
    Bridget Biggane vs. Robert T. Ross.
    Middlesex.
    January 8. —28, 1879.
    — Colt & Endicott, JJ., absent.
    A bastardy process is not transferred to the Superior Court by “ appeal or removal,” within the meaning of the St. of 1876, c. 60; and may be tried in that court, on certified copies of the papers in the inferior court.
    Bastardy process. In the Superior Court, after a verdict of guilty, the respondent moved in arrest of judgment, because only copies of the original papers of the proceedings before the Police Court of Cambridge, to which the complaint was origi-. nally made, were in court. Allen, J., overruled the motion, and passed the order of affiliation; and the respondent appealed to this court.
    
      C. J. McIntire, for the respondent.
    By the St. of 1862, c. 217, § 1, whenever an appeal is taken to the Superior Court in any civil action or proceeding before the Police Court of the City of Boston, or whenever the same is removed to the Superior Court, the original papers are to be transmitted to that court. By the St. of 1876, o. 60, the provisions of this section are applied “to all appeals and removals to the Superior Court in any civil action or proceeding before any police, municipal or district court.” The complaint in this case was a civil proceeding. Gen. Sts. a. 72, §§ 4, 13. Reardon v. Russell, 9 Gray, 366. Murphy v. Spence, 9 Gray, 399. The motion in arrest of judgment should therefore have been granted. Commonwealth v. Doty, 2 Met. 18. Commonwealth v. Burns, 8 Gray, 482.
    
      E. G. Walker, for the complainant.
   Ames, J.

In bastardy proceedings, the Superior Court exercises an original and not an appellate jurisdiction. The magistrate who issues the warrant can only proceed so far as is necessary, under the statute, to require the respondent to give bond for his appearance at the higher court. Thompson v. Kenney, 110 Mass. 317. Kennedy v. Shea, 110 Mass. 152. The case was therefore not transferred to the Superior Court by appeal or removal; and the St. of 1876, e. 60, furnishes no reason why the case may not be tried upon certified copies, instead of the original papers. The judgment of the Superior Court is therefore

Affirmed.  