
    Basil Root vs. The State of Maryland.
    
    June, 1839.
    The proceeding against the putative father of an illegitimate child, is a pe, culiar one, prescribed by the act of assembly, which gives jurisdiction to a single magistrate, whose judgment, however, in the discretion of the party charged, may be reviewed by a jury in the county court.
    The jurisdiction and the mode of proceeding being special, must be strictly pursued.
    The affidavit of the mother, the foundation of the proceedings, may properly be made in the county in which she and the child reside, and be transmitted to the county in which the supposed father resides; and a magistrate of the latter county may recognize him to appear before the county court thereof, at its next session, to answer the charge.
    And the indictment should shew the residence of the mother and child, so that, if found guilty, the father may be compelled, by a judgment pursuant to the verdict, to recognize for the indemnity of the proper county.
    Where it appeared by the indictment that the parties all resided in one county, and the court upon the verdict adjudged that the father should give security to indemnify another county, it was held to be error; and as no further proceedings could be instituted in the county in which the trial was had, this court reversed the judgment and refused a procedendo.
    This was an indictment against the plaintiff in error for being the father of an illegitimate child.
    The mother and the child resided in Frederick county, and the father, the plaintiff in error, in Carroll county.
    The proceedings which led to the finding of the indictment by the grand jury of Carroll county was as follows;
    1st. The affidavit of the mother made before a justice of the peace of Frederick county, which was transmitted to Carroll county, the residence of the putative father.
    2nd. The warrant of a magistrate of the latter county, directed to a constable thereof, directing him to apprehend, and bring before him, the said putative father, to find security to indemnify Frederick county, from the charges which may arise from the maintenance of the child.
    3rd. The recognizance of the said father with sureties, in the penalty of $80, taken by the same magistrate of Carroll county, conditioned for the appearence of the party, at the county court of said county, to be held on' the first Monday of April 1838, to answer the charge; and
    
      4th. The following indictment found by the grand jury of Carroll county, upon the aforegoing proceedings.
    The grand jurors of the State of Maryland for the body of Carroll county on their oath present, that Basil Root late of the said county, yeoman, on the twenty-fifth day of December, in the year 1836, at the county aforesaid, did beget upon the body of Susanna Metz, a free white woman of the said county, a female illegitimate child, of which said female illegitimate child, the said Susanna Metz afterwards, to wit, on the twenty-fifth day of September in the year 1837, at the county aforesaid, wras then and there delivered, and which said female illegitimate child, was then and there born alive, and is still living, to wit, at the county aforesaid, to the great damage of the said Susanna Metz, against the form of the statute in such-ease made and provided, and against the peace, government, and dignity of the State.
    To which the traverser pleaded not guilty, but the jury having found a verdict against him, he moved in arrest of judgment for the following reasons:
    1st. That the proceedings in this case are, by virtue of certain acts of assembly, in such case made and provided; and that the proceedings required by said acts of assembly, as preliminary to any action of the grand jury, upon the subject, have not been complied with. The traverser was never recognized by a magistrte of Carroll county, to appear in Carroll county court, to answer for being the father of an illegitimate child, of Susanna Metz of Carroll county, of which she was delivered in said county; there was never any affidavit by the said Susanna Metz, (before the action of the grand jury in this case,} that Basil Root the traverser, was the father of any illegitimate child of which she was ever delivered in Carroll county. The presentment, and indictment, and verdict, are not warranted by the proceedings- filed in court in this case, and making a part of the record thereof; and upon the whole record no judgment or order can be passed. The whole record in this case shows that, the provisions of the act of assembly, in order to give this court jurisdiction of the subject matter, were not complied with, and therefore the whole proceedings in this court are' “coram nonjudice” and void.
    The motion in arrest being overruled by the county court, the travérser was adjudged to enter into a recognizance to in-1 demnify Frederick county, against the support of the said illegitimate child, which being done he sued out the present writ of error.
    The cause was argued before Buchanan, C. J., Stephen,Archer, Dorsey, and Chambers, J.
    
    By Raymond and Palmer for the plaintiff in error, arid
    By Boyle, D. A. G., for the State.
   Chambers, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The proceeding against a putative father of an illegitimate' child is a peculiar one, prescribed by the act of assembly, by the' terms of which jurisdiction is vested in a single magistrate, whose judgment in the discretion of the person charged, may' be reviewed by the jury in a county court.

The jurisdiction and mode of proceeding being peculiar, must be exactly pursued.

The affidavit of the mother was in this case properly made' in Frederick, where she resided with the child, and transmitted' to Carroll, where the putative father resided; and the magis-' trate in Carroll properly recognized the party to appear at the' next session of the Carroll county court, for so'we must un-’ derstand the recognizance to intend.

All the subsequent proceedings are erroneous; the indictment so far from being pursuant to the affidavit, makes a case, in' which all the parties reside in Carroll county, and in which consequently Carroll county is to be indemnified.

On this indictment, a verdict was rendered against the par-' ty charged, and the judgment on that verdict, so far from pur-' suing its finding, directs a recognizance to indemnify Frederick coutuy.

The indictment should have stated the fact of the mother’s' residence with the child in Frederick; so that the verdict could-' be properly given, to compel the recognizance to indemnify the county of Frederick.

As no new proceedings could be instituted in Carroll county, by which the errors complained of can be corrected, we shall not order a procedendo*

JUDGMENT REVERSED,  