Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

44 N.C. 244

State v. Pate

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 15, 1853

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1853-06-15

This was a proceeding in bastardy, returned to the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions of Wayne county, in which Court the defendant pleaded that he was not the father of the child as charged. From' thence it was carried upon the appeal of the County Solicitor to the Superior Court, where it was tried before Manly, Judge, on the last Spring Circuit.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1853-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently December 1905

4 state decisions

20185318601870188018901900decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PeaRSon, J.

¶1By the Revised Statutes, ch. 31, sec. 3T, “ each party in all civil suits” may challenge peremptorily four jurors. So the question is, are proceedings in bastardy “ civil suits?”

¶2Suits are either civil or criminal. All criminal suits are prosecuted in the name of the State ; but all suits prosecuted in the name of the State are not criminal suits : — an action of debt may be prosecuted in the name of the State. The true test is, when *245the proceeding is by indictment, it is a criminal suitwhen by action or other mode, although in the name of the State, it is a civil suit, and should be by the clerks put on the civil, as distinguished from the State docket. By the “'Declaration of Rights,” no free man shall be put to answer any criminal charge, but by indictment, presentment, or impeachment. By Rev. Stat., ch. 35, sec. 6, no person can be charged in a criminal proceeding, except upon a bill of indictment. Tested in this way, the present is a “ civil suit,” although prosocuted in the name of the State, and the plaintiff was entitled to four peremptory challenges. The object of the suit is not to punish the defendant for an act done to the injury of the public, but to indemnify the County of Wayne against a liability for the support of a bastard child, of which the defendant is by law the reputed father.

¶3The other question is settled. State v. Floyd, 13 Ire., 382.'

¶4Per Curiam. Judgment reversed, and venire de novo awarded.

/44/nc/244 · .json · Public domain