The Supreme Court

Lansixg, .Tune 11.- Benjamin Brown V3. Jacob Kuapi). Washteuaw countj' treasurer. Sherwood, J. - Tlie papers presenteil in tliis oase show a most extraordinary proceeding on the part of the county treasurer. A 'member of the Board of Review of Ann Arbor, who bad been for the two previous years a supervisor in Washtenaw county, on application to that oilicer for peiraission to inspect a liquor bond is denied the privilege 011 the ground that the treasurer icgards it as unnecessary for the purposed stated by the petitioner. It is not pretended that such purpose is an unlawful one or that the request was unlawfully made. The county treasurer holds a public office and the statute requires the liquor bonds to be filed therein, and to be kept by the treasurer. They thereby beconie public records, and as sucli mny beexaminedand copies taken thereof by any citIzen. There are many aud very good reasons wliy the citizeu may and should have this right: 1. Asa citizeu, to hokl the board whose duty it is to approve the bond, to public accoüntability for acccpting insuffic'tnt lods; 2. To prosecute sureties crimlnally when they have falsely sworn to responsibility; 3. To see if there , is Insuthcient secunty tor any citizeu, widow, clrild orparent who may have a right of iction for violation of tlie license law (which frequently oeciirs)against the liquor scller and his sureties and to see thattheyare not forged; 4. As assessor or otlier tnx officer who may desire to compel partios who may have property, according to theiroaths given on justilication, to pay their share of the taxes, and for man y otlier puiposes which readily occur to any one one who has given any attention to the subject. It is no aoewer to say tliat the time has frone by for porforming the pflicial act by the person desiringthe Information sourht or tliat the purpose intended, in the judgment of the respondent, is not a commendiible or proper one so long as it is not criminal, when the Inepection is desired. The law does not vest In thetreasurer any such difcietionary power, to deprlve the citizen of a subataatlal right given by the statute, one in which he uiiiy be deprlved f the action of the treasurer in this case can be Mistalned, and the most beneflciiil object of the act under v hich the bond is given, defeated. City bourda and otlier offlcerg, wbose diily it is to piirove ot these bonds, are held to a great extent to responsibility In tikino; proper semirity iii this class of cases by a just public opinión from which they cannot be permitted to shield theinselves in the courac pursued by this respondent. The real purpose of the statute is tliat perfectly safe bonds shall be taken for the protection of all parties, and this purpose must not be defeated by proceedings of the sort complaiued of In this case. We aro all of the opinión tliat the action taken by the treasurer in this case can lind no support in law or right and should not be sustained. If authority were needed tipon the construction of the statute as we have given it, it will be found in Ferry vs. Williams, 41 N. ,1 L 932; Í!) Am. L. Ke?. (N. S.) 184, which we fully approve. The request of the petitioner was a reasonable one and it waa the duty of the ollicer to couiply with It when made. The writof mandamus must begranted as prayed, with costs against the respondent. Associate justices concurrid,