Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

21 Md. 422

Bake v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided May 27, 1864

Court of Appeals of Maryland · decided 1864-05-27

On the 6th day of J uno 1862, the mother of an illegitimate child appeared before a magistrate of Allegany County, and made oath that she was delivered of said child on the 19th day of June 1861, and that the appellant was its father. On the 16th of June 1862, the magistrate issued his warrant .against the appellant, who, on the same day, entered into a recognizance before the magistrate to answer the charge at the.ensuing term of the Circuit Court for the. county.

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently August 1988

3 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1864-05-27

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Bartol, J.,

¶1delivered the opinion of this Court:

¶2This was a prosecution for bastardy under the 13th Article of the Code. The preliminary proceeding in such case against the putative father, is had before a justice of the peace. By the 5th section, the party charged is secured a trial before the Circuit Court of the County, upon his entering into recognizance to appear “at the next Circuit Court,” and the same section directs, that “such proceedings shall thereupon be had as in other criminal cases.”

¶3These provisions of the Code are similar to those of the Act of 1781 and its supplements, which were considered by the Court of Appeals in Oldham vs. The State, 5 Gill, 90, and Owens vs. The State, 10 Md. Rep., 164. In the former case Chief Justice Archer said: “The proceeding is treated *426by the law as a criminal proceeding, and it is classed by the law itself as a criminal case,” and in Owens vs. The State, the same construction of the Act was adopted. In both cases the Court say, although one purpose of the law is to indemnify the County, this does not change the character of the proceeding, which is criminal in its nature, designed to punish the offence of fornication.

(Decided May 27th, 1864.)

¶4We entertain no doubt that such a prosecution is within the 10th section of the 51th Article of the Code, and must be commenced, within one year from the time of the offence committed; that is to say, from the birth of the illegitimate child, when, the offence is consummated for which the 13th Article of the Code provides the punishment.

¶5In this case the appellant by his fourth plea alleges, that the prosecution and proceedings were not commenced “within one year from the birth of said illegitimate child, mentioned in said indictment.” To this, the State, by its attorney, demurred, thereby admitting the fact as pleaded, which under the 10th section of the 51th Article is a bar to the prosecution.

¶6In our opinion the Circuit Court erred in ruling’ the plea insufficient and in sustaining the demurrer, the judgment must therefore be reversed.

¶7Judgment reversed.

/21/md/422 · .json · Public domain