
    John Walsh, Pltff in Error, v. The People of the State of Illinois, Defts in Error.
    ERROR- TO RANDOLPH,, . ■ '
    Appeal bonds in criminal cases, are .governed vbytlie,.99ih section., of..the, 69,th chapter of the Revised Statutes, arid cannot lie amended.
    This was a proceeding instituted before a justice of the peace, upon a complaint for an assault- and battery. A trial was had and a fine of ten dollars was inflicted upon the plaintiff in error; whereupon he prayed an appeal to the Circuit Court, which was allowed. A bond was executed in the penal sum of $42 00, reciting that the judgment was fora like sum. In the Circuit Court, a motion was made to dismiss, because the appeal bond did not conform to the requisitions of law. The Circuit Court, Underwood, Judge, presiding, sustained the motion, and dismissed the appeal. The defendant below, brings the cause to this Court. The defendant below, moved for leave to amend his appeal bond, which was denied by the Circuit Court. The refusal-to allow an amendment of the appeal bond is the error complained of.
    W. J. A. Bradford, for Pltff in Error.
    P. Fowke, District Attorney, for the People.
   Treat, C. J.

Walsh prosecuted an appeal from the decision of a justice of the peace, imposing upon him a fine of ten dollars for an assault and battery. The appeal bond was in the penalty of forty-two dollars, and recited a judgment for the same amount.

The Circuit Court refused leave to amend the bond, and dismissed the appeal. Those decisions are assigned for error. The bond was clearly defective. It did not clearly describe the j udgment appealed from. There was a material variance between the judgment rendered by the justice, and the one referred to in the condition of the bond. The Court properly refused to allow the bond to be amended. The sixty-fifth section of the fifty-ninth chapter of the Revised Statutes applies only to appeals in civil cases. Appeal bonds in criminal cases are governed by the provisions of the ninety-ninth- section of the same chapter, which do not authorize them to be amended. The case of Swafford v. The People, 1 Scammon, 289, is directly in point. The present statute is precisely like the one, under which that decision was made.

The judgment is affirmed with costs.

Judgment affirmed.  