
    *Commonwealth versus Lydia Clark.
    The Court of Sessions must adjudge a man to be the putative father of a bastard child before they can pass an order against him for the maintenance of such child.
    Certiorari on certain proceedings of the Court of Sessions upon the complaint of Lydia Clark against Joseph Cundell as the putative father of a bastard child, of which she had been delivered. At the Sessions there was a verdict against Cundell, who thereupon moved in arrest of judgment, and set forth diverse reasons in support of his motion, which was overruled by the Court of Sessions; and now, upon the return of the certiorari, he assigns the same exceptions to the proceedings, which were argued at some length ; but the Court discovering an error not suggested at the bar, and giving an opinion upon that error only, it is unnecessary to insert either the assignment of errors or the arguments of the counsel upon them.
   Parsons, C. J.

This cause comes before the Court upon a certiorari, on which are certified the proceedings of the Court of Sessions upon an information preferred by Jjijdia Clark against Joseph Cundell, as the putative father of her bastard child, that he might stand charged towards the maintenance of the child. Cundell has taken several exceptions against the regularity of the proceedings, of which the Court do not think it necessary to give 'any opinion, because there appears another exception, which must be fatal There is not in the record any adjudication that Cundell was the putative father of the child. This adjudication is necessary, as the only foundation of the subsequent order for maintenance. The statute of March 15, 1786, which gives to the mother of the bastard child this remedy, expressly provides that the party charged be adjudged the putative father, unless the jury find him not guilty. The necessity of this adjudication, as the foundation of an order for maintenance, results also from the principles of the common law ; and the cases of Rex vs. Perkasse, 2 Sid. 363 ; Regina vs. Weston, Lord Raym, 1198, and The King vs. Pitts, Doug. 662, are express authorities.

Sprout and Holmes for the commonwealth.

Padelford and Washburn for the respondent.

The Court,

therefore, for this exception, without giving any opinion as to the others, ordered

The proceedings quashed.  