ts whic
u seem german here. the issues in thos
cases were different and did not relat
u to the right Of inspection ncr Of til
, recorder or officer to collect fee
I, There is room for a controlling di
tinctiOn between the admissibility :