Case Name: People ex rel. Spire v. General Committee of Republican Party of Erie County
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1898-02-06
Citations: 49 N.Y.S. 723
Docket Number: 
Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. SPIRE v. GENERAL COMMITTEE OF REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ERIE COUNTY.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 49
Pages: 723–729

Head Matter:
(25 App. Div. 339.)
PEOPLE ex rel. SPIRE v. GENERAL COMMITTEE OF REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ERIE COUNTY.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
February 6, 1898.)
1. Appeal—Dismissal—Questions of Public Interest.
Where the question involved in a case is of public interest affecting all the electors in the state, the appeal will not be dismissed, though the question is no longer a practical one.
2. Enrollment of Party Voters—Right to Inspect and Copy.
Where an enrollment of the registered Republican voters in a city, made for the benefit of the party, is open to inspection by any member of that party, the right to inspect includes the right to make a copy of the list of names found there, provided such member, in copying, does not take up unnecessary time, or interfere with the right of inspection by any other member.
Adams and Ward, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from special term, Erie county.
Application for mandamus by the people, on the relation of Leonard S. Spire, against the general committee of the Republican party, known as the Republican Organization of Erie County. From an order denying the writ, • relator appeals.
Reversed.
The defendant is the political organization in the county of Erie of one of the two principal parties of this state, and as such it has duly adopted certain rules and by-laws for its government, and presumably for the furtherance of the principles of the political party which it represents. During the summer of 1897 the defendant, in pursuance of such rules, had caused to be made enrollment books containing the names of all the members of the party who had been registered and who were entitled to vote at the primaries to be soon thereafter held in the city of Buffalo. These books contained the names of about 34,000 electors, and, when completed, they were placed in the custody of the defendant’s officers at the local headquarters of the party. One of the defendant's rules provided that “these books shall at all times be open to the inspection of any Republican.” On or about the 11th day of September, 1897, the relator, who was a Republican elector, in company with two other Republican electors, called at the defendant’s headquarters, and asked for permission to inspect the enrollment books, and especially those relating to the Fifth and Sixth districts of the Twenty-Fourth ward. In compliance with such request, the books were handed to the relator and his associates by the defendant’s secretary, and an opportunity was afforded them to inspect the same. Availing themselves of this opportunity, the relator and his associates undertook to make a transcript of the names appearing upon the books which they were inspecting, and, after having the same in their possession for this purpose for the period of an hour and a half, the defendant’s secretary demanded the books, and refused to allow any further inspection thereof for the purpose of making such transcript. The relator thereupon applied for a peremptory writ of mandamus, and from the order denying such application this appeal is brought.
Argued before HARDIN, P. J., and FOLLETT, ADAMS, GREEN, and WARD, JJ.
Simon Fleischmann, for appellant.
Tracy 0. Becker, for respondent.

Opinion:
HARDIN, P. J.
This court held in Re Cuddeback, 3 App. Div. 103, 39 N. Y. Supp. 388, viz.:
"An appeal will not always be dismissed because the question is no longer a practical one. Notwithstanding the tact 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. Railway Co., 59 Law T. (N. S.) 117, 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. "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. Agency Co., 75 Law T. (N. S.) 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.
Order reversed, with costs.
FOLLETT and GREEN, JJ., concur.