Case Name: The People of the State of New York ex rel. Leonard S. Spire, Appellant, v. The General Committee of the Republican Party of Erie County, Known as the Republican Organization of Erie County, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1898-02
Citations: 25 A.D. 339
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York ex rel. Leonard S. Spire, Appellant, v. The General Committee of the Republican Party of Erie County, Known as the Republican Organization of Erie County, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 25
Pages: 339–348

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York ex rel. Leonard S. Spire, Appellant, v. The General Committee of the Republican Party of Erie County, Known as the Republican Organization of Erie County, Respondent.
JElections — a member of apolitical organization may make copies of the enrollment books — appeal involving questions of public interest — heard, although ineffective in the pae'ticular case.
Where an appeal to the Appellate Division in an election matter involves questions of public interest, it will not be dismissed simply because the time has passed when the rights of the parties to such appeal can be affected by its decision.
A member of the Republican organization of Erie county, in the State of New York, is entitled to make a copy of enrollment books containing the names of the members of the party qualified to vote at the next primaries, that being included in the right to an “ inspection,” where, in so doing, he is not taking unnecessary time or interfering with the right of any other member of the party to examine such books.
Adams and Ward, JJ., dissented.
Appeal by the relator, Leonard S. Spire, from an'order of the Supreme Court, made at the Erie Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Erie on the 15th day of September, 1897, denying the relator’s motion for a peremptory writ of .mandamus allowing the relator “to inspect the enrollment.books of the Republicans of Erie County, * * * and to make such transcripts therefrom as he might be advised.”
Simon Fleischmann, for the appellant.
Tracy G. Beaker and Fred J. Blackmon, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Hardin, P. J.:
The court held in Matter of Cuddeback (3 App. Div. 103), viz.: " An appeal will not always be dismissed because the question is ho longer a practical one. Notwithstanding the fact that an election has been held and a decision of the question involved cannot affect the result of that election, yet where the point at issue is one of public interest, affecting the rights .of all the electors of the State,, the courts will determine it." ' Following the'doctrine there laid down, it seems that we ought not, in this case, to dismiss the appeal because the question here involved is as much a- matter of public interest as the question involved in the case from which the quotation has been made.
The enrollment was made for the benefit of the Republican party. The relator was a member of that party and sought the information which the enrollment would afford him. While he was'consulting the books and gathering from them the information which he, as a member of the Republican party, was entitled to, he-was interrupted and prevented from the completion of his efforts.. He, in effect, was denied the full privileges of " an inspection."', (Cotheal v. Brouwer, 5 N. Y. 562.) The denial was not put upon the ground that he was taking unnecessary time or interfering with the rights of any other member of the party to examine the books, . but upon the assertion that he had no right while' inspecting tO' make a copy of the list of names he found on .the enrollment.. Such denial seems to have interfered with the rights and privileges of a member of the party in whose interest the enrollment was made.. (Mutter v. Eastern & Midland Railways Company, 59 L. T. Rep. 117; S. C., 38 Ch. Div. 92.) In that case Lord Justice.Lindley,. in delivering judgment, said that an examination of. the authorities had led him to the conclusion that, speaking generally, a right to' take copies is always treated as incidental to a right to inspect.. <c When the right to inspect and take a copy is not expressly conferred, the extent of such right depends on the interest which the applicant has in what he wants to copy, and on what is reasonably necessary for the protection of such interest." (See, also, Nelson v. Anglo-American Land, Mortgage & Agency Company, 75 L. T. Rep. 482; cited in 31 Am. Law Rev. 916, 917.) The Special Term might, therefore, have properly awarded a mandamus requiring the defendant to allow the relator- a further examination and inspection of the enrollment.
These views would seem to lead to the conclusion that the Special Term improperly denied the writ, .and that its order should be reversed.
Follett and Green, JJ., concurred; Adams and Ward, JJ., dissented.