
    Daniel Ellis et al., plaintiffs in error, v. William Ewbanks, defendant in error.
    
      Error to Adams.
    
    The Supreme Court will not permit an amendment to be made in that Court, of the process issued from a Circuit Court, by correcting a probable mistake of the clerk of the Circuit Court, in the date of the process.
    The error assigned in this case arose out of the fact, that the summons was dated “ eighteen hundred and thirty.” The record showed that the proceedings were commenced in 1839.
    O. H. Browning, for the defendant in error,
    moved to amend the record, by adding the word or syllable “ nine” to the word “ thirty,” alleging that it was omitted by the clerk of the Court below, through inadvertence. He contended : The Court in which judgment is rendered, will allow amendments in furtherance of justice, after writ of error brought, and joinder in error, although the amendment removes the error assigned. Tillotson v. Cheetham, 3 Johns. 95.
    The Court for the correction of errors, under the influence of a liberal disposition to correct mistakes in form, permitted even the transcript of a record to be amended in that Court. Tillotson v. Cheetham, 3 Johns. 98.
    If the matter assigned for error is properly amendable, this Court may do it. Cheetham v. Tillotson, 4 Johns. 508.
    J. A. McDougall, contra.
    
   Wilson, Chief Justice:

The motion in this case must be overruled. Though it is probable that the clerk of the Circuit Court, by mistake, omitted the word “ nine” after the words “ eighteen hundred and thirtyyet there is nothing appearing upon the record which can be regarded as evidence that such is the fact, so as to authorize this Court to interfere.

Motion denied..  