| Volume 194, Page 229 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
14 E. 3, STAT. 1, CAP. 6, AMENDMENTS. 229 fined to proceedings before judgment, or during the term at which judg- ment is entered. Statutes of amendment are of two sorts—of Amendment, properly so called, and of Jeofails; the difference between them being, that the one are more properly mistakes of the pleader or clerk, and their benefit is attained by the Court overlooking the exception, the amendment not being made in point of fact in most cases, while the other extend to what the justices shall consider the misprisions of their clerks or other officers. The Statutes of amendment included in this collection are 14 E. 3, Stat. 1, e. 6 supra; 9 H. 5, c. 4; 4 H. 6, c. 3; 8 H. 6, c. 12 and c. 15; see R. v. Tutchin, 1 Salk. 51. The Statutes of Jeo fails are 32 H. 8, c. 30; 18 Eliz. c. 14; 21 Jac. 1, c. 13; 16 & 17 Car. 2, c. 8; 4 & 5 Ann. c. 16; 9 Ann. c. 20, S. 7; 5 Geo. 1, c. 13 and 4 Geo. 2, c. 26. Statutes of amendment extend to penal actions but not to criminal cases, Tidd Prac. 721. And the Statutes of Jeofails are extended to all actions, but not to criminal cases, by 4 Geo. 2, c. 26. At common law a misawarding of process on the roll was amendable dur- ing the same term, it being the act of the Court. But erroneous process, issued by a clerk on a right of award of the Court, was never amendable at common law, R. v. Tutchin supra. Hence it was, that obvious clerical mis- takes or misprisions, as the slip of a letter or a syllable, was fatal to the pleader, and the rule comprehended all other proceedings after they were enrolled, for then the roll was the record. "Process" is the only word used in this Act, and it was early construed to mean only that part of the proceedings out of the plea-roll till judgment, or as it is expressed by Powell J. in R. v. Tutchin, writs that issue out of the record, and not to proceedings in the roll itself, i. e. the inesne process and jury process, see Blackamore's case, 8 Rep. 157 b. In another respect it was favourably construed for suitors, so as to comprehend a whole word, ibid. But the judges were not agreed whether amendments under it might be made after, as well as before judgment. So by Stat. 9 H. 5, e. 4, (q. v.) confirmed by Stat. 4 H. 6, c. 3, (<{• v.), with an exception of pro- cess on outlawry and process in Wales, it was declared that the judges should have the same power of amendment after as before judgment, so long as the record and process is before them. Still, under these Acts, the judges could only amend process according to the original Act, and hence, to enlarge their powers to amend what they might in their discretion think to be misprisions of their clerks, the Statutes 8 H. 6, c. 12 and c. 15 (q. v.} were passed. Clerical misprisions, however, are construed to be not only mistakes of the clerk in Court, but such slips in writing as a clerk of the party might make, and which are set right as of course.2 2 For examples of clerical misprisions which are amendable as of course or merely disregarded, see Anderson v. Stewart, 108 Md. 340; Acklen v. Fink, 95 Md. 655; Charles Co. v. Mandanyohl, 93 Md. 150; Farrell v. Balti- more, 75 Md. 493; Bond v. Citizens Bank, 65 Md. 498; DeBebian v. Gola, 64 Md. 262; Ecker v. First Bank, 62 Md. 519; Newcomer v. Kean, 57 Md. 121; Waters v. Engle, 53 Md. 179; First Bank v. Weckler, 62 Md. 30; Jean v. Spurrier, 35 Md. 110; State v. Logan, 33 Md. 1. Cf. Davis v. State, 39 Md. 355, See note to 8 Hen. 6 c. 12. |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Alexander's British statutes in force in Maryland. 2d ed., 1912
| Volume 194, Page 229 View pdf image (33K) |
|
Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!
|
An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact
mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.
Maryland State Archives