of cases, be extended further; and, if so, much useful information concerning them may be found in Chitty's Archbold's Practice by Mr. Prentice and Chitty's Practical Proceedings in the Courts of Queen's Bench, Common Pleas and Exchequer, as it is presumed that when such pleadings should occur they will be similar to the Common Law Proceedings; inasmuch as the rules and orders of 1858 contain nothing more than "any further statement," rule 18; or "subsequent statement," rule 19; and they were not used in the Ecclesiastical Courts, or they would have been conformed to the latter practice 20 & 21 Vict. c. 85, s. 22.

CHAPTER II.

AMENDMENTS.

An Amendment is an alteration and improvement made in any of the pleadings, when through inadvertence or on account of something that has happened since the pleading was drawn, some material fact or circumstance has been omitted which was, or has become, necessary to be pleaded.

There has been of late years a great leaning towards allowing amendments in all courts of Law both criminal and civil, and for very sensible reasons; for, otherwise, many a guilty prisoner would escape, and many causes be delayed and

unnecessary expenses incurred but to allowing amendments as to most other matters of importance there is and ought to be a limit, such as, for instance, when an application is not made until after the trial has commenced and the prisoner's counsel has all but succeeded in acquitting him through the gross carelessness of the party who drew the indictment; or, in a civil cause, where the pleadings are either so brief that they are obscure, or so verbose and hair-splitting, or so carelessly drawn, that the judge, counsel, and jury, are unnecessarily perplexed and puzzled as to what the petitioner, plaintiff, respondent, or defendant really means or relies upon.

There is nothing said about amendments in the Acts; but they, of course, come more under the rules and orders; and we there find that if either party desire to amend his or her petition, answer, or subsequent statement, it may be done by permission of the Judge Ordinary, and in such form and under such terms as the Judge Ordinary may approve, rule 19. And even after the record has been settled by one of the registrars, either party is at liberty to apply to the Judge Ordinary to alter or amend the same, and his decision shall be final and binding on the parties, rule 23. Cases where amendments (a) have been allowed,

(a) In one case when counsel was opening more to the jury than the settled record contained, the Judge Ordinary disallowed it, and said that the attorney was

Evans v. Evans, 6 W. R. 356, 27 L. J. 32, inasmuch as the pleadings were not properly intituled, Wright v. Wright, 27 L. J. 32, 6 W. R. 507, on the same ground; and in Pyne v. Pyne, 6 W. R. 507, the Judge Ordinary ordered the petition to be amended on the ground that desertion was not distinctly averred. In Allen v. Allen and D'Arcy, 5 Jur. 128, an amendment was also ordered. But when an amendment is thought desirable, notice should be given to the other party, or the petition may be withdrawn and served de novo, Wright v. Wright, 6 W. R. 507.

AFFIDAVITS.

An Affidavit is a written statement on oath sworn before some person duly authorized to administer it. We would particularly draw attention to the subject of affidavits in the practice of this court, as they are requisite in some form or other in almost every proceeding which is brought into it, either to commence a suit or on motions afterwards, and in most applications

bound to examine the record after being settled by the Registrar. In Stoate v. Stoate, 32 L. T. 394, the Judge Ordinary refused to admit evidence for the defence, which was not relevant to the issues before the jury, as the defence then intended to be set was not in any way averred on the record before the jury. A form of the record is given in the Appendix, page 77.

at chambers; and the consequence of an informal or scanty affidavit, or the absence of one when required has been that suits and motions have been considerably delayed, and needless expenses incurred to the suitors in addition. In Hyatt v. Hyatt and another, and in Manton v. Manton, 28 L. J. 32, the Judge Ordinary rejected two motions for want of affidavits of search of appearance. In each case there was such an affidavit in court, but his Lordship refused to take any notice of them, because in one case it was unstamped, and the other contained an interlineation in the jurat, contrary to rule 51; and on other occasions various motions have been rejected on account of similar informalities in affidavits. In Evans v. Evans, 28 L. J. 20, the affidavit was not considered to state sufficiently that the petitioner was unable to discover the co-respondent. For affidavits in common law actions, vide Chitty's Archbold's Practice, 10th Ed. Vol. II, p. 1541, &c.; and Sidney Smith's Practice in Chancery, under the heading of" Affidavits."

The affidavit must be made in the first person, and ought to state distinctly what facts or circumstances deposed to are within the deponent's own knowledge, and his own means of knowledge, and what facts or circumstances deposed to are known or believed by him, by reason of information derived from other sources than his own knowledge, and what such sources are. In one

case the Judge Ordinary wished it to be understood that if the contents of an affidavit were not satisfactory to him, he should require the maker of it to be examined orally in court.

Affidavits elsewhere, and we submit here also, ought to be divided into paragraphs, and every paragraph numbered consecutively, and, as nearly as may be, confined to a distinct portion of the subject. In Suggate v. Suggate, 27 L. J. 7, the Judge Ordinary complained of personal controversies being stated in the affidavits; and in Hewetson v. Hewetson, MSS., the affidavits and answer were considered unnecessarily long, as matters wholly immaterial were stated, the costs of which would not be allowed on taxation. The deponent signs his name at the end of the affidavit; but if he is unable to write, he may make his mark, and the jurat is varied accordingly.

In Braham v. Christopher, 11 Simon, 409, an affidavit was ordered to be taken off the file, because where a marksman had signed his name at length, his hand had been guided.

In the case of Robotham v. Robotham, MSS., where an affidavit had been signed before a notary public in New York the Judge Ordinary required another affidavit to assure him that a notary public in New York had authority to administer oaths. An affidavit is required in the New Court when a petitioner files his petition verifying the facts stated in it, rule 2; and another affidavit is