Case Name: Henry Scott, plaintiff in error, vs. William E. Lazenby, sub-enrolling officer, defendant in error
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1864-03
Citations: 33 Ga. Supp. 134
Docket Number: 
Parties: Henry Scott, plaintiff in error, vs. William E. Lazenby, sub-enrolling officer, defendant in error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 33 Suppl.
Pages: 134–136

Head Matter:
Henry Scott, plaintiff in error, vs. William E. Lazenby, sub-enrolling officer, defendant in error.
It was competent and proper for the Congress of the Confederate States to appoint the tribunal for the examination and adjudication of the question of the physical ability of persons for military duty in the field, provided for by the Act entitled “An Act to establish places for rendezvous for the examination of enrolled men,” approved 11th October, 1862.
The decisions of the tribunal or medical board provided for by said Act are final and conclusive, and the Courts cannot review them or go behind them.
Application for certiorari, decided by Judge James S. Hook, at Chambers, on the 2d of February, 1864.
The single question presented for adjudication in this case springs out of the following state of facts, viz: Plenry Scott was enlisted as a soldier in the army of the Confederate States, on the 11th of May, 1861, in Captain William Johnson’s company (F,) Tenth regiment of Georgia Volunteers. His enlistment was for the war. On the 29th of October, 1861, at Young’s Mills, in the State of Virginia, he was regularly and honorably discharged from service in the army, his discharge being signed by Alfred Gumming, Colonel commanding Tenth Georgia regiment. ( On the 4th of- March, 1863, Scott seems to have been examined by G. B. Powell, surgeon, and found incapable of discharging the duties of a soldier, and had Surgeon Powell’s certificate to that effect. He also had a certificate signed “ M. J. Jones, Assistant Surgeon, P. A. C. S.,” dated October 30th, 1863, in which it was stated : “I have known Mr. Henry Scott for six years, and that within that time he has been frequently laid up with nephitis and gravel. These attacks coming on every three or four months, are attended with spinal irritation. He is at no time fit for active duty of any kind. He entered the service as a volunteer on the 11th of May, 1861, and did not more than three weeks duty up to the time of his discharge, which was about six months after his enlistment. I have been thrown with him nearly every day since his discharge, and have attended him in his attacks. I, therefore, respectfully recommend his discharge from service.”
On the first of October, 1863, after ten days’ notice through the public gazettes, as required by law, and by hand-bills posted up through the county, Scott came before the board of examining surgeons of the fifth Congressional district, regularly assigned to that duty, and after being pronounced capable of performing the duties of a soldier, was enrolled as a conscript and sent to camp of instruction number two, to which he then belonged.
On the 1st day of January, 1864, Scott applied for, obtained and accepted a furlough allowing him to be absent from camp of instruction number two, near Decatur, Georgia, for ten days, and at the expiration of that time he was to report at said camp, or be deemed a deserter.
At the expiration of his furlough, he was taken into custody by William E. Lazenby, sub-enrolling officer for the county of Columbia.
Scott then applied to Honorable Edward J. Short, one of the Justices of the Inferior Court of Columbia county, for a habeas corpus, basing his application for discharge from custody upon the single ground of physical inability to discharge the duties of a soldier. The habeas corpus, and return of the officer thereto, were heard on the 18th of January, 1864, and after argument had thereon, the Court decided that the said Scott should be remanded to the custody of the enrolling officer, the board of surgeons assigned to the duty of examining him and all others enrolled for duty, having pronounced him capable of discharging the duties of a soldier.
Scott then applied to Judge James S. Hook for a certiorari, in which application the facts before stated appeared, and Judge Hook refused to sanction the writ, and that decision is the error complained of.
John C. Snead, for plaintiff in error.
Frank H. Miller, contra.

Opinion:
By the Bourt
Lyon, J.,
delivering the opinion.
By an Act of Congress, entitled "An Act to establish places for rendezvous for the examination of enrolled men," approved 11th October, 1862, it is enacted "That there shall be'established in each county, parish, or district, etc., in the several States, a place of rendezvous for the persons in said county, district, parish or city, enrolled for military duty in the field, who shall be there examined by one or more surgeons to be employed by the Government, and to be assigned to that duty by the President, on a day, of which ten days notice shall be given by said surgeon, and from day to day thereafter, until all who shall be in attendance for the purpose of examination shall have been examined; and the decision of said surgeon, under regulations to be established by the Secretary of War, as to the physical and mental capacity of any such persons for military duty in the field, shall be final." It was competent and proper for Congress to appoint this tribunal for the examination and adjudication of the question of the physical ability of persons for military duty in the field. Indeed that is not denied. That tribunal, the board of surgeons for the district to which this applicant for discharge belonged, was the proper and only one to determine the only question made in this record — one of physical ability for military duty in the field. And that board having determined that he was able to do such duty, its decision is "final" and conclusive on this plaintiff and on this Court. We have no power to review its judgments, or to go behind them.
Let the judgment of the Court below be affirmed.