
    STATE v. MARK MEACHAM.
    May Term, 1895.
    
      Information. Amendment of. Practice.
    
    Since a state’s attorney, or his successor in office, may amend an information in both form and substance, the supreme court, not being able to agree whether the information was sufficient, remanded it to the county court for further proceedings.
    Information for keeping a dog without license. Heard upon general demurrer at the June term, 1894, Caledonia county, Tyler, J., presiding. Demurrer overruled. The respondent excepts.
    
      Dunnett & Nelson for the respondent.
    
      W H. Taylor, state’s attorney, for the state.
   PER CURIAM.

In this case the views of the judges who heard it were such that no decision could be made in regard to the sufficiency of the information. But, inasmuch as the information of the state’s attorney can be amended, by his successor in office, even, both in form and in substance, the court pro forma reversed the judgment of the county court and remanded the case to be there proceeded with.  