
    STATE v. R. A. McLAMB.
    (Filed 19 December, 1924.)
    Criminal Daw — Indictment — Amendments — Statutes — Assault—Deadly Weapon. — Serious Injury.
    
      Held,, tbe amendment to the indictment allowed by the court in this case was sufficient for a conviction of the defendant of violating C. S., 1481, charging an assault with a deadly weapon, inflicting serious injury.
    Appeal by defendant from Barnhill, J., at September Term, 1924, of JOHNSTON.
    A justice of the peace issued a warrant, returnable before the recorder, charging the defendant with an assault with a knife on John Smith. ITpon conviction in the recorder’s court, the defendant appealed to the Superior Court; and before any evidence was offered, the court granted a motion, made by the State, to amend the warrant so as to make it read, “assault with a deadly weapon and serious injury.” The solicitor drafted the amendment; it was not read or exhibited to the defendant, or his counsel, but the defendant did not request either the reading or the exhibition of the amendment. The defendant was tried upon the charge of an assault with a deadly weapon and an assault, whereby serious bodily injury was inflicted.
    The jury returned for its verdict, “Guilty of assault, serious injury inflicted.” It was adjudged that the defendant be confined in jail for twelve months and assigned to work on the roads.
    
      Attorney-General Manning and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.
    
    
      Parker & Martin for defendant.
    
   Pee Curiam.

All the exceptions are based, directly or indirectly, on the .single proposition that the warrant as amended is not sufficient to sustain the verdict. The exceptions cannot be sustained. The amended warrant charges the defendant not only with an assault with a deadly weapon, but with, an assault, whereby serious damage was done, and sets forth with sufficient particularity the nature and extent of the serious damage or injury alleged to have been inflicted. C. S., 1481, 4215; S. v. Huntley, 91 N. C., 617; S. v. Cunningham, 94 N. C., 824; S. v. Shelley, 98 N. C., 673.

We find

No error.  