Case Name: Elmira Allard vs. Horace Bingham
Court: Vermont Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Vermont
Decision Date: 1836-03
Citations: 8 Vt. 470
Docket Number: 
Parties: Elmira Allard vs. Horace Bingham.
Judges: 
Reporter: Vermont Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 470–471

Head Matter:
Elmira Allard vs. Horace Bingham.
Caledonia,
March, 1836.
In a prosecution for bastardy,cif tho complainant becomes non-suit, or the proceedings are quashed, cost may be taxed for the defendant.
This was a prosecution for bastardy, under the statute of this state, passed November 9th, 1822.
In the county court, non-suit was entered by the plaintiff. Respondent claimed his costs. The counsel for the plaintiff contended that costs were not taxable for respondent. Judgment that respondent recover bis costs.
To this decision of the court the plaintiff excepted.
Mr. Fletcher for complainant.
Mr. Wheeloclc for respondent.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Williams, Ch. J.
The general statute, which provides that when any person shall cause process to be served upon another, and discontinue the same, or become non-suit therein, the court shall give judgment for the defendant to recover his cost, was sufficient to authorize the county court in this case to tax costs against the complainant. The proceedings, in the case of bastardy, against the putative father, are considered as in the nature of a civil suit, and have always been so treated in this state. Bonds for costs must be given by the complainant in the same manner as on issuing writs of attachment. The providing clause to the second section of the statute relating to bastards and bastardy, does not restrain the court in taxing costs, to those cases only where there is a verdict of a jury. In all cases where the judgment is that the person complained of is not chargeable, or that he be discharged, whether such judgment be rendered on a verdict, or on a demurrer, or on quashing the proceedings for irregularity, cost must be taxed in his favor against the complainant.
The judgment of the county court is therefore affirmed.