Case Name: The People of the State of New York ex rel. Clinton H. Smith, Appellant, v. Peter C. Doyle and Others, Members, and Martin Carey, Recorder, of a Board of Examination, Appointed by General Orders No. 7, Headquarters, State of New York, Adjutant-General's Office, May 1, 1899, and Theodore Roosevelt, Governor of the State of New York, Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1899-11
Citations: 44 A.D. 402
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York ex rel. Clinton H. Smith, Appellant, v. Peter C. Doyle and Others, Members, and Martin Carey, Recorder, of a Board of Examination, Appointed by General Orders No. 7, Headquarters, State of New York, Adjutant-General’s Office, May 1, 1899, and Theodore Roosevelt, Governor of the State of New York, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 44
Pages: 402–404

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York ex rel. Clinton H. Smith, Appellant, v. Peter C. Doyle and Others, Members, and Martin Carey, Recorder, of a Board of Examination, Appointed by General Orders No. 7, Headquarters, State of New York, Adjutant-General’s Office, May 1, 1899, and Theodore Roosevelt, Governor of the State of New York, Respondents.
Writ of prohibition — a board of examination as to the character of an officer of the National Guard, not restrained.
A writ, of prohibition will not be issued to a legally constituted board of examination, appointed in accordance with section 64 of the Military Code (Laws of 1898, chap. 312) to examine into the moral character, capacity and general fitness of an officer of the National Guard of the State of New York for the military service of the State, restraining them from proceeding with the examination, and restraining the Governor of the State of- New York from acting on their findings.
Appeal by the relator, Clinton H. Smith, from' an order of .the Supremti Court, made at the Hew York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Hew York on the 11th day of- August, 1899, denying his application for a writ of prohibition and dismissing an alternative writ commanding the defendants above named to desist and refrain from any further proceeding under general orders Wo. 7, whereby they báse any judgment, finding, recommendation or action upon testimony, findings or recommendations given before or by a court of inquiry, held under special ■orders Wo, 128, ■ headquarters Wational Guard, and special orders Wo. 4, headquarters Wational Guard,.and from receiving said testimony, findings o.r recommendations- and from exercising any juris■diction or talcing testimony concerning alleged acts of omission or ■commission of the relator while acting as an officer in the service of the United States, and from basing any judgment, finding, recommendation or action as to the moral character, capacity or general "fitness of the relator for service in the Wational Guard as a commissioned officer upon certain specific acts which might have subjected the relator to a trial by court-martial,, until the further order of the •court, and to show cause why such restraint should not be made Absolute.
Alexander S. Bacon, for the appellant,
John H. Coyne, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Barrett, J.:
The defendants, other than the Governor, are a board of examination to examine into the relator's, moral character, capacity and general fitness for the military service of the State. They were Appointed in accordance with the .provisions of section 64 of the Military Code (Laws of 1898, chap. 212). Their function- is to 3-ecord and return to .the Governor the testimony taken and a record •of their proceedings. Effect is given to their findings only upon the approval of the Governor. The proceeding is thus simply an aid to the Governor in determining whether the relator should, under the law, be discharged from the military service. What the relator, in substance, asks is that the means thus providéd for enabling the Governor to act advisedly in the premises shall be nullified by judicial mandate. It is needless to say that this cannot be done. The court has no jurisdiction to provide for the conduct of this board in the exercise of its functions, or to direct it to admit or •exclude evidence of a particular character. Still less has it jurisdiction to prohibit the Governor from exercising his authority in Approving or disapproving the findings of the board upon the testi mony which they take and return to him. The office of the writ of prohibition is to keep judicial bodies within their jurisdiction, not to correct possible errors committed in its exercise. The defendants here are strictly within' the jurisdiction conferred by the statute. • The Governor was expressly- authorized to order the relator before a board of examination. The board was legally constituted, audit is fully authorized to take testimony upon the subject of the relator's moral character, capacity and general fitness for the service. It is not limited by the statute with regard to the nature and character of the testimony which in its judgment bears upon the subject-matter of the inquiry. This application proceeds upon an inaccurate view both of the office of a writ of prohibition and of the powers of the board and Governor under the statute, It is without merit and was properly denied.
The order appealed from should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.
Tan Brunt, P. -Jb* Rumsey, Patterson and O'Brien, JJ.. concurred.
Order affirmed, with costs.