
    [Philadelphia,
    Saturday, July 18, 1812.]
    Addis against The Commonwealth.
    In Error.
    The time during which the reputed father of a bastard child shall be ordered to maintain it, is entirely within the discretion of the Sessions, who are not bound by any practice however uniform, that may have been adopted by themselves or other courts upon the subject.
    Upon a writ of error to the Quarter Sessions of Philadelphia county, to remove an indictment and conviction of fornication and bastardy, the error assigned was in that part of the judgment, by which the defendant was ordered to pay a'weekly sum for the maintenance of his child, a daughter, till she attained the age of seven years.
    
      Brown for the plaintiff in error,
    stated that the judgment was against the uniform practice and rule of the Sessions of Philadelphia county, in which a distinction was always madé until now between male and female children, the allowance for the latter being till five only, and the former until seven.
    
      Ewing for the commonwealth was stopped by the Court.
   "Tilghman C. J.

The practice which has been mentioned is of no importance. The court which intro-

duced it, has power to alter it. It was originally founded on their own discretion, and not on any positive law. The act of assembly leaves the period and the quantum of maintenance to the judgment of the court. It is not easy to see any good reason' for limiting the support of females to five years, while males are to be maintained until seven. It is probable that in different counties, different opinions have prevailed; but there can be no reason why the court of Philadelphia county should be confined to an opinion which they once entertained, but upon reflection have altered. We are of opinion that the judgment be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  