Case Name: Howard v. The Overseers of the Poor, &c.
Court: Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1823-05-29
Citations: 1 Rand. 464
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Howard v. The Overseers of the Poor, &c.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 22
Pages: 182–182

Head Matter:
*Howard v. The Overseers of the Poor, &c.
May, 1823.
Bastardy Proceedings — Appeal—New Evidence. — On an appeal from an order of a county court providing for the support of a bastard child, it is error for the appellate court to receive new evidence of the fact, which was not before the county court.
Appeals from Pacts — Confined to What Cases, — The right of appealing from facts, is confined to the cases of mills, roads, the probat of wills, and certificates for obtaining administration.
Bastardy Proceedings — Charge Must Be in Writing, —When a charge is made before a magistrate by the mother of a bastard child, the charge ought to be taken down in writing, under the act of assembly.
Sarah Pemberton made oath before a magistrate of Powhatan county, that Thomas Howard was the father of a bastard child, of which she had been delivered; and, upon the application of one of the overseers of the poor, who stated that the said child would become chargeable upon the county, the magistrate bound the said Howard in a recognizance to appear at the next county court of Powhatan, and abide by, and perform the orders of such court, as should be made in the premises. But, he did not take down the charge of Sarah Pemberton in writing.
The county court, upon hearing the complaint , ordered, that Thomas Howard should be charged with the annual payment of thirty dollars, for the maintenance of the said child, for the term of ten years, &c.
Howard appealed to the superior court of Powhatan.
On the trial of the appeal, sundry witnesses were heard, and the court affirmed the judgment of the county court; and, on the motion of Thomas Howard, it was ordered,, that the said testimony should be spread upon the record.
Howard appealed to the court of appeals.
Nicholas, for the appellees.
No counsel for the appellant.
See monographic note on “Parent and Child” appended to Armstrong v. Stone, 9 Gratt. 102.

Opinion:
JUDGE BROOKE,
*May 29. — delivered the opinion of the court:
The court is of opinion, that the appeal from the county to the superior court, was not an appeal from the fact, but from the law only; and that it was irregular in the superior court, to receive evidence, which was, or ought to have been heard by the county court; the 18th section of the act to reduce into one the several acts concerning the court of appeals, and the special court of appeals, having virtually limited appeals from the fact, to the cases of mills, roads, the probat of wills, and certificates for obtaining administration. The court, however, would not reverse the judgment of the superior court, for this error. But. on the authority of the case of Mann v. The Commonwealth, and on further consideration of the 23d section of the act, providing for the poor, and declaring who shall be deemed vagrants, it appearing by the proceedings in the county court, that the charge before the magistrate by the mother of the bastard child, was not taken down in writing, according to one of its provisions, the 'court is of opinion, to reverse both judgments, and to dismiss the complaint.
6 Muuf. 452.
Old Rev. Code, 183.