
    State v. Fred Austin.
    October Term, 1899.
    Present: Taft, 0. J., Bowell, Tyler, Munson, Thompson and Watson, JJ.
    Opinion filed November 20, 1899.
    
      Practice — The question of the sufficiency of an information for adultery, raised by demurrer, being needlessly before the Supreme Court through the omission of the State’s Attorney to ask leave to amend, judgment was reversed proforma and cause remanded.
    Ineobmation for adultery. Windsor County, June Term, 1899, Start, J., presiding. Tlie respondent demurred. Demurrer overruled, and information adjudged sufficient. Respondent excepted.
    
      J. G. Sargent, State’s Attorney, for the State. W. W. Stiokney and W. B. G. StioJmey with him on the brief.
    
      JR. JL. Harvey and M. M. Wilson for the respondent.
   Pee Cueiam.

The question is whether the allegation that the prisoner had carnal knowledge with Cora Smith, etc., charges adultery. The case is so needlessly here that we do not consider the question on its merits, but reverse pro forma, sustain the demurrer, and remand, that the State’s Attorney may ask leave to amend the information, which he ought to have done at once on the objection being made. It is not well that the course of justice should be obstructed by impediments that can be so easily removed.  