
    [Philadelphia,
    January, 14,1836.]
    HELLINGS against AMEY.
    IN ERROR.
    1. Where a defendant, who had been sentenced by a Coart of Quarter Sessions, upon a conviction of fornication and bastardy, to the payment of a certain gross sum to the mother of the child, and also to the payment to her of a weelily sum for a certain, term, applied for and obtained a discharge of his person under the insolvent act, it was held that the mother might maintain an action of debt upon the sentence of the Quarter Sessions, to-recover the amount ordered to be paid to her.
    2, The-defendant in such action having pleaded payment, with leave to give the special mailers in evidence, it was held that the plaintiff was not bound to prove the averment in her declaration, that she had maintained and supported the child during the term, for which the defendant was liable to pay, by the sentence of the court.
    "Writ of error to the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks county.
    In the Court of Quarter Sessions for the oounty of Philadelphia, in October, 1827, John Hellings, the plaintiff in error, was convicted of fornication and bastardy, and sentenced by the court to pay to the prosecutrix, Hannah Amey, the sum of fifteen dollars for lying-in expenses, and seventy-five cents per week for the support of the child from its birth, until it should arrive at the age of seven years, and to give bonds to the guardians of the poor in three hundred dollars, to make such payments, &c. On the 26th of June, 1828, John Hellings presented his petition to the Court of Common Pleas for the city and county of Philadelphia, praying for the benefit of the insolvent laws. Hannah Amey was the only creditor returned by the petitioner, who was discharged on the 8th of July following. To February Term, 1834, of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks county, Hannah Amey instituted an action of debt against the same John Hellings, in which a declaration was filed, setting forth the sentence of the Court of Quarter Sessions; and the plaintiff averred that she had maintained and supported the child from the time of its birth, until its arrival at the age of seven years, and that the said sum of fifteen dollars for lying-in expenses, and the allowance of seventy-five cents per week, had not been paid to her by the defendant; whereby an action had accrued, &c. The defendant pleaded nul tiel record and payment, upon which issue was joined. Upon the first pie a'the court gave judgment for the plaintiff; and the cause coming on for trial, on the plea of payment, at April Term, 1835, the plaintiff gave in evidence the record of the sentence of the Court of Quarter Sessions, and the petition of the defendant for the benefit of the Insolvent Laws. The counsel for the defendant then prayed the court to charge the jury that the action could not be sustained, and that if the action would lie, it was necessary for the plaintiff to prove the averments in the declaration'respecting the maintenance of the child by her, during the term of seven years. The court, however, charged the jury upon these points in favour of the defendant, who excepted to the charge; and the jury having found for the plaintiff, the cause was removed to this court.
    Errors having been assigned upon these points, Mr. Ross for the plaintiff in error, contended
    1. That an action did not lie upon a sentence of the Court of Quarter Sessions, in a case like the present; the point having been expressly decided in Eby v. Burkholder, (17 Serg. fy Rawle, 1.)
    
      2. That the plaintiff was bound to prove the averments in the declaration; in support of which he cited, Roof v. Brubacker, 1 Rawle, 307.
    
      Mr. Porter, contra.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by

Gibson, C. J.

Judgment affirmed.  