
    GEORGE W. PARSONS vs. WILLOUGHBY McBRIDE.
    Every Court has the power to amend its own records, so as to make them conformable to the truth.
    MotioN to amend a record, beard before Bailey, J., at the Fall Term, 1856, of Currituck Superior Court.
    The motion was first made in the County Court of Curri-tuck, (on a notice to the defendant,) to supply a lost récord. It appeared that a petition had been filed in the County Court of Currituck for a partition of the lands of Caleb T. Wilson, dec’d. ; that an order had been made on said petition for the appointment of commissioners, who made a report to August term, 1820, of said Court, under their hands and seals, stating the partition and appropriation among the heirs of the said Caleb, of his real estate; and that the said report and appropriation had been lost from among the records of the said Court. A copy of this paper was produced and proved to the satisfaction of the Court, whereupon, the Court allowed the amendment asked, to wit, that the copy produced be filed in the cause as a part of the proceedings thereof; and that the order of confirmation be also amended, so as to read, c£ Report made and confirmed, and ordered to be certified, enrolled and registered, and that the same be so endorsed on the amended recordfrom which order the defendant appealed to the Superior Court.
    In the Superior Court the motion to amend was allowed, and the defendant appealed to this Court.
    It was urged by the defendant’s counsel here, that it did not appear that the plaintiff had any interest in the question, and, therefore, had no right to make the motion to amend.
    
      Smith -and Pool, for plaintiff.
    
      Heath, for defendant.
   Nash, C. J.

So many decisions have been made by this Court affirming the power of every Court to amend its own records, so as to make them conformable to the truth, that we had hoped that the question was at rest. The more recent cases are the following : Clayton v. Liverman, 7 Ire. Rep. 92, made in 1846 ; Bradhurst v. Pearson, 10 Ire. Rep. 55, made in 1849. In this case it is said, It has been repeatedly decided that every Court has the power to amend its own records, so as to make them speak the truth, and that we have no right to interfere with the use of their discretionary power.” Green v. Cole, 13 Ire. Rep. 425, in 1852 ; Freeman v. Moses, Bus. Rep. 287, in 1853. An exception to the general rule is established by the latter, which is, where the amendment is denied upon the ground that the Court has not power to grant it; there, if the power to act is possessed, and the refusal to act is upon that ground, it is error in law, and this Court will interfere.

It was objected that the plaintiff had no interest in the matter. This is unimportant.

It was brought to the notice of the Court that one of its records, or an important part of it, was lost. The Court has the power, ex mero motu, upon being satisfied of the fact, to allow the copyto be filed. County Court v. Bissell, 2 Jones’ Rep. 387.

Per, Cueiam. Judgment affirmed.  