
    SKIRM v. FARRAND.
    The omission of the words “when it is verified," in the Act of 1860, amending the sixty-fifth section of the Practice Act, is a mere clerical misprision. The ■ amendment by the Act of 1860 to this section, and also to section forty-six, was not designed to change the character of answers, or to abolish any distinction between those verified and those not verified.
    Appeal from the Third District.
    Complaint, in the ordinary form for professional services as attorney at law. The complaint was not verified, and the answer was a general denial. On 4he trial, plaintiff read the pleadings and rested. The Court instructed the jury to find for defendant. Verdict and judgment accordingly. Plaintiff appeals.
    
      Williams, Patterson & Stow, for Appellant.
    
      R. F. Peckham, for Respondent.
   Baldwin, J. delivered the opinion of the Court

Cope, J. concurring.

It is apparent that no such construction can be given to the Act of 1860, amendatory of the Practice Act, as the appellant contends for; by such construction, the forty-sixth section and the sixty-fifth section would be in irreconcilable conflict. The object of the amendment to the forty-sixth section was to provide for a replication introduced under the act; and the object of the amendment .to section sixty-five was to provide for the effect of matters in the -replication; but it was not designed to work a change in the character of the answers, or to abolish the distinction as between those verified and those not verified. The omission of the words “ when it is verified,” in the amendment to section sixty-five, is a mere clerical misprision, readily corrected by reference to the whole body of the original act and .amendments.

Judgment affirmed.  