66 N.C. 648 (N.C. 1872), State v. Beatty
|Citation:||66 N.C. 648|
|Opinion Judge:||RODMAN, J.|
|Party Name:||STATE v. FRANK BEATTY.|
|Attorney:||Attorney General for the relator. J. M. and M. L. McCorkle for the defendant.|
|Judge Panel:||PER CURIAM.|
|Court:||Supreme Court of North Carolina|
1. It is not the sole purpose of the Act, relative to " Bastard Children," Rev. Code, Chap. 12, to require the putative father to indemnify the county, but likewise to maintain the child.
2. As to past maintenance, there is no difference between that and future maintenance, so far as the power of the Court is concerned.
3. When a person was charged with being the father of a bastard child, and gave bond for his appearance at the next term of the Court, and, before the term of the Court, the child died, held, that it was error in the Court to discharge such putative father upon payment of costs, and, withou making any order or requiring him to give bond. What kind of order, should be made in such cases, is in the discretion of the Court. The statute seems to require some order in every case.
State v. Harshaw, 4 D. and B. 371, cited and approved.
This was a proceeding in bastardy, before Mitchell, Judge, at Fall Term 1871, of Catawba Superior Court.
The mother of the child had been examined before its birth, by a Justice of the Peace, and the defendant had been recognized to appear at the next term of the Court. The examination and proceedings were admitted to be regular.
The defendant appeared and proved to the Court that the child was born alive, lived several days, but died before this term of the Court. Whereupon he moved to be discharged upon payment of costs. This motion was resisted by the Solicitor, who asked that the defendant be required to give bond to perform such orders as the Court might see proper to make and on failure to do so, that he be committed. The Court ordered that the defendant be discharged upon payment of costs. From which order the relator appealed.
Under Rev.Code, c. 12,-relative to bastard children,-the putative father may be required not only to indemnify the county, but to make provision for the maintenance of the child.
The defendant was duly charged by a single woman with being the father of a child with which she was pregnant, and he entered into recognizance for his appearance at the Superior Court. On proof before the Court that the child had been born since the date of the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP