State v. Palin
| Decision Date | 30 June 1869 |
| Citation | 63 N.C. 471 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. JOHN PALIN. |
The obligation to give bond for the maintenace of a bastard, under an order of Court, is not a debt, within the provision of the State Constitution (Art. 1, Sec. 16) abolishing imprisonment for debt.
Therefore, a Court may imprison a putative father who refuses to give such bond. Such imprisonment is to be effected now under the act of April 10. 1869, in regard to contempt.
BASTARDY, tried before Pool, J., at Fall Term 1868, of the Superior Court of PASQUOTANK.
There was an issue made up in the said Court to determine whether the defendant was the father of the bastard child of one Nancy Harvey, with which he stood charged. The jury found in the affirmative; and the solicitor for the State moved for an order of affiliation, which was granted. He also moved that the defendant be committed into the custody of the Sheriff until he should give bond for the maintainance of said bastard child, in the usual form, according to the act of 1866.
The defendant moved to be discharged from custody upon ground that the Constitution of the State abolishes imprisonment for debt, and repeals the act of 1866 in relation to the maintenance of bastards. His Honor held that under the Constitution of the State he had no power to imprison the defendant, and ordered his release; from which order the Solicitor prayed an appeal. Appeal granted.
Attorney General, for the State .
No counsel contra.
Section 16 of the Declaration of Rights declares that “there shall be no imprisonment for debt in this State except in cases of fraud.”
Is the duty of maintaining a bastard child, imposed by our statute upon the father, such a debt as is contemplated by this provision of the Constitution? We think not.
It is a police regulation, the object of which is to compel the father of a bastard child to support his own offspring and save the public from the burden of its maintenance.
It is certainly a moral duty resting upon the father to support his offsping, whether they be legitimate or illegitimate; and the law enforces this duty. In the one case by recognizing the marriage contract, and enforcing the reciprocal duties of parent and child; in the other it cannot recognize the relation of parent and child through the marriage contract, but seizes upon the fact of parentage, and enforces the natural duty both for the good of the child and the protection of the public. The statute provides “that the father of such child or children, shall stand charged with the maintenance thereof, as the Court may order, and shall give bond with sufficient security, payable to the State of North Carolina, to perform said order, and to indemnify the county where such child or children, shall be born, from charges for his, or their maintenance, and may be committed to prison, until he find sureties for the same, &c. “This is an enforcement of a duty, and cannot be said to be a debt due to the mother or any other person, but only a charge of maintenance.
Suppose the father takes the child under his own roof, or elsewhere, and maintains it in a suitable manner, keeping it off of the county, and the Court assents to and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. White
...accordance with the provisions of the statute, which has been the law since 1866 and 1867, decided constitutional as far back as State v. Palin, supra, in 1869, which has repeatedly cited with approval since, and the whole subject thoroughly discussed, and the constitutionality of the act r......
-
State Ex Rel v. Beddingfield
...or be unable to pay in money, they should work out the amount on the public roads. This legislation was held constitutional in State v. Palin (1869) 63 N. C. 471, and has been uniformly so held ever since, by unanimous courts, down to and including State v. Nelson, 119 N. C. 797, 25 S. E. 8......
-
State v. White
...if he so elect, bind himself out as an apprentice to some one to get the money. This was held constitutional as early as State v. Palin, 63 N. C. 471, which held that the obligation to pay the allowance was not a "debt, " within the constitutional provision abolishing imprisonment for debt,......
-
State v. Morgan
...he might apprentice himself to earn money for that purpose, the court could sentence the defendant "not exceeding twelve months." State v. Palin, 63 N.C. 471; State v. Beasley, 75 N.C. 212; State Edwards, 110 N.C. 512, 14 S.E. 741. This is not punishment for crime, but enforcement of the or......