
    BASTARDY PROCEEDINGS BY A MARRIED WOMAN.
    Court of Appeals for Clark County.
    State of Ohio, ex rel Mary Roden, v. Edward N. Cregar.
    Decided, January 5, 1918.
    ■ Bastardy — Not Maintainable Where the Child Was Born After Hie Marriage of the Mother — Section 12110.
    Bastardy proceedings can not be maintained' by a married woman, notwithstanding the child was begotten prior to her marriage by a man other than her husband.
    
      T. J. McCormick, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Stafford & Arthur, contra.
   Kunkle, J.

This is a proceeding in bastardy which was originally brought before a justice of the peace under Section 12110, General Code.

This section provides:

“When an unmarried woman, who has been delivered t>f or is pregnant with a bastard child, makes a complaint in writing, under oath, before a justice of the peace, charging a person with being the father of such child, he thereupon shall issue his warrant, directed to any sheriff or constable of the state, commanding him to pursue and arrest such accused person in any county therein, and bring him forthwith before such justice to answer such complaint.”

Without undertaking to quote in detail from the record, it is sufficient to say that the same discloses that the child in question was begotten September 26th, 1916; that Mary Roden, the complainant, was married February 12, 1917; that the child in question was born June 13, 1917; that the complainant was, at the time of the birth'of the child, at the time the proceeding was instituted before the justice of the peace, .and still is, a married woman, being the wife of a man other than defendant in error.

Can this proceeding, under such a state of facts, be maintained? We have carefully considered the briefs which have been filed by counsel. ■ Without attempting to discuss the authorities so cited in detail, we are of opinion that under the reading of Section 12110, General Code, and under the Ohio decisions, such as 30 O. S., 627; 43 O. S., 478, etc., this action can not be m.aintained.

We are also of opinion that* the case cited by counsel for plaintiff in error in the 65 Nebraska Reports, p. 608, 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.

Allread, J., and Ferneding, J., concur.  