Moore v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Mercer County
| Citation | 183 A.2d 763,76 N.J.Super. 42 |
| Decision Date | 03 August 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. C--2613,C--2613 |
| Parties | A. Jerome MOORE, Regina H. Meredith, Anton J. Hollendonner, Josephine A. Mathey, and Nancy Schluter, Plaintiffs, v. The BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS, OF the COUNTY OF MERCER, George J. Sutch, Freeholder of the County of Mercer and Chairman of Revenue & Finance, Philip T. Carroll, Clerk of the Board of Freeholders of the County of Mercer, Martin T. Hillman, Treasurer of the County of Mercer, Arthur R. Sypek, Freeholder of and Democratic Nominee for the office of Freeholder of the County of Mercer, Richard J. Coffee, Freeholder of and Democratic Nominee for the office of Freeholder of the County of Mercer, Samuel M. Sharkey, Auditor of the County of Mercer, Defendants. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court |
Edward B. Meredith, Trenton, attorney for plaintiffs.
Joseph S. Bash, County Counsel, attorney for defendants.
BENNETT, J.C.C. (temporarily assigned).
In this action the plaintiffs seek to compel the defendants to make available to them certain public records, to permit the plaintiffs to photocopy these records, and to secure the continuing jurisdiction and supervision of the Superior Court over such photocopying. In general, these records consist of the public and financial records maintained by the Mercer County administration.
All of the plaintiffs herein are taxpayers in Mercer County and registered Republican voters. In addition, the plaintiff Moore is chairman of the Republican County Committee, and the plaintiffs Meredith and Hollendonner are Republican candidates for the board of chosen freeholders as a result of the 1962 primary election.
The defendants are elected or appointed officials of the County of Mercer and have custody of the public records which the plaintiffs seek to photocopy. With the exception of the defendant Sharkey, all are registered Democratic voters, and the defendants Sypek and Coffee are both incumbent freeholders and candidates for re-election.
The plaintiffs claim that the desired records are distributed throughout the various departments of government in such a way that it is necessary for them to have available for photocopying all records of a public nature so that they may be able adequately to study and comprehend them. The plaintiffs further allege that their efforts in the past to gain access to and to read or copy these public records have been impeded by the harassment and lack of cooperation on the part of the named defendants.
It is admitted by the defendants that the plaintiffs have the right to read and inspect all records of a public nature. The defendants have also agreed that the plaintiffs may copy such records by hand as they are inspecting them. Furthermore, during the hearing of a motion to dismiss before the Honorable Frank J. Kingfield, A.J.S.C., on June 29, 1962, Joseph S. Bash, Esq., attorney for the defendants, stated that the County of Mercer was willing to do any desired photocopying for the plaintiffs. He said
During the hearing of the present motion the defendants have again expressed their willingness to allow the plaintiffs to read, inspect and hand-copy the desired public records and to photocopy such records for the plaintiffs under the supervision of the court.
On June 29, 1962 the defendants moved before Judge Kingfield, in the Chancery Division, for a judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; for a dismissal as to certain plaintiffs on the grounds that they were not necessary or proper parties; for a judgment of dismissal because the complaint was motivated by partisan political purposes in an effort to utilize the court solely for propaganda; and for an order striking certain paragraphs of the complaint as being redundant, impertinent and scandalous. The motion was denied. The court held that the complaint should not be dismissed for a failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted since the defendant had not yet filed his answer.
The defendants have answered and now move for summary judgment on the ground that there exists no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the defendants, Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Mercer et al., are entitled to the judgment as a matter of law.
It is claimed by the plaintiffs that the matter before this court is Res judicata because the parties, the issues, the allegations of the complaint, and the cause of action are the same as those which appeared in the previously discussed motion of dismissal. This contention cannot stand. The issue as to the right of the plaintiffs to photocopy the public records of the Board of Freeholders of Mercer County has not been ruled upon and is not Res judicata.
The plaintiffs also allege that by admitting certain paragraphs in the complaint and by denying others the defendants are, in effect, conceding that there are issues of fact presented therein. The denying of various paragraphs does not establish factual issues relevant to the motion unless they are material to the relief sought. The defendants concede every right sought except the right to photocopy with their own equipment. This court concludes that the sole issue before it is whether under the circumstances of this case the plaintiffs have a right to photocopy, by the use of their own equipment, all public records under the control of the Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Mercer.
The plaintiffs rely on R.R. 4:24--1 to substantiate their claim of a right to photocopy. The rule states:
'Upon motion of any party showing good cause therefor and upon notice to all other parties, * * * the court may (a) order any party to produce and permit the moving party, or someone acting on his behalf, to inspect and copy or photograph any designated books, papers, documents or tangible things, not privileged, which constitute or contain evidence relating to any of the matters within the scope of the examination * * * and which are in his possession, custody, or control, * * *'.
Here we have an Express grant to the courts of the power to allow the inspecting, copying or Photographing of certain things under restricted circumstances. The purpose of R.R. 4:24--1 is to aid the parties...
To continue reading
Request your trial