By referring to record on former appeal, No. 289 at Spring Term, 1949, of this Court, it is seen that the first assignment of error brought forward there, as it is now, by defendant, is based upon exception to the ruling of the court in denying his plea of former jeopardy. This ruling is accordant with prevailing decisions of this Court, — so much so, that on former appeal the exception merited no particular consideration. And on this appeal the same authorities are cited by defendant as on former appeal. If the point could be presented again on this appeal, it is still without merit. It is apparent that the mistrial in question was ordered in the interest of justice. As was said by Brown, J., in S. v. Tyson, 138 N.C. 627, 50 S.E. 456: “It is well settled and admits of no controversy that in all cases, capital included, the court may discharge-a jury and order a mistrial when it is necessary to attain the ends of justice. It is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial judge.” See also S. v. Guthrie, 145 N.C. 492, 59 S.E. 652; S. v. Beal, 199 N.C. 278, 154 S.E. 604, and S. v. Dove, 222 N.C. 162, 22 S.E. 2d 231.
Defendant next assigns as error numerous rulings of the court in permitting the prosecutrix to testify (1) to acts of sexual intercourse with defendant, (2) that he was the father of the child in question, (3) that he had said to her “that he knew it was his baby . . . and he would provide for the baby,” and (4) that before 8 March, 1948, the date of the warrant on which this prosecution is based, she had demanded of defendant that he support the child — and that he has not given any support- — even though he is an able-bodied man.
These assignments are held to be without merit. In the case of Ray v. Ray, 219 N.C. 217, 13 S.E. 2d 224, in opinion by Barnhill, J., this Court, speaking of the competency of a married woman to testify as to the paternity of her child born in wedlock, had this to say: “The question *54of legitimacy or illegitimacy of the child of a married woman, under the prevailing rules, rests on proof as to the nonaccess of the husband and she is not a competent witness to prove the nonaceess of the husband. But she is permitted to testify to the illicit relations in an action directly involving the parentage of the child, for in such cases, proof thereof frequently would be an impossibility, except through her testimony,” citing S. v. Pettaway, 10 N.C. 623; S. v. Wilson,, 32 N.C. 131; S. v. McDowell, 101 N.C. 734, 7 S.E. 785.
Indeed, the rulings to which these assignments of error relate are not in conflict with the rule of evidence applied in granting a new trial on. former appeal, 230 N.C. 203, 52 S.E. 2d 345.
Defendant also assigns as error the denial of his motions for judgment as of nonsuit. A reading of the evidence shown in the record also discloses it is sufficient to take the case to the jury on all essential elements of the offense charged and to support the verdict rendered.
After careful consideration of all assignments of error presented by defendant for consideration on this appeal, we find
No error.