State v. Bradshaw
| Decision Date | 15 June 1938 |
| Docket Number | 728. |
| Citation | 197 S.E. 564,214 N.C. 5 |
| Parties | STATE v. BRADSHAW. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Alamance County; C. L. Williams, Judge.
Tommie Bradshaw, alias Thomas Bradshaw, was charged by indictment with having willfully neglected and refused to support his illegitimate child, and upon a special verdict was adjudged not guilty, and the State appeals.
No error.
Proceeding upon indictment charging the defendant with wilful neglect and refusal to support illegitimate child begotten by him of Lola May Price.
The essential facts set out in the special verdict, from which the State appeals, follow:
1. The child in question was "born during the month of September, 1933."
2. On August 21, 1933, a warrant was sworn out by Lola May mother of the child, charging the defendant with the offense of bastardy under C.S. §§ 265-279. In this case the defendant admitted the charge and was ordered to pay the mother of the child the full sum of $200, which he did.
3. Thereafter, on March 5, 1934, the County Superintendent of Public Welfare swore out a warrant against the defendant charging him with the wilful neglect and refusal to support his illegitimate child in violation of Chap. 228, Public Laws, 1933. The defendant's plea of former jeopardy was sustained in the trial court. Notice of appeal was entered but the appeal was not perfected.
4. On June 5, 1937, Lola May Price (then married), mother of the child, obtained a warrant in the present proceeding. A true bill was returned at the November Term, 1937, and special verdict rendered at the February Term, 1938, upon which the defendant was adjudged not guilty.
The State appeals, assigning error.
Harry M. McMullan, Atty. Gen., and T. W. Bruton and Emmett C. Willis, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
J. Elmer Long and Clarence Ross, both of Graham, for appellee.
It was held in State v. Mansfield, 207 N.C. 233, 176 S.E. 761, that a judgment under the prior bastardy statutes after their repeal by Chap. 228, Public Laws 1933, and with which the defendant had failed to comply, would not defeat a proceeding under the latter act.
It was also held in State v. Johnson, 212 N.C. 566, 194 N.E. 319, that the offense created by Chap. 228, Public Laws of 1933, is a continuing one, and that a prior proceeding would not defeat a subsequent one for a later violation.
In the instant case, the plea is interposed that the proceeding is barred by Section 3 of the Act which provides: "Proceedings under this act may be instituted at any time within three years next after the birth of the child and not thereafter."
It is not perceived wherein this section can be limited to proceedings to establish paternity as the State contends. Its language is clear, positive and unbending. It seems to have been taken from C.S. § 274 of the old law, which was held to supersede the general statute of limitations on the subject. State v. Perry, 122 N.C. 1043, 30 S.E. 139; State v. Hedgepeth, 122 N.C. 1039, 30 S.E. 140.
Section 1 of the act in question provides that any parent who wilfully neglects or refuses to support and maintain his or her illegitimate child "shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to such penalties as are hereinafter provided." A child is defined as any person less than fourteen years...
To continue reading
Request your trial