
    The State of Wisconsin, vs. Alexander McCarty.
    The ciiptipn of Indictment cannot bo amended after it is fo.und by the Jury.
    Where the Circuit Judgo allowed an indictment to bo amended in the caption, on tbe motion of the Prosecuting Attorney, „but in-a matter not pssential to the validity of tho indictment, held not to bo cause for sotting aside a conviction had under it.
    Held, also, that it was not essential to set forth, in the caption of an indictment, tho qualifications of the Grand Jurors, nor to recite, all the tacts which give the Court in which it is found, jurisdiction, whore such Court is invested with general criminal j urisdiction.
    Where an amendment to the caption of an indictment was allowed pud (nado, in a particular whicli needed no amendment, and could pot have prejudiced tho party on trial, there c,an b,o no reason for arresting the judgment.
    This matter came into this Court on the certificate and report of the Circuit Judge, holding the Circuit for Brown County, to be advised, in accordance with the Statute, It will be seen by the opinion of the Court, that the matter arose, ppon a motion of the District Attorney tp amend the caption of an indictment; found against Me Carty, when the same was called for trial; which motion was granted and McCarty found guilty by the Jury, and his sentence suspended in order to obtain the opinion of the Court upon the question raised upon the allowance of the amendment of the indictment.
    Gottcrn? counsel for McCarty ?
    argued tlqat the captiog of an indictment is an essential integral part of it, and as much the finding of the Jury as any other portion of it; and to this point, cited, — 1st Chitty’s Criminal Law, 325, 326, 328 and 335. 2c? Hawkins Pleas of the Crown, 327. 1st Starkies Rep., 220 and 222.
    That in this State the caption is material, under the provisions of the Constitution, and could not be amended ■after filed. — 1st Cldtty’s Criminal Law> 338. 2d Hawh Pleas of the Crown.
    
    That a verdict did not cure a defective indictment.
    
      C. James, in behalf of the Attorney General,
    argued that it was not cause for arresting judgment because there is no sufficient caption to an indictment. Wheaton’s Jim-. Com. Law, 65 and 66-, 3d Wend., Rep.¡ Jewell vs. the State of N. Y., 319.
   By the Court.

Whiton-, J.

This case comes up on the report of the Circuit Judge, before whom the cause was tried. The defendant was indicted for murder.

The indictment charging the offence» commences as follows:

State of Wisconsin, Circuit 5 Of October Term, in tho year of our County of Brown, ss, > Lord one thousand eight hundred ) and forty-nine.
“ The Jurors of the Grand Jury, for the State of Wis* consin, inquiring in and for the County of Brown aforesaid, being duly tried, empannelled and sworn, do, upon their'said oaths, present,” &c.

After the defendant had pleaded to the indictment, the District Attorney moved to amend it, by inserting after the words State of Wisconsin” in the second line, the words “ good and lawful men of the County aforesaid,” and also after the word “ aforesaid” at the end of the third line, the words at’ the October term of said Circuit Court, begun and holden at Green Bay in the said County, on the first Monday of October in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and forty nine.” The amendments were allowed by the Court, and the Jury having found the defendant guilty, the Judge being in doubt as to the correctness of his ruling, certified the case to this Court, in accordance with the Statute.

If the amendments were at all material, their allowance would be good cause for arresting the judgment. Indictments cannot be amended. But the amendments allowed were to the caption, and that is no part of the indictment. 2 si Chit. Crim. Law., 326. The People vs. Jewett. 3d Wen. R., 319, and we are satisfied, that in this case, the caption was correct as it stood before the amendments were allowed. It is not necessary to state at length, in the caption to an indictment, the qualifications of the Grand Jurors, nor to recite all the facts which give the Court jurisdiction, when the Court in which the indictment is found, is a Court of General Criminal Jurisdiction. Turns. vs. Commonwealth. 6th Met. R., 224. In this case, as the indictment was in all respects good, before the amendments were allowed, and as their allowance did not prejudice the defendant on his trial, we see no reason for arresting the judgment.  