
    STATE TO THE USE OF SUSANNAH JUSTIS vs. GEORGE LEDBETTER.
    In tlie case of a proceeding against the putative father of a bastard child, an examination of the mother, which does not appear to have been taken on oath is radically defective, and, the procedings should be quashed.
    The proceeding case, of the State v Ledbetter, referred to and approved.
    Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Burke County at Spring Term, 1844, his Honor Judge Settle presiding.
    This was a proceeding to charge the defendant, as father of a bastard child of one Susannah Justis. The examination of the mother did not purport to have been on oath, nor to have been taken within three years after the birth of the child. The defendant was bound to the Comity Court; and he appeared and moved that the proceedings should be quashed. That was refused, and he appealed to the Superi- or Court, where the motion was allowed, and therefrom the Solicitor for the State appealed.
    
      
      Attorney General for the State.
    No counsel in this Court for the defendant.
   Ruffin, C. J.

In a previous case at this term, State v Ledbetter, ante p. 242, we have given our reasons for affirming a similar judgment, quashing proceedings in bastardy, where the examination did not appear to have been taken in due time. The present is still a stronger case; since it is unquestionable, that an examination, not appearing to have been taken on oath, is radically defective.

Per Curiam, Judgment affirmed.  