Public documents are subject to the gen eral rule that their Inspection will not be ordered where it would be detrimental to the public interest ; 1 Greenl. Ev. §§ 231, 476. As to the right of inspection of public rec ords generally, see RECORDS.
Books of a corporation are not the private books of any of the officers and do not be come so on the dissolution of such corpora. tion; Wheeler v. U. S., 226 U. S. 478, 33 Sup. Ct. 158, 57 L. Ed. 309.
In England, counsel may notify opposing counsel to inspect documents in his (the for mer's) possession; failing such notice, they must be strictly proved at the trial; Odgers, C. L. 1242.
An objection to the production of docu ments on the ground that they may tend to criminate the party ordered to produce them must be taken only to the production of the documents alleged to have that effect and not to the order; [1897] 2 Q. B. 124.
In a libel suit against a newspaper pro prietor and other defendants for a joint claim for the same libel and also a joint claim for damages for conspiracy, a newspa per proprietor cannot refuse production of the newspapers, either on the ground of privilege or that its production would tend to incriminate him, if the court considers that he does not honestly believe that its production will have that effect ; [1899] 2 Ir. Rep. Q. B. 199. The publisher had admit ted publication.
A "person who has obtained an order for inspection of books cannot have irrelevant parts kept concealed during the whole liti gation or unsealed and resealed on oath from time to time as the books are required in business, so as to cause interruption of it ; it is sufficient if irrelevant 'entries are cover ed, during the actual inspection, with the affidavit of the person producing them that nothing material has been covered ; [1897] 1 Ch. 761.
An order for production will be .refused where the party applying refuses to state how the papers in question are Bull v. Thompson Co., 99 Ga. 134, 25 S. E. 31.
Too great generality in the application for production of books is cured by particulariz ing books in the order; Hofman v. Seixas, 12 Misc. 3, 33 N. Y. Supp. 23.
Where' a relevant letter is scheduled in an application for the 'production of and it refers to another letter, the latter is relevant in the same application ; 95 L. T. 694; and letters produced by the other party or his solicitor as a matter of courtesy must, subject to the explanation that they were produced incautiously, be treated as relevant and as if scheduled; 95 L. T. 694.
Any comptilsory discovery by extorting the Party's oath or compelling the production of his private books and papers in order to convict him of crime or to forfeit his prop erty, was held unconstitutional as contrary to the fourth and fifth amendments ; Boyd v. U. S., 116 U. S. 616, 6 Sup. Ct. 524, 29 L. Ed. 746. No statute which leaves the party or witness subject to prosecution after he answers the incriminating questions can sup plant the privilege conferred by the consti tution. R. S. § 860, does not supply a com plete protection from all the perils against which the constitutional prohibition was de to guard, and is not a full substitute for that prohibition ; Counselman v. Hitch cock, 142 U. S. 547, 12 Sup. Ct. 195, 35 L. Ed. 1110.
The act of Feb. 11, 1893, provided that no person shall be excused from attending and testifying or from producing books, papers, tariffs, agreements and documents before the Interstate Commerce Commission, on the ground that the evidence, documen tary or otherwise, may tend to incriminate him or subject him to a peitalty or forfeiture. This act (1893) was passed in view of the Counselman Case, supra.' it was held to af ford absolute immunity against prosecution, federal or state, for the offence to which the question relates, and to deprive the witness of his constitutional right to refuse to an swer; Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, 16 Sup. Ct. 644, 40 L. Ed. 819.
By act of Feb. 19, 1903, courts may compel the attendance of witnesses both on the part of a carrier and shipper, who shall be re quired to answer 'on all subjects relating, directly or indirectly, to the matter in con troversy, and 'may compel the of all books and papers both of the carrier and shipper which relate directly or indirectly to such transaction ; the claim that such tes timony or evidence may tend to criminate the person giving such evidence shall not ex cuse such person from testifying or such cor poration producing its books and papers, but' no person shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on ac count of any transaction, matter or thing concerning which he may testify or produce evidence documentary or otherwise in such proceeding.