
    Keen versus Hopkins.
    
      Amendment of verdict, when allowed.
    
    1. Great discretion in putting into form and amending verdicts in an inferior court is allowed in a court of error ; and if there are any elements from which it can fairly expound the verdict, and carry out its substantial finding, the power of amendment thus exercised will not be closely scrutinized.
    2. Thus, where in'an attachment execution the jury found a “ verdict for plaintiff §354.34,” it was not assignable as error that the record was amended so that the verdict should be “ that the jury find for the plaintiff, and that at the time of the service of the writ in this case upon the garnishee there was a debt of §354.34 due by the garnishee to the defendant.”
    Error to tke District Court of Philadelphia.
    
    This was an attachment execution, by John Hopkins against Mary Davis, in which James S. Keen was summoned as garnishee of the defendant.
    After answering the interrogatories which were filed, Mr. Keen pleaded nulla Iona, and on this plea the cause was tried November 30th 1864, when the jury returned the following: “Verdict for plaintiff, $354.34.” Keen thereupon moved for a new trial, and an arrest of judgment, which motions were disallowed.
    On the 24th of December 1864, on motion of the plaintiff, the court amended the record of finding of the jury as follows:— “ The jury find for the plaintiff, and that at the time of the service of the writ in this case upon the garnishee, there was a debt of $354.34, due by the garnishee, James S. Keen, to the defendant, Mary Davis”; which was the error assigned here for the garnishee.
    
      Lucas Hirst, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Junhin, for defendant.
    January 16th 1865,
   The opinion of the court was delivered, by

Agnew, J.

— It would be sufficient for this case to say it is affirmed, because not a single error has been assigned, according to the rules of this court.

But not to pass the principal point without notice, we may say that great discretion should be allowmd to the courts below, in putting into form and amending verdicts.

Where the court has any elements from which it can fairly expound the verdict, and carry out its substantial finding, we are not disposed to scrutinize its exercise of the power of amendment with much nicety.

Judgment is affirmed.  