
    The People, on the relation of Thomas Washburn, vs. The Judges of the Washington Common Pleas.
    A rt f common pleas have not the power to in¡?“gUja'pty° fairness of Jd“re™byjusti°nefs¿ the deik’s office by transcript-
    Motion for a mandamus. The relator applied to the common pleas 1o set aside four judgments obtained against - . , , , . . , . him by attachment before justices of the peace, transcripts of which had been certified and docketed in the clerk’s office of the county ; and also to set aside the executions issued upon the judgments. It ivas not alleged that the j'udgments were paid, or that any irregularity liad occurred in reference to the executions; but the judgments were sought to be got rid of, as unduly obtained. The common pleas denied the motion, and a mandamus is now asked for, to vacate that rule and to direct the granting of the motion.
    
      C. L. Mien, for relator.
    
      S. Stevens, contra,
   By the Court,

Savage, Ch. J.

The court of common pleas had no jurisdiction of the matter, nor did they possess the power on summary application of this kind, to inquire into the regularity or fairness of the judgments. The jurisdiction of the common pleas, in such cases, is confined to the process of execution sued out on (he judgments, which, issuing under the seal of the court, is subject to the control of the court; and for any abuse in the suing out of the process, or irregularity in its execution, the common pleas have a right to interfere. (3 Cowen, 506. 5 Cowen, 31.) But they cannot inquire into the regularity or fairness of the judgments. In this case, there is no complaint in reference to the execution. The court of common pleas were correct in refusing the motion, and the mandamus is accordingly denied.  