Court Of Common Pleas, We...
( nf fsanco. ) ",'lus casc Cll r. bergeant YEr.T. moved for a ru le to show cau'e wily tne defendant, who is Warden of the Fleet Brison, shoulol not produce to the plaintiffis a Habeas Corpu.,and thecoinmitment under it, and allow them to copv them (at their own expense), for the pur- poses of the action. The case was this ! The plaintiffs ha(l com- menced an action against a person nanmed Floskins, and had him taken in execution under a cn. . floskins was afterwards brought under a IJulieas before Mir. Justice Gaqselec, and by him committed to the Fleet. Fronm that prison he since escaped. The plaintiff brought his action against the Warden for the escape, and it was for the purpose of that action that the present motion was made. The COURLT wished to know whether there were any cases toshow that such an application could be supported ? Mlr. Scrgeant PELT. said he could cite several, but without trotn- bling their Lordships he would only mention one or two. Before he did so, he would state it generally as a principle whichl had been recognized by the Court that the Court, oh application, woulti grant an order to inspect the books of a corporation or parish. Lord Chief .Justice BESr.-Pbe cases you mention do not, I think, apply to the present. The books of a corporation, every member of that corporation has a right to inspect. So likewise has every inhabitant of a parish a right to inspect parochial books and accounts. MIr. Sergeant PELL said he would mention a case whichl he thought would satisfy their Lordships. There was one in Nd Strange, 1242, in which a man brought an action fer illegal proceedings in the Churt of Requests in London, and he applied to this Court for an order, authorizing him to inspect the procced- ings of the infErior Court, for the purOses of the action. The Court granted the applicationon this ground-that every man had a riglt to inspect proceedings in wlhich he himself was personally interested. The princinle for which he now contended was here fully admitted. The earn6d sergeant saiel; that the defendantrefused to deliver up the documents, or allow themi to be copied, Gon the ground that he had no authority so to do, without tlse permission o the Court. Lord ChietJustice BEST here observed, that thle question, as it appeared to him, was-.how far these were public documentr, and as such, how far the plaintiff'had a right to have access to them P Mr. Sergeant PELL a:aS PrOCeeCdig to cite other cases in support of his rnotin, when the Court intimated that they hadalready heard enough to have the case come bef'orethem for argument, and granted a srule to show cause. - _ COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, WNFDESDAY, Nov.24. DAVIS AND ANOTTE?t V. BROWW.