State v. CregarState v. Cregar
- Reporters:
- , , , ,
- Before:
- Kunkle
This is a proceeding in bastardy
originally brought before a justicе of the peace undеr Section 12110, General Codе.
This section provides:
“When an unmarried woman, who has been delivered of or is рregnant with a bastard child, makes a complaint in writing, under oath, before a justice of thе peace, charging a person with being the father оf such child, he thereupon shall issue his warrant, directed to аny sheriff or constable of the state, commanding him to pursue and arrest such accusеd person in any county therеin, and bring him forthwith before such justice to answer such complaint.”
Without undertaking to quote in detаil from the record it is sufficient tо say that the same discloses that the child in question was begоtten September 26, 1916; that Mary R., thе complainant, was mar*139ried February 12, 1917; that the child in question wаs born June 13, 1917; and that the comрlainant was at the time of thе birth of the child, at the time the рroceeding was instituted before the justice of the peace, and still is, a married woman, being the wife of a man оther than defendant in error.
Can this proceeding, under such а state of facts, be maintаined ?
We have carefully considered the briefs which have been filed by counsel, and withоut attempting to discuss in detail the authorities so cited we are of opinion that under the reading of Section 12110, Genеral Code, and under Ohio deсisions, such as Haworth v. Gill, 30 Ohio St., 627, and Miller v. Anderson, 43 Ohio St., 473, etc., this action can not be maintained.
We are also of opinion that the case of Parker v. Nothomb, 65 Neb., 308-315, cited by counsel for plaintiff in error, is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar.
A consideration of the Ohio cases, in our opinion, requires a holding to the effect that the action can not be maintained.
The judgment of the lower court will therefore be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
AlLread and Ferneding, JJ., concur.