Maryland case law › State v. Hardesty

State v. Hardesty

132 Md. 172 (1918) · Maryland Court of Appeals
Maryland Court of AppealsDisposition: DismissedUrner, J.✓ Good law
HoldingThe State appealed from a judgment for the defendant on a demurrer to an indictment charging Hardesty with having begotten a bastard child on the body of a woman in St.

Urner, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The indictment in this case charges the appellee with having begotten on the body of the woman therein named, in St. Mary’s County, a male bastard child, who was born in Baltimore City, the temporary residence of the mother, and is now living in Prince George’s County, where the prosecution was instituted. A demurrer to the indictment was filed and sustained on the ground that, as the fornication was alleged to have been committed in St. Mary’s County, the accused was subject to indictment only in that jurisdiction, whore he resides. The appeal is from a judgment for the defendant on the demurrer.

The law of this State relating to bastardy and fornication, as amended by the Act of 1912, Chapter 163, and constituting Article 12 of the Code of Public General Laws, contains tlie following provisions affecting the question we are called upon to decide: “2. Whenever any woman who has been delivered of or who is pregnant with a bastard child shall, in writing, under oath, accuse any person before a justice of the peace, having criminal jurisdiction, of being the father of the said bastard child, such justice of the peace shall by his warrant cause sucb person to be brought before him, and if the said accused person is not to be found in the county or City of Baltimore, as the case may be, then said justice of the peace shall transmit a warrant to the sheriff of the county or City of Baltimore, as the case may be, in which said accused person is to be found, wbo shall cause the arrest of the 174 said accused person and deliver him into custody of an officer of the county or City of Baltimore, as the case may be, from which the said warrant issued to 'be taken before said justice of the peace.” The two next succeeding sections direct the course of proceedings upon the appearance of the accused before the justice of the peace, including the passage of an order requiring the accused “to give bond to> the State of Maryland in a penalty not exceeding $500, with good and sufficient securities, conditioned that he will appear at the next term of the Circuit Court of the county from which said warrant issued, or the Criminal Court of the City of Baltimore, as the case may be, or to any later term of such Court, after1 the birth of said child”; and section 5 provides: “Immediately upon the passage of said order, said justice of the peace shall transmit the original papers and a transcript of the proceedings had before him to said Circuit Court or the Criminal Court of the City of Baltimore, as the case may be, and thereupon, but not before said woman shall have been delivered, the same proceedings shall be had as in other criminal cases, and if the accused person shall be found guilty by the verdict of a jury, or by the court, if the case be tried before the court, the court shall immediately order such person to give bond to the State of Maryland in a penalty not exceeding $500, with good and sufficient securities, conditioned to pay for the maintenance and support of said child, to the mother, or to the person having said child in custody, or to the county or to the City of Baltimore, as the case may be, if the said child be a public charge, until said child reaches the age of 12 years, * * * such sum, npt exceeding $15 per month, as the court shall by order direct,****." In the law as it stood prior to the enactment of the amending statute from which we have quoted it was provided that 175 the putative father of the illegitimate child should he proceeded against as such in the county or city of his residence. Code 1931, secs. 2 and 3. The elimination of this, provision was one of-the important changes effected by the Act of 1932.

Neither the pre-existing nor the present statute has required the prosecution of the putative father to he conducted in the county where the fornication resulting in the illegitimate birth was committed. It is true that the fornication, having such a result, is the offense against which the proceeding is directed. While that offense, in the view of the statute, is not consummated until the birth of the child, yet it is the fornication which the law is designed to punish by the exaction of the prescribed bond of indemnity, or by imprisonment in default of compliance with that requirement. Sheay v. State, 74 Md. 52 ; Lynn v.

This is a preview of State v. Hardesty. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.