State v. Perry
| Decision Date | 03 May 1898 |
| Citation | 30 S.E. 139,122 N.C. 1043 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE. v. PERRY. |
Limitation of Actions—Bastardy Proceedings.
Code, § 36, provides that bastardy proceedings shall be begun within three years after the birth of the child. Section 35 imposes a fine on the finding or admission of paternity. Section 1177 provides that prosecutions for misdemeanors shall be begun within two years from their commission. Held that, althoughsuch proceedings are in their nature criminal, the general provisions of section 1177 do not apply.
Appeal from superior court, Wake county; Robinson, Judge.
Proceeding in bastardy by the state against Guion Perry, Jr. On motion of defendant, the warrant was quashed, and the state appeals. Reversed.
The following is the complaint, viz.: "Jane Ellen Jones, being duly sworn, complains and says that at and in said county and Little River township, on or about the 1st of July, 1894, one Guion Perry, Jr., did unlawfully and willingly beget upon her a child, which child is a female bastard, of the age of one year, ten months, being less than three years old; that said bastard is likely to become chargeable upon said county; and that Guion Perry, Jr., is the father of her said bastard child; and that this affidavit is fully and voluntarily made, —contrary to the form of the statute, " etc., dated March 9, 1897. Upon the hearing before the justice of the peace, and upon motion of the defendant, the warrant was quashed, for that the misdemeanor charged was committed more than two years prior to the taking out of the warrant; and upon appeal to the superior court, upon a similar motion, the same was allowed, and the judgment, discharging the defendant, rendered by the court below, from which the state solicitor appealed.
The Attorney General, for the State.
This Is a proceeding in bastardy, begun before a justice of the peace. The justice quashed the warrant "for that the misdemeanor therein charged was committed more than two years prior to the taking out of the warrant." The state appealed, and in the superior court the proceedings were quashed, "because it appears on the face of the warrant that the bastard child, at the date of issuing the warrant, was more than two years old, and under three years of age." The state appealed to this court. This brings before us the single question of the statute of limitations, which is in no way dependent upon the civil or criminal nature of the proceedings, but is controlled...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Southern Ry. Co.
-
State v. Bradshaw, 728.
...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 negle......
-
State v. Bradshaw
...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. Section 1 of the act in question provides that any parent who wilfully neglects or......
-
State v. Hedgepeth
...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 S. E. 139. This being the only exception, and no error appearing upon the face of the record, the judgment Is affirmed. ...