Excise Commission of Citronelle v. State

• Decision Date: 21 December 1912
• Citation: Excise Commission of Citronelle v. State, 60 So. 812, 179 Ala. 654 (Ala. 1912)
• Parties: EXCISE COMMISSION OF CITRONELLE v. STATE EX REL. SKINNER.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

60 So. 812

179 Ala. 654

EXCISE COMMISSION OF CITRONELLE v. STATE EX REL. SKINNER.

Supreme Court of Alabama

December 21, 1912

Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Mobile County; Saffold Berney Judge.

Petition for mandamus by the State on relation of Milton C. Skinner against the Excise Commission of Citronelle. From a decree granting the writ, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Inge &amp Armbrecht, of Mobile, for appellants.

R Percy Roach, of Mobile, for appellee.

SOMERVILLE J.

The petition is filed by Milton C. Skinner against John Simmons, J. A. Johnson, and Ross Chambers, as members of the Excise Commission of Citronelle, and Carl Pick, as clerk, and prays for an order commanding these respondents to produce, for the relator's inspection, and to allow him to make a copy of, a certain document shown to be in their official custody.

The petition shows that the relator is, and has been since the appointment of said Excise Commission, a qualified elector, taxpayer, and resident citizen of the town of Citronelle, in Mobile county; that said Commission has granted a license to one Frank Allen to sell alcoholic liquors in said town, which license has been issued to said Allen by the probate judge of Mobile county, and that he is now engaged in the sale of such liquors in said town; that said Allen's recommendation for license, which the law requires shall be signed "by 20 householders and freeholders who are qualified electors of the city or town," is believed not to be signed by 20 persons thus qualified; that relator has repeatedly demanded of respondents an inspection of the said recommendation, and that permission to do so has been and still is refused by them; and that relator wishes to exercise his right to object to said license, which he cannot do without an opportunity to first inspect said document. Stripped of all superfluities, the meritorious question presented on the petition, demurrers, motions, and evidence is simply whether or not the relator shows a legal right to examine and make a copy of the document in question.

"An inspection of the records of judicial proceedings, kept in the courts of the country, is held to be the right of any citizen. 1 Greenl. on Ev. (8th Ed.) § 471." Brewer v. Watson, 61 Ala. 310; 23 A. & E. Ency. Law, 167. Although some of the functions of the Excise Commission are quasi judicial, and in some cases their exercise may be purely judicial, yet we do not think its records are judicial records, kept by a court in the sense of the common-law rule above quoted.

With respect to records other than judicial, no statute to the contrary intervening, the public generally have no absolute right of access or inspection. And one who demands that right can be properly required to show that he has an interest in the document which is sought, and that the inspection is for a legitimate purpose. But, for the public and for individuals showing such a right, the custodian of official documents is a trustee; and, while he may and should preserve them against impertinent intrusion, he should allow ready access to those who have an interest in them, and who claim access for the purpose of promoting or protecting it. Brewer v. Watson, 61 Ala. 310.

It is not necessary to now define for all cases the nature of the interest which will entitle the applicant to the access and inspection sought. It is, however, perfectly clear to our minds that, if the document may furnish evidence or information relative to any action or proceeding which he is qualified to bring, or which he may be called upon to defend, whether actually pending or not, he is entitled to such inspection. Ferry v. Williams, 41 N. J. Law, 332, 32 Am. Rep. 219; Re Caswell, 18 R.I. 835, 29 A. 259, 27 L. R. A. 82, 84, 49 Am. St. Rep. 814; Brewer v. Watson, 61 Ala. 311. And "it is not necessary that the interest be private, capable of sustaining a suit or defense on the personal behalf of the party desiring the inspection; but he has the right of inspection whenever, by reason of his relation to the common interest, he may act in such a suit as the representative of a common or public right. * * * Where an action is pending, the court will, at any stage of the cause, award a rule for the production of the documents; but, where there is no action, mandamus will be granted to compel the production." 23 A. & E. Ency. Law, 168; Ferry v. Williams, supra.

The following provisions of the Smith Regulation Bill (Gen. Acts 1911, pp. 249-288) are pertinent to our inquiry:

"Sec. 9. * * * No license shall be granted in any case unless the applicant shall have first produced to said commission a recommendation in writing signed by twenty householders and freeholders who are qualified electors of the city or town in which the applicant proposes to engage in such sale or manufacture, stating if an individual or partnership (1) that they are acquainted with such applicant; (2) that he is of good moral character; (3) that he has been a bona fide resident citizen of Alabama for six months preceding the filing of such application; (4) that he is in all respects a proper person to be licensed."

"Sec. 14. That no application for a license shall be considered by the Commission unless the

...