
    Jackson against Crane.
    Writ of cereT^wheretfy mistake, a term intervened between the test and return—tho’ this may not be done in foer”rrestCCin personal actlons'
    E. Barnes, moved to amend a writ of certiorari, to the Marine Court of the city of New-York, tested the 1st day of January term, 1823, and made, by mistake of the attor- . 71 -i . T ' , , . , , * ne7? returnable on a day m January term next, instead or instant: so that several terms intervened between the test and return»
    
      Yelden, contra,
    said the writ was void and could not be amended; more than a term intervening between the test and return. It was within the cases of Bunn v. Thomas & King, (2 John. Rep. 190,) and Burk v. Barnard, (4 id. 309.)
    
      Barnes,
    
    said the reason of those cases did not apply. They were of mesne process, for arrest in personal actions, and were holden void, for the danger of long imprisonment, by delaying to return process, in which the defendant might have a good- defence. That this is the true distinction, he referred to Shirly v. Wright, (2 Ld. Raym, 775,) and Parson’s v. Loyd, (3 Wils, 341.)
   And of this opinion was the Court, and granted the motion to amend, 
      
       Vid. Knapp v. Palmer, (1 Caines, 486.) Cramer v. Van Alstine, (9 John. Rep. 386.)
     