People ex rel. Griffin v. Lathrop

• Decision Date: 10 April 1894
• Citation: 36 N.E. 805,142 N.Y. 113
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. GRIFFIN v. LATHROP, Superintendent of Prisons, et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

142 N.Y. 113

36 N.E. 805

PEOPLE ex rel. GRIFFIN

v.LATHROP, Superintendent of Prisons, et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

April 10, 1894.

Appeal from supreme court, general term, second department.

Mandamus on relation of John J. Griffin to Austin Lathrop, superintendent of state prisons, and William R. Brown, agent and warden of Sing Sing prison, to reinstate relator as guard or keeper. From a judgment of the general term (24 N. Y. Supp. 754) affirming the special term's order denying the writ, relator appeals. Affirmed.

Horace D. Ellsworth, for appellant.

T. E. Hancock, Atty. Gen., for respondents.

O'BRIEN, J.

The relator, an honorably discharged soldier, had served for many years as a keeper in the state prison at Sing Sing, from which position he was discharged by the agent and warden in September, 1891, without any charges being made against him, or any fault on his part or against the performance of the duties of the place. Another honorably discharged soldier was appointed in his place. The relator applied to the court for a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel his reinstatement, which was denied after a hearing, and the order has been sustained by the general term.

The sole question presented by the appeal is one of power. If the agent and warden had the legal authority to discharge the relator and appoint another person in his place, the court cannot control the use of this power, nor interfere with the exercise of discretion, or advise the officer touching the performance of his duties. The discharge of the relator might not be regarded, under all the circumstances, as just or wise, but the courts have nothing to do with these questions. We have the right to look into the question of power, but the writ demanded by the relator could not issue except to require the warden to perform some act which the relator could demand as a legal right. The contention in behalf of the relator is that he was illegally discharged, and that he is entitled to be reinstated in the position from which he was removed, by force of the terms of the statute, Laws 1887, c. 464. By that act the legislature has declared that: ‘In every public department and upon all public works of the state of New York, and of the cities, towns and villages thereof, and also in noncompetitive examinations under the civil service laws, rules or regulations of the same, wherever they apply, honorably discharged Union soldiers and sailors shall be preferred for appointment and employment; age, loss of limb or other physical impairment which does not, in fact, incapacitate, shall not be deemed to disqualify them, provided they possess the business capacity necessary to discharge the duties involved.’ The second section provided that ‘all officials or other persons having power of appointment to, or employment, in the public service, as set forth in the first section of this act, are charged with the faithful compliance with its terms, both in letter and spirit, and a failure therein shall be deemed a misdemeanor.’ It will be seen that, though this statute prescribes the duty of officers possessing the power of appointment, it contains no language that abrogates or repeals the power to discharge which existed before its first enactment in 1884. By section 4, art. 5, of the constitution the appointment of certain officers in the prisons, including guards or keepers, is vested in the agent and warden. The language of the section is such as to justify the inference that this power...