
    PEOPLE ex rel. CHRISTERN v. WALSH.
    
      N. Y. Supreme Court, First Department ; Special Term and Chambers,
    
    
      October, 1880.
    Naturalization.—Election Inspectors. —Judgments.
    Where one has been naturalized as a citizen by a court of competent jurisdiction, bis right to citizenship cannot be questioned by election officers.
    Application by J. Christern fora mandamus against Patrick Walsh and others, to compel them, as inspectors of election, to register relator.
    The affidavits set forth that the relator appeared in person in the superior court, on September 15, 1868,. with his witness, and was naturalized as a discharged soldier, and received a certificate of naturalization in the usual form under the seal of said court, dated on that day and signed by its clerk, which recited:
    1. That it is a court of record ;
    2. That the relator appeared at a special term thereof and applied for admission;
    3. That he produced such evidence, made such declaration and renunciation, and took such oaths as aro required by law;
    
      4. That the court then ordered his admission as a citizen, and he was accordingly admitted by it.
    That the relator had resided for many years in the Eleventh Election District of the Third Assembly District, and was entitled to register and vote in said district; that on October 13,1880, the relator appeared before the Board of Inspectors of that district, took the required oath, testified as to his residence in the district, street number, full 'name, country of which he was a native, and term of residence in the State and county, and stated that he was naturalized as above set forth, and produced a duplicate certificate of such, naturalization.
    The United States supervisors of election then told relator that if he registered he would be arrested. Relator persisted in Ms right to register. The supervisor of' elections then asked relator questions, which he read from a printed circular issued by John I. Davenport, chief supervisor of elections, the inspectors assenting to his asking such questions. The questions directed to be asked by the circular were as follows:
    First.—What was his age when he came to this country ? ,
    Second.—Whether he has served in the army and been honorably discharged ?
    Third.—Whether his parents or either of them have resided in this country, and if so, whether they are naturalized and the time of such naturalization, i.e., whether they or either of them were naturalized before the applicant for registration arrived at the age of. twenty-one ?
    Fourth.—If the answer to question one shows that the applicant for registration was over the age of eighteen when he came to this country, and the answers to questions two and three be in the negative, he should then be inquired of as to whether he procured his first papers before receiving his certificate, and if so, whether it was two years before %
    
    Fifth.—Whether he personally appeared in court when he obtained his certificate and was sworn, or whether it was sent to Mm, or given him elsewhere ?
    Sixth.—Whether he took a witness to court with Mm when he received his certificate, and if so, how long he had known the person who was his witness %
    
    In reply, relator said he would swear that he was the person named in the certificate of naturalization, and that the same had been delivered to him by
    
      the court; that he was willing to answer any questions in regard to identifying him as the person ■ named therein, but that such certificate being the decree of the court admitting him to citizenship, he was advised, was conclusive evidence of the regularity of his naturalization; that the questions asked him had been passed upon by the court in granting such certificate; that the board of ‘ inspectors had no power to review the decision of the court, and that he therefore declined to answer the questions put to him.
    The board of inspectors therefore refused to register relator.
    
      George W. Wingate and E. Elway Anderson, for relator.
    The certificate of naturalization is a judgment and cannot be questioned as to matters necessarily passed upon in granting it (Re Coppin, 5 Sawy. 630; Re Levy, 14 Op. U. S. Att.-Gen. 509 ; People v. Pease, 30 Barb. 604; Banks v. Walker, 3 Barb. Ch. 438; McCarty v. Marsh, 5 N. Y. 263 ; The Acorn, 2 Abb. U. S. 434; Ritchie v. Putnam, 13 Wend. 524; Stark v. Chesapeake Ins. Co., 7 Cranch, 420; Spratt v. Spratt, 4 Pet. 393; Matter of Kane, 4 Luzerne Leg. Rep. 263; S. C., Leg. Gaz. 337). The questions asked were passed upon in granting the certificate. If the certificate was fraudulently obtained, the superior court will vacate it (Matter of Christern, 43 Super. Ct. [J. & S.] 523; Matter of Coleman, opinion by Blatchford, J., not reported).
   Lawrence, J.

The relator has. by the judgment of the superior court of the city of New York, been naturalized as a citizen of the United States. That judgment cannot be attacked or impeached collaterally, and certainly not by a board of election officers, who are mere ministerial officers, and not a tribunal vested with the power to sit in review of the decision of a court of competent jurisdiction upon the question of the right of the relator to citizenship (McCarthy v. Marsh, 5 N. Y. 263; The Acorn, 2 Abb. U. S. 434,443 ; Banks v. Walker, 3 Barb. Ch. 438 ; Stark v. Chesapeake. Ins. Co., 7 Cranch, 420 ; Spratt v. Spratt, 4 Pet. 393; People v. McGowan, 77 Ill. 644; Matter of Coleman, opinion of Blatchford, J.).

If there was fraud or error in the proceedings in the superior court, on a direct application to that .court, the judgment can be set aside. Mr. Justice Fbebdman of the superior court has already passed ' upon the validity of the relator’s naturalization, and declared it to be valid (Matter of Christern, 43 Super. Ct. [J. & S.] 523).

Let a mandamus issue directing the registration of the relator’s name.  