
    Justin Campbell, Plaintiff in Review, versus Dorcas Stiles.
    A plea in abatement may be filed in this Court, in an action originating here, at any time before an imparlance.
    Where a writ of review had been served by a sheriff, to whom it was not directed the Court permitted the plaintiff to amend, by inserting a direction to such sheriff
    Before the traverse jury were empanelled, Bliss, of counsel foi the defendant in review, moved for leave to file a plea in abate ment to the writ of review, which was returnable at this term ; expressing an apprehension that by the statute of 1782, c. 11, <§> 6 he should be prevented from filing it after the jury should be empanelled.
   Curia.

That statute relates wholly to the Courts of Common Pleas. The provision referred to has never been practised upon in this Court. A plea in" abatement may be put in here at any time before an imparlance.

Ashmun,

for the plaintiff in review, suggested that this wis merely a clerical mistake, and moved the Court for * leave to amend the writ, by directing it to the sheriff of Hampden.

The matter pleaded in abatement was, that the writ of review was directed to the sheriff of the county of Franklin only, and had been served and returned by the sheriff of the county of Hampden.

Curia.

This is a judicial writ, and the erroneous direction is a

mere misprision of our own clerk. Judicial writs are more absolutely under the control of the Court than original writs. -Let the amendment be made. 
      
       See Bradbury vs. Hearsy, ante, 95
     