The opinion
Ashe, J.
Any justice of the peace upon his own knowl
*518
edge, or information made to Mm that any single woman within his county has been delivered of a child or children, may cause her to be brought before him or some other justice of the county, to be examined upon oath respecting the father; and if she shall refuse to declare the father, she shall pay a fine of five dollars'and give a bond payable to the state of North Carolina with sufficient security to keep such child or children from being chargeable to the county, &c. Bat. Rev. eh. 9, § 1.
It was not the object of this act to punish the father for having begotten the child, nor to reward the mother for her lewdness, but solely to prevent the maintenance of the child from becoming a charge upon the county. When the woman refuses to declare the name of the father, pays the fine, and gives the bond required, the object of the law is accomplished, and the state has no further concern in the matter, until there is a breach of the bond; and there can be no breach until the county shall have incurred expense in the paaintenance of the child.
The woman having made her election to pay the fine and give the bond, there is an end of the matter. She cannot afterwards sue out a warrant of bastardy and have the reputed father bound over to court.
State
v.
Brown,
1 Jones, 129 .
As the county has been indemnified, we do not see what the fraud upon tho woman has.to do with the question. It is a poliqe regulation- adopted solely for the benefit of the community.- And where under-the-further provisions of said section the woman swears the child and the reputed father is bound over to court, and iu the order of filiation is dircted to pay to the woman a certain sum, her right in the matter is only incidental to the main purpose of the statute, the indemnification of the county; and when that is accomplished the law is satisfied.
If there was any fraud in the proceedings before the jus
*519
tice, the woman was
in pari delicto.
The justice could hardly have had any complicity in it; for upon information that the woman had been delivered of a bastard, he issued his warrant to bring her before him, and then no doubt ascertaining there were two children instead of one, betook a bond conformable to the requirements of the statute, conditioned to keep her children, not her child, from becoming a charge upon the county. The obligors of the bond are bound for-the maintenance of both the children, and the failure to support either or both of them, whereby that burthen should fall upon the county, would be a breach thereof, for which an action would lie in the name of the state for the indemnification of the county.
There was no error in quashing the proceedings in the court below. Let this be certified to the superior court of Henderson county.
Per Curiam. No error. •