BASTAEDY AND FORNICATION. 351

a justice of the peace, having criminal jurisdiction, of being the father of
the said bastard child, such justice of the peace shall by his warrant cause
such person to be brought before him, and if the said accused person is not
to be found in the county or City of Baltimore, as the case may be, then
said justice of the peace shall transmit a warrant to the sheriff of the county
or City of Baltimore, as the case may be, in which said accused person is
to be found, who shall cause the arrest of the said accused person and de-
liver him into custody of an officer of the county or City of Baltimore, as
the case may be, from which the said warrant issued, to be taken before
said justice of the peace.

Under the broad provisions of the bastardy law, a prosecution may be instituted
either where the father resides or the child lives; it need not be in the county
where the alleged offence was committed. Nature and objects of the bastardy law.
Consummation of the offence. Appeal dismissed. State v. Hardesty, 132 Md. 175.

The preliminary proceedings before the justice form no part of the record, and
need not be set out in the indictment. The object in requiring the justice to issue
his warrant is that he may get jurisdiction of the person of the father, and if the
latter is present, it makes no difference whether the warrant was issued to a con-
stable of one or another county, or whether he appeared voluntarily. Norwood v.
State, 45 Md. 72.

As this section provides for a- special proceeding, its requirements must be
strictly complied with. Cushwa v. State, 20 Md. 281; Root v. State, 10 G. & J.
374; State v. Chaney, 93 Md. 72.

The father is to be committed for twelve months, unless in meantime he gives
the required security. There is nothing in the act of 1894, ch. 108, which imposes
any additional penalty upon the father, that act was for the benefit of the ac-
cused. Lynn v. State, 84 Md. 80; State v. Smith, 84 Md. 83.

The indictment of the father need not allege the residence of the mother, but
must show in what county the child is at the time of the indictment. Anyone
maintaining the child has the right to proceed by scire facias to collect from the
father and his sureties. Robinson v. State, 68 Md. 618.

The affidavit of the mother may properly be made in the county in which she
and the child reside, and be transmitted to the county in which the supposed
father resides. Root v. State, 10 G. & J. 376.

The father may plead in bar that the mother appeared before a justice and
declined to disclose the name of the father, and herself gave the requisite security.
State v. Trimble, 33 Md. 470.

Cited but not construed in Huyett v. Slick, 43 Md. 289; State v. Phelps, 9 Md. 27.

See notes to secs. 1, 3, 4 and 5.

An. Code, sec. 3. 1912, ch. 163.

3. Upon the appearance of said accused person, the justice of the peace
shall pass an order requiring said accused person to give bond to the State
of Maryland in a penalty not exceeding $500, with good and sufficient
securities, conditioned that he will appear, at the next term of the Circuit
Court of the county from which said warrant issued, or the Criminal Court
of the City of Baltimore, as the case may be, or to any later term of such
Court, after the birth of said child, in default of such security, said accused
person shall be committed to the custody of the sheriff until such bond is
given or until final judgment is rendered by said Court, in case the bond
provided for by this section shall be forfeited, the Court may from time to
time direct that the proceeds thereof be applied for the maintenance and
support of said bastard child.

The fact that no written order was passed requiring the accused to give bond,
the accused, however, being notified by the justice that he must give bond and