
    THE STATE VS. JOHN L. HARMON AND SECURITIES.
    A defendant, who has, in pursuance of the sentence of the Court, entered into recognizance for the maintenance of a bastard child, from the time of its birth, cannot afterwards resist a motion to estreat the recognizance, on the ground that he was only liable by law for ¿65 annually, from the time of his conviction, or at most, from the time information was made against him. He cannot then question the accuracy of the sentence, or avoid the recognizance given in pursuance of it.
    
      Before Mr. Justice O’Neall, Newberry, Spring Term, 1837.
    The presiding Judge made the following report of the case :
    “This was á scire fac-ids to estreat the recognizance of John L. Harmon and his securities, entered into before the clerk, after the defendant Harmon’s conviction, on an indictment for bastardy, for the support of a bastard child.
    “It was contended, that by law, the defendant, Harmon, was only liable for £5 per annum, commencing from his conviction; or at most, only from the time the information was made against him. The terms of the recognizance were sufficiently broad to carry back the allowance to the birth of the child; but the'case was considered by the Solicitor and the defendant’s counsel, on the construction of the Act of.1795, 2 Faust, 74.
    “The first position of the defendants is contrarary to a plain and ob-. vious reading of the Act; and their second position is overruled by a decision of the Court of Appeals, of which Mr. Solicitor Caldwell has a note; and which he will bring to the view of the Court of Appeals.
    “ I ordered the defendant’s recognizance to be estreated for the instalments of ¿65 per ánnum, from the birth of the child.”
    The defendant appeals, on the annexed ground
    That the defendant is by law liable to pay ¿65 annually, commencing • only from the time of his conviction, or from the time of his arrest, or at all events only from the time the information was given to the magistrate, on which the warrant was issued.
   Curia-, per

Evans, J.

I understand from the report, that the defendant, Harmon, had been convicted at a former court, of bastardy, and had entered into a recognizance for the maintainance of the child. The recognizance is not before us, but the presiding Judge reports that it was broad enough to carry back the allowance to the birth of the child. I presume it was entered into in pursuance of the sentence of the eoilrt, and in conformity with it. There was no appeal from the sentence. It was the judgment of the court, and we cannot look beyond it, whilst it remains unreversed. We are all of opinion the defendants cannot now question the accuracy of the sentence, or avoid their recognizance, given in pursuance of it. Whether by law Harmon was bound to give such a recognizance, is not necessary to be decided in this case. I take this occasion, however, to say, that such was the decision in Compton’s case, decided in 1827. This case, it has been supposed, has been overruled in McCluney’s case and Day’s case. But these went no farther than, to decide that the father of a bastard child could not be tried or sentenced after the child was twelve years old. All these cases are in manuscript, and are noticed here for the purpose of collecting the authorities on the subject, and not of deciding on the true construction of the Act.

JP. C. Caldwell, for the motion. J. J. Caldwell, Solicitor, contra.

The motion is refused.

Gantt, Richardson, Earle, and Butleh, JJ. concurred.  