Case Name: STATE v. WILLIAM BROWN
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1853-12
Citations: 1 Jones 129
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE v. WILLIAM BROWN.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 46
Pages: 129–130

Head Matter:
STATE v. WILLIAM BROWN.
Where the mother of a bastard child is brought before*a Magistrate, and refuses to declare on oath the father of such child, but pays the fine and gives bond and security to indemnify the county, she cannot, afterwards, voluntarily institute proceedings against the reputed father, to subject him to the maintainance of the same child.
This was a proceeding in bastardy, to subject the defendant to the maintainance of a bastard child, begotten of one Julia Duty, tried before his Honor Judge Saunders, at Eall Term, 1853, of Randolph Superior Court. ' '
A warrant had been issued by a Justice of the Peace of the county, on the 11th of March, 1852, against Julia Duty, to compel her to declare on oath the father of her illegitimate child. Upon the return of the warrant, she refused to make such declaration, but paid the fine required by law, and gave security to indemnify the county against the main-tainance of the child, which warrant and bond were duly returned to the County .Court, and ordered to be filed.
On the 15th of November, 1852, Julia Duty voluntarily applied to another Magistrate, and wás permitted to make a declaration on oath, charging the defendant to be the father of the same bastard. Whereupon, the warrant in this case was issued, and the defendant bound to the court. The County Court made an order to quash the proceedings, and the State appealed to the Superior Court. In that Court, his Honor, on consideration of the facts above stated, gave judgment that the proceedings be quashed, and the State appealed to this Court,
Attorney Cfmeral, for the State., '.
No counsel for the defendant.

Opinion:
Battle, J.
The bastardy act (1 Rev. Stat. eh. 12, see. 1) .declares that, if a single woman be big with child, or be de- ' livered of á child, and, upon being taken before two Magistrates for examination upon oath concerning the father» shall refuse to declare him, she shall pay a fine of five dollars, and shall give bond, with sufficient' security, payable to the State, conditioned to keep her child from being chargable to the county. But if she declare who the father is» then certain proceedings shall be had against him, for the purpose of compelling him to maintain his bastard child, so that the county may have an indemnity against the charges of such maintainance. The act of 1850, ch. 14, gives the same powers to a single Magistrate as under the former law had 'been exercised by two.
It is manifest that it was not the object of this enactment to punish the father of a bastard child for having begotten it, but the purpose was solely to prevent its support and maintainance from becoming a county charge. The proceedings under' the act are not therefore criminal in their nature, but are mere police regulations, adopted for the pur" pose above indicated. State v. Carrow, 2 Dev. and Bat. 370; State v. Pate, Busbee 244, Now this purpose may be as fully and effectually accomplished by the mother's giving bond with sufficient security for the indemnity of the county, as prescribed in the first clause of the act, as by obtaining a similar indemnity by proceeding against the father under the second clause. So soon as the county is Secured in either way, from having a charge imposed upon it on account of the bastard child, it follows as a necessary consequence, that the whole.object of the act has been accomplished, and no further proceedings can be had. Hence, in this case, after the mother had given and the county had Veeeived indemnity, the magistrate had no authority to proceed against the reputed father, and his proceedings were properly quashed, both in the County and Superior Courts,
Pee Curiam. The order appealed from must be affirmed.