State v. Williams

• Decision Date: 18 June 1888
• Citation: 96 Mo. 13,8 S.W. 771
• Parties: STATE ex rel. CONRAN et al. v. WILLIAMS, Recorder of Voters.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

8 S.W. 771

96 Mo. 13

STATE ex rel. CONRAN et al. v. WILLIAMS, Recorder of Voters.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

June 18, 1888.

1. RECORDS — RIGHT TO COPY — REGISTRATION LISTS — MANDAMUS.

Mandamus will lie to compel the recorder of voters of the city of St. Louis to permit the copying of the registration lists in his custody, the same being public records, under reasonable regulations for their safety, for use by a "voluntary political organization" in holding a primary election, under the act of March 27, 1875, (Acts Mo. 1875, p. 54,) as the lists furnish the best evidence of the qualifications of voters prescribed by that act; but the writ will not be granted until the statutory notice required for such election has been given.

2. MANDAMUS — PROCEDURE — RETURN.

A return to an alternative writ of mandamus denying "any knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief" in respect to certain material allegations of the petition is insufficient; the provisions of the practice act, permiting such answer in ordinary civil cases, not being applicable to proceedings by mandamus.

Original proceedings in mandamus.

This action is brought in the name of the state, at the relation of Isaac Conran and others, constituting the Democratic central committee of the city of St. Louis, to compel Henry W. Williams, recorder of voters for said city, to allow the relators to inspect and take copies of the registration books and lists of the voters therein, for the purpose of holding a primary election, under the primary election law, of March 27, 1875, (Acts of 1875, p. 54.) The respondent made return to the alternative writ, and the relators demur thereto.

Charles B. Stark, for relators. A. & J. F. Lee, (Henry W. Williams, pro se,) for respondent.

BLACK, J.

This case stands on a demurrer to the return made to the alternative writ of mandamus. The relators aver in the petition and writ that they constitute the Democratic central committee of the city of St. Louis, the Democratic party being a voluntary political organization; that a general election will be held in this state on the 6th of November, 1888, for the election of various officers; that a number of conventions are to be held by the Democratic party to nominate candidates for such offices, and that delegates are to be selected from the city of St. Louis to attend those conventions; that local officers, such as constables, are to be put in nomination by the party organization; that on April 11, 1888, the relators, as such committee, passed a resolution declaring it to be to the interest of the party to select the before-named delegates and the candidates for the local offices by a primary election, to be held under the primary election law of 1875; that at the same time they instructed a committee to prepare and report plans and the form of notice to be given of such election; that to hold such primary election it is necessary that the judges and clerks thereat should have copies of the registration books and registration lists in the custody of the respondent, who is recorder of voters under the act of 1883; and the command of the alternative writ is that respondent permit relators to inspect the registration books and lists, and take copies thereof.

1. In respect of some of the material averments of the petition the respondent makes return thereto by saying that he has no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether, etc.; reciting the allegation. This is true in respect of the allegation that the relators constitute the managing committee of said party in St. Louis, and the relators challenge the sufficiency of such a denial. The practice act permits this form of a denial in an answer in ordinary civil suits. At the adoption of the practice act, in 1849, it was provided, by section 6 of article 30, that the act should not affect proceedings upon mandamus until otherwise provided. At the present time the article relating to amendments is in express terms made to apply to writs of mandamus; thus showing by clear implication that in other respects it does not apply. Hence we held in State v. Burkhardt, 59 Mo. 79, that the general provisions of the practice act allowing all persons having an interest in the suit to be made plaintiffs or defendant had no application to proceedings by mandamus. It is therefore clear that the return must conform to the common-law rules; and this is none the less so because the relator may plead to or traverse all or any of the facts stated in the return. High says: "Unless, therefore, the alternative writ is quashed, the respondent is bound to make return, and to set forth either a positive denial of the truth of the allegations contained in the writ...