
    Montgomery v. Tillotson.
    Where there were two issues in fact, and from the record, it appeared that the jury were sworn, “the truth to speak upon the issue joined;” it was held, that the entry was in substance good, but if at all defective, was a mere clerical mistake.
    Where verdicts are substantially good, they may be moulded into proper form.
    ACTION of assumpsit in the circuit court of Hinds county, by Suball Tillotson, against James S. Montgomery. The defendant below pleaded non assumpsit, and a special plea of the failure of consideration; upon both of wliich pleas there was issue to the country. The record shows, that a jury, “ came, &c., who being elected, tried, and sworn, the truth to speak upon the issue joined, upon their oath do say” we the jury find for the plaintiff, and assess his damages to eight dollars. Upon this verdict, the court gave judgment for the plaintiff.
    The case is in this court by writ of error.
    Woldridge, for plaintiff in error.
    Barton, contra.
    
   Mr. Chief Justice Shakeey

delivered the opinion of the court.

It is assigned for error in this case, that the jury were not sworn to try both issues, and that there is no verdict on which the judgment could have been founded. The language used in that part of the record showing the empannelling of the jury, immediately following the names of the jurors, is, “ who being elected, tried, and sworn the truth to speak upon the issue joined.” .This, although it may be somewhat informal, is in substance good. The words, the “ issue joined,” might have been omitted without vitiating the record, and from the established practice, can only be considered, if a defect at all, as a clerical mistake. The jurors are sworn at the beginning of the term, or if talesmen, at the time they are summoned to try all issues that may be submitted, and that part of the record is to be put in proper form by the clerk.

The verdict is we the jury find for the plaintiff.’’ This must be considered as covering both issues. Verdicts, although not formal, yet if they are substantially good, may be moulded into proper form. So held by this court at the last term in the case of Chewning v. Cox.

The judgment must be affirmed.  