
    
      Ex parte Gordon.
    Neither a writ of prohibition or mandamus will lie to bring under review the proceedings of an inferior court, on the ground of their being erroneous merely.
    Accordingly, where a motion had been made in a court of common pleas to quash an appeal from a justice’s judgment, on the ground of certain irregularities, which motion was there denied; held, not a case for prohibition against further proceedings on the appeal.
    An appeal having been taken to the Chenango common pleas from a justice’s judgment, the appellee moved in that court to quash the appeal, on the ground of divers alleged irregularities. The common pleas denied the motion.
    This court was now moved in behalf of the appellee, (Gordon,) for a writ of prohibition, forbidding all further proceedings in the court of common pleas.
    
      E. Quin, for the motion.
   By the Court,

Cowen, J.

This application is without precedent; and the motion is denied on the ground that the writ of prohibition will not lie, any more than mandamus, for the purpose of reviewing a decision of an inferior court because it is erroneous.  