State v. Hedgepeth

• Decision Date: 03 May 1898
• Citation: 122 N.C. 1039,30 S.E. 140
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE. v. HEDGEPETH.

30 S.E. 140

122 N.C. 1039

STATE.

v.HEDGEPETH.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 1898.

Limitations—Proceeding in Bastardy.

Code, § 1177, provides that all misdemeanors, except certain stated ones, shall be presented or found by the grand jury, within two years after the commission of the same. Section 36 provides that "all examinations upon oath to charge any man with being the father of a bastard child, shall be taken within three years next after the birth of the child." Held, that a proceeding in bastardy was not barred until three years from the birth of the child.

Appeal from superior court, Franklin county; Timberlake, Judge.

Proceeding in bastardy by the state of North Carolina against Stephen Hedgepeth. From a judgment against defendant, he appeals. Affirmed.

The matter was heard originally before a justice of the peace, and defendant appealed to the superior court from the judgment rendered against him. When the case came on for trial in the superior court, the defendant pleaded not guilty, and contended that the prosecution was barred by lapse of time, the supreme court having held that bastardy Is now a criminal action. It appeared from the evidence that more than two years had elapsed, but not three years. The defendant asked the court to instruct the jury that, more than two years having elapsed before action was begun, the same was barred. Refused, and defendant excepted. There was a verdict of guilty. Motion for a new trial refused. Judgment that defendant pay a fine of $10 and costs, and that he pay Hettie King, the prosecutrix, the sum of $30 in monthly installments, etc., signed, "Timber-lake, J." Defendant, appealed.

W. M. Person, for appellant.

The Attorney General, for the State.

DOUGLAS, J. This is an appeal In bastardy proceedings, wherein the defendant was convicted. The only question brought before us is the statute of limitations, the defendant contending that, as more than two years had elapsed since the birth of the child before the bringing of this action, its prosecution was barred under section 1177 of the Code. We do not think so. Whatever may be the nature of the proceedings, section 36 of the Code specifically provides that "all examinations upon oath to charge any man with being the father of a bastard child, shall be taken within three years next after the birth of the child." We think that this section controls the period of limitation, for reasons more fully set forth in State v. Perry (decided at this term) 30...