
    
      Suydam v. M'Coon.
    
    IN this cause the plaintiff, who claimed under a sheriff’s sale, had been nonsuited on the trial, for a variance between the record produced in evidence, and the writ of venditioni exponas, and at January term, 1797, had procured the nonsuit to be set aside on the payment of costs, and had moved for and obtained leave to amend the writ, by striking out the words twenty-eighth, and inserting the word twentieth„
    Having been nonsuited a second time for a like variance between the record and the same writ,
    
      Evertson
    
    now moved for leave to amend again, by striking out the words “ last past,” and inserting the figures 1790, and cited Sir T. Jones, 4d=
    
      Ü. I. Bogert
    
    objected that it was now too late*
   Per Curiam.

These errors are to be considered as the misprision of the clerk. On the authority of Jones, and of the former decision in this court,

Let the amendment be made.  