Opinion
(June Term, 1851.)
Although a bastard be born in one county, yet if the mother and child afterwards remove to another county, and there acquire a residence before proceedings in bastardy are had against her, those proceedings must be in the latter county, which is alone responsible for the maintenance of the bastard.
APPEAL from Manly, J., of RICHMOND Spring Term, 1851.
This was a proceeding under the "Bastardy Act," instituted in the county court of Richmond. It appeared that the child was born in Richmond County; that the mother and child removed to Montgomery, and there resided more than two years before this proceeding was commenced. The defendant therefore moved to dismiss the prosecution for the want of jurisdiction in the county court of Richmond, but the court refused the motion and gave judgment against the defendant, who appealed therefrom. The Superior Court affirmed the judgment of the county court, and the defendant appealed. (122)
Attorney-General for State.
J. W. Cameron and Banks for defendant.
The mother and her child had acquired a settlement in the county of Montgomery at the time this proceeding was commenced. The county of Richmond was not chargeable, and therefore had no right to require an indemnity. There is error. The point is settled by S. v. Roberts, 32 N.C. 350.
PER CURIAM. Reversed.
Cited: S. v. Elam, 61 N.C. 463.
(123)