Anonymous

<p>No order against putative father of a bastard, may be made, before application to overseers of the poor, for its support.</p> <p>An order had been mpde on a putative father of a bastard child, to pay a gross sum of $27; and also to pay to the overeecrs of the poor, four shillings per week. This order yvas appealed froni, and confirmed by the Sessiops; and then moved to this Court by certiorari. It was admitted in a stated case agreed on by the parties, that at the Sessions, op hearing of'the appeal, that neither the inhabitants of the township, nor the overseers, had ever paid any thing for or towards the maintenance of the said bastard child, or entered into any contract to pay any thing for the past or future support of the said child; nor the mother of the said child, nor the said child, had ever been supported by the town, as paupers. But that the said mother, and the said child, had hitherto been maintained by the father of the mother of the child. But that the order was made on the application of the overseers of the poor.</p> <p>in behalf of the putative father, took several objections to the proceedings below. [*] From the course the cause took, it is unnecessary to take notice of but one, which was, that it was evident from the facts in the the case, that the child was not either chargeable to the town, nor likely to become chargeable; that it was on that ground alone that the order could be made; that the parents of the mother were respectable, and in good circumstances, and disdained to put their daughter or the child on the town; that the order was made to favor the mother, and not to indemnify the town, which wras contrary to the spirit and policy of the law', 1 Burn. J. 205, 1 Vent. 37.</p> <p>By our statute, Pat. 152, it is made the duty of the justice ex-officio, to inquire into all cases of bastard children, and to make provision for their maintenance ; that every bastard child is likely to become chargeable. 1 Burn. J. 212, 2 Salk. 475; that jf the order for $27 was erroneous, yet the remainder of the order w'as valid, and ought to be affirmed; that 1 Burns J. 205, cited by Mr. Halsey, was contradictory to the statute; that the town was under a moral obligation to maintain the bastard child; the father of the mother doing it, the town was under an obligation to remunerate him. It has been determined that a Physician, administering relief to a poor person whom the parish was liable to maintain, could maintain an action against the overseers for his bill, although he had not been employed by them to do the service; and although no order had been made for the maintenance of the poor person, on the ground that the parish was under a moral obligation to. maintain him.</p>