seems to be one in which an amendment clearly might have been made: 3 Russell on Crimes, 327. An indictment alleged that the prisoner pretended that he had served a certain order of affiliation on J. Bell; but the evidence was, that the prisoner had said that he had left the order with the landlady at the Chesterfield Arms, where Bell lodged, he being out: it was held that this variance was not amendable under the English Statute, as it was not a variance in the name or description of any matter or thing named or described in the indictment: Reg. vs. Bailey, 6 Cox, 29. But in Canada it seems that such a variance would be amendable, being covered by the more general terms of the statute. A woman charged with the murder of her husband was described as "A., wife of J. O., late of ," the Judge ordered this to be amended by striking out the word "wife," and inserting the word "widow:" Reg. vs. Orchard, 8 C. & P. 565. Where in an indictment for false pretences, the words" with intent to defraud "are omitted, the indictment is bad, and cannot be amended under this statute: Per Lush, J., Reg. vs. James, 12 Cox, 127. These words are certainly material to the merits of a case, if at all necessary. An indictment charged the prisoner with stealing nineteen shillings and sixpence. At the trial, it was objected by the prisoner's counsel that there was no case, for the evidence showed that if the prisoner was guilty of stealing anything, it was of stealing a sovereign. Thereupon the Court amended the indictment by striking out the words "nineteen shillings and sixpence," and inserting in lieu thereof "one sovereign." The jury found the prisoner guilty of stealing a sovereign. Held, by the Court of Criminal Appeal, that the Court had power to amend under the 14-15 Vic. ch. 100, sec. 1: Reg. vs. Gumble, 12 Cox, 248. RECORD OF CONVICTION OR ACQUITTAL. Sec. 77.-In making up the record of any conviction or acquittal on any indictment, it shall be sufficient to copy the indictment with the plea pleaded thereto, without any formal caption or heading, and the statement of the arraignment and the proceedings subsequent thereto, shall be entered of record in the same manner as before the passing of this Act, subject to any such alterations in the forms of such entry, as may from time to time be prescribed by any rule or rules of the Superior Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction respectively, which rules shall also apply to such inferior Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction as shall be therein designated. There is no statutory enactment, in England, corresponding to this one, and, there, the caption has, yet, to be entered of record immediately before the indictment, when the record has to be made up in form. The record of judicial proceedings in criminal cases is always, in the first instance, taken down by the Clerk of the Court in the way of short entries made upon his docket, or of indorsements upon papers filed and the like. When he has to make the extended record, or record proper, resort is had to these docket entries, to the documents filed, and to the several indorsements upon them, which serve as memoranda for him. The record, formally made up, is the history or narration of the proceedings in the case, stating : 1st.-The Court before which the indictment was found, and where and when holden. 2ndly. The Grand Jurors by whom it was found, 3rdly. The time and place where it was found, and that the indictment was found under oath. (These three particulars form the caption.) 4thly. The indictment. 5thly. The appearance or bringing in of the defendant into Court. 6thly. The arraignment. 7thly. The plea. 8thly. The joinder in issue, or similiter. 9thly. The award of the jury process. 10thly. The verdict. 11thly. The allocutus, or asking of the defendant why sentence should not be passed on him. 12thly. The sentence. It is probably now only when a writ of error is issued or to prove autrefois acquit or autrefois convict (section 35, ante) that it will be necessary to draw up a formal record, as sections 26 and 65 (see ante) of the Procedure Act of 1869 take away the necessity of so doing in the two other cases, where it could have been wanted. The necessity of a formal caption or heading to a made-up record is taken away by section 77. The caption of the indictment is no part of the indictment itself, but only the style or preamble thereto, the formal history of the proceedings before the grand jury; 2 Hale, P. C. 165; 1 Starkie, Cr. Pl. 233; 2 Hawkins, P.C. 349; 1 Chitty, Cr. L. 325; Archbold, 37 ; 1 Bishop, Cr. Proc. 655. The form of the caption is as follows: Dominion of Canada.) In the Court of Queen's Bench District of Quebec.-Be it remembered, that at a term of the Court of Queen's Bench, Crown side, holden at the City of Quebec, in and for the said District of Quebec, on the day of (the first day upon the of the term), in the year of our Lord oath of (insert the names of the grand jurors) good and lawful men of the said district, now here sworn and charged to inquire for our Sovereign Lady the Queen, and for the body of the said district, it is presented in the manner following, that is to say: (this ends the caption). Then the record continues to recite the indictment, &c., as follows, and by sec. 77 of the Procedure Act, may commence here: District of Quebec.-The jurors for our Lady the Queen, upon their oath, present that John Jones, on the fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy, feloniously, wilfully and of his malice aforethought, did kill and murder one Patrick Ray, against the peace of our Lady the Queen, her Crown and dignity; whereupon the Sheriff of the aforesaid district is commanded, that he omit not for any liberty in his bailiwick, but that he take the said John Jones, if he may be found in his bailiwick, and him safely keep to answer to the felony and murder whereof he stands indicted. And afterwards, to wit, at the same term of the said Court of Queen's Bench, before the said Court of Queen's Bench, on the said day of in the said year of our Lord here cometh the said John Jones under the custody of William Brown, Esquire, Sheriff of the district aforesaid (in whose custody in the gaol of the district aforesaid, for the cause aforesaid, he had been before committed), being brought to the bar here in his proper person by the said Sheriff, to whom he is here also committed. And he, the said John Jones, forthwith being demanded concerning the premises in the said indictment above specified and charged upon him, how he will acquit himself thereof, saith that he is not guilty thereof, and therefore he puts himself upon the country. And the Honorable George Irvine, Attorney-General of our said Lady the Queen, who prosecutes for our said Lady the Queen in this behalf, doth the like. Therefore let a jury thereupon immediately come before the said Court of free and lawful men of the said District of Quebec, by whom |