
    Nahum P. Monroe vs. Hosea B. Thomas.
    
      Amendment — what is allowable.
    
    An amendment by which a charge for spirituous liquors is stricken out of an account is properly allowed.
    
      On exceptions.
    Assumpsit to recover the balance clue upon an account annexed for medical services and medicine furnished by the plaintiff, a physician, to the defendant and to the defendant’s son, at the father’s request, amounting to $43. The last item of the account originally was: “To advice, brandy, and wine of calisaya, sent by son, $1.00.” The defendant pleaded the general issue and filed a brief statement that the account sued, and a part thereof, were for spirituous liquors sold in this State contrary to law; thereupon the plaintiff was allowed to amend his account by striking out the word brandy, and the defendant excepted.
    The plaintiff, proceeding to trial upon his account thus amended, recovered the full amount then claimed.
    
      Wm. S. McBellan, for plaintiff.
    
      J. B. Mureh, for defendant.
   Appleton, C. J.

This is an action of assumpsit for medical services rendered the defendant.

One of the charges originally was: “ To advice, brandy, and wine of calisaya, sent by son, $1.00.” The plaintiff was allowed to amend his writ by striking out the word brandy. That being stricken out, the plaintiff could, not recover therefor, and there is no proof he did.

The amendment was properly allowed. Boyd v. Eaton, 43 Maine, 51.

Thq case shows that a motion for a new trial and to set aside the verdict as against evidence has been filed; but the evidence as reported shows no ground whatever for disturbing it.

Motion and exceptions overruled.

Cutting, Walton, Dickerson, Barrows, and Peters, JJ., concurred.  