
    James Moore vs. The State of Mississippi.
    It is the settled law in this state, that an indictment is defective if the name of the prosecutor be not indorsed upon it according to the directions of the statute.
    And that defect will not be cured if the indorsement be made after verdict, and pending a motion in arrest of judgment; it seems it must be made before the indictment goes to the grand jury.
    
      ■The law of amendments does not apply to criminal cases.
    Where a prisoner was convicted of robbery, and the indictment, on motion in arrest of judgment, quashed for want of the prosecutor’s name indorsed on it, the prisoner was remanded to jail for a new indictment.
    In error from the circuit court of Adams county; Hon. Thomas A. Willis, judge.
    
      Guión and Baine, and Miles and Batlaile, for plaintiff in error,
    Cited Cody v. Stale, 3 How. 27; lb. 433; and contended that a fatal defect in an indictment could not be cured by an amendment.
    
      D. C. Glenn, attorney-general, for state,
    Cited Hutch. Code, 1005, § 65; 1 Chit. Cr. Law, 298.
   Per curiam.

The prisoner was found guilty on an indictment for robbery. Two questions are presented by the record; First, is an indictment defective because the name of the prosecutor is not indorsed on it, according to the directions of the statute? and, second, can such indorsement be made after verdict, and pending a motion in arrest ofjudgment ?

The first question is settled by the decision of this court in ,two cases: Cody v. The State, 3 How. 27; Peter, a slave, v. The State, Ib. 433. In both of these cases the indictment was held to be defective, but the persons were remanded for further proceedings.

The second question is certainly clear. If an indictment be defective because the name of the prosecutor is not indorsed, it is too late to remedy the defect by amendment after trial. The law of amendments does not apply to criminal cases. The reason on which this statute is said to be founded would seem to require that this indorsement should be made before the indictment goes to the grand jury. It seems to constitute part of the duty of the district attorney in preparing the indictment.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded to the circuit court for a new indictment.  