Case Name: Ex Parte William Dunbar
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1817-10
Citations: 13 Tyng 392
Docket Number: 
Parties: Ex Parte William Dunbar.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 14
Pages: 336–337

Head Matter:
Ex Parte William Dunbar.
This Court will not grant a certiorari to bring before them the proceedings of a court-martial.
Harrington moved for a certiorari to bring ■ up the proceedings of a general court-martial, which had passed a sentence upon the said Dunbar, an officer of the militia, by which he was aggrieved.
In support of the motion, Harrington argued from the powers vested in this Court by the statute establishing it. Besides what is implied by the title of Supreme, given to the Court as well by the constitution as by the statute, and besides its general juris diction in civil and criminal causes given by the statute, there is expressly given to the justices authority, by certiorari, “ to cause to be brought before them as well indictments, other criminal prosecutions pending in, as the records of sentences, orders, decrees, and judgments, of any court of inferior criminal jurisdiction, and to proceed, order, and award, thereon,” &c¡ And by another clause of the statute, power is given to “ issue writs of prohibition and mandamus, according to the law of the land, to all courts of inferior" judiciary powers, and all processes necessary to the furtherance of justice and the regular execution of the laws.” Courts-martial are created by statute, and are courts of inferior judiciary powers.
The general superintending power of this Court is the great protection of the citizens against the oppression of inferior tribunals. The exercise of this power, in cases like the present, will prevent the necessity of civil actions for damages, and will tend to excite more * deliberation and caution in those courts.
In every view of the subject, the expediency of the measure is apparent.
Stat. 1782, c. 9.

Opinion:
By the Court.
This is an application of an entirely new impression. The inconveniences, which may be foreseen from sustaining motions of this kind, furnish, besides the total want of precedent, a strong argument against it. Parties who have legal ground to complain of the doings of these military courts have their remedy by action at law ; and to that remedy they must be left.
Motion overruled.