But it must be made before verdict: Reg. vs. Frost, Dears. 474; Reg. vs. Larkin, Dears. 365.

"Upon full consideration," says Greaves, 3 Russell, on Crimes, 329, "it seems that the verdict is the dividing line. Any one familiar with criminal trials must have met with cases where variances have not been discovered until just before the verdict is given, and the only limit to the time for amendment is in the words 'on the trial,' and the trial is clearly continuing until the verdict, as the power to amend is given whenever on the trial' there shall appear to be any variance.

"Before making an amendment the Court shall receive all the evidence bearing upon the point; and as this is a question to be determined by the Court, but is not to be left to the jury, the evidence bearing upon it, which may be in the possession of the prisoner, may be interposed when the point arises in the course of the case for the prosecution, and this is much the best course, as the Court is thereby enabled to dispose of the point at once; indeed, it is now settled that in all cases, whether civil or criminal, where a question is to be decided by the Court, the proper course is for the Judge to receive the evidence on both sides at once, and then to determine the question."

DECISIONS ON THE STATUTE.

The clause gives no power to amend the same identical particular more than once, and the Court will not amend an amendment: Reg. vs. Barnes, L. R. 1 C. C.

45 ; Greaves's remarks, (see ante) on sec. 1 of 14-15 Vic. ch. 100.

And when an indictment is amended at the trial, the Court of Crown Cases Reserved cannot consider it as it originally stood, but only in its amended form: Reg. vs. Pritchard, L. & C. 34; Reg. vs. Webster, L. & C. 77.

Under this Statute, an amendment in the name of the owner of stolen property, by substituting a different owner than the one alleged, may be made at the trial Reg. vs. Vincent, 2 Den. 464; Reg. vs. Senecal, 8 L. C. Jur. 287.

In Reg. vs. Welton, 9 Cox, 297, the prisoner was charged with throwing Annie Welton into the water with intent to murder her: there being no proof of the name of the child, it was held, by Byles, J., that the indictment might be amended by striking out "Annie Welton" and inserting "a certain female child whose name is to the jurors unknown."

An indictment alleged that a footway led from a turnpike-road into the town of Gravesend, but the highway was a carriage way from the turnpike-road to the top of Orme House Hill, and from thence to Gravesend it was a footway, and the nuisance alleged was between the top of Orme House Hill and Gravesend; it was held that the indictment might be amended by substituting a description of a footway running from Orme House Hill to Gravesend, as this appeared to be

the very sort of case for which the statute provides: Reg. vs. Sturge, 3 El. & Bl. 734.

Where an indictment for perjury alleged that the crime was committed on a trial for burning a barn, and it was proved that the actual charge was one of firing a stack of corn, it was held that the words stack of corn might be inserted instead of barn: Reg. vs. Neville, 6 Cox, 69.

Where the indictment stated that the prisoner had committed perjury, at the hearing of a summons before the Magistrates, charging a woman with being "drunk" whereas the summons was really for being "drunk and disorderly," the Court held that it had power, under this statute, to amend the indictment by adding the words "and disorderly": Reg. vs. Tymms, 11 Cox, 645.

In an indictment for perjury, perjury was alleged to have been committed at a Petty Sessions of the Peace, at Tiverton, in the County of Devon, before John Lane and Samuel Garth, then respectively being Justices of the Peace assigned to keep the peace in and for the said county, and acting in and for the borough of Tiverton, in the said county. It appeared by the proof that these gentlemen were Justices for the Borough of Tiverton only, and were not Justices for the County. Blackburn, J., allowed to amend the indictment by striking out the words, the said county, so as to make the averment be, "Justices assigned to keep the Peace in and for, and acting in and for the

W

Borough of Tiverton, in the said county." The Court of Criminal Appeal, composed of Kelly, C. B., Keating, J., M. Smith, J., Piggott, B., and Lush, J., held that the Judge had power so to amend: Reg. vs. Western, 11 Cox, 93.

The secretary of a friendly society, of which A. B. and others were the trustees, was charged with embezzling money belonging to the society. In the indictment, the property was laid as of "A. B. and others," without alleging that they were trustees of the society: Held that the indictment might be amended by adding the words, "trustees of:" Reg. vs. Marks, 10 Cox, 367; see Reg. vs. Sénécal, 8 L. C. Jur. 287.

The description of an Act of Parliament, in an indictment, can be amended. By the Court of Criminal Appeal: Reg. vs. Westley, Bell, C. C. 193.

In an indictment for larceny of property belonging to a banking company, the property was laid to be in the manager of the bank: the banking business was carried on by a Joint-Stock Banking Company, and there were more than twenty partners or shareholders. The Judge amended the indictment by stating the property to be in "W. (one of the partners) and others:" Held that this amendment was right: Reg. vs. Pritchard, L. & C. 34, 8 Cox, 461.

But an amendment changing the offence charged to another offence should not be allowed. Where the prisoner was indicted for a statutable felonious for

gery, but the evidence only sustained a forgery at common law, the prosecutor was not allowed to amend the indictment by striking out the word "feloniously," and thus convert a charge of felony into one of misdemeanor: Reg. vs. Wright, 2 F. & F. 320.

So upon an indictment for having carnal knowledge of a girl between ten and twelve years of age, it appearing by the proof that she was under ten, Maule, J., held that the indictment could not be amended: Reg. vs. Shott, 3 C. & K. 206. The offence as charged in this case is a misdemeanor: the offence as proved, and as desired to be substituted by amendment, is a felony, and it would be outrageous to pretend that a felony can, by amendment, be substituted for a misdemeanor, or vice versa: see Reg. vs. Wright, 2 F. & F. 320.

The words "felonious" or "feloniously," if omitted, can never be allowed to be inserted: 1 Russell on Crimes, note a by Greaves. An amendment altering the nature or quality of the offence charged cannot be allowed: Archbold, 208.

When an indictment against two bankrupts alleged that they embezzled a part of their personal estate to the value of £10-to wit, certain bank-notes and certain moneys, and it rather seemed that the money converted was foreign money, it was held that "moneys" meant English moneys, and the Court refused to amend the indictment: Reg. vs. Davison, 7 Cox, 158. But Greaves is of opinion that the case