
    Drake and Cochren’s Case.
    
    1849. June Term.
    
    A grand jury find an indictment against C and D, but the clerk, in making a minute of the finding, accidentally omits the name of D. Held :
    1. That the record cannot be amended at a subsequent term of the Court, by inserting the name of D in the minute: and the indictment against D must be quashed.
    2. The minute stating that the indictment is found against C, that is a sufficient record of the finding the indictment against C.
    The grand jury for the county of Ritchie, empanneled at the spring term 1847, of the Circuit court for that county, found an indictment against Francis P. 
      
      Drake and Joseph Cochren for a trespass. The record states that the grand jury came into Court and presented an indictment against Francis P. Drake and Joseph Cochren; and the indictment is set out and endorsed, “ A true Bill.” The entry on the minutes of the clerk, however, omitted the name of Drake, and merely said, “An indictment against Joseph Cochren for trespass, a true bill.”
    When the cause came on for trial, the defendants moved the Court to quash the indictment, on the ground that there was no record of the finding of the same; and, thereupon, the attorney for the Commonwealth moved the Court to insert the name of Francis P. Drake in the record of the finding, as disclosed in the minutes of the Court at the spring term 1847, of the indictment of Joseph Cochren, nunc pro tunc. And the Court, with the assent of the defendants, adjourned to this Court the questions:
    1st. Should this Court permit an amendment of the record, by inserting the name of Francis P. Drake, nunc pro tunc, in the record of the finding of the indictment at the spring term 1847, so as to read, “ An indictment against Joseph Cochren and Francis P. Drake for trespass,” should the Court be satisfied from the proofs, that said indictment was found at the last spring term, returned into Court by the grand jury, and omitted to be entered by the clerk ?
    2d. Is the entry on the record sufficient to shew that the indictment was found against Joseph Cochren ?
    
    3d. What judgment ought the Court to give on the motion to quash ?
   Smith, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Court decides:

1st. That the Court ought not to permit the amendment of the record, by inserting the name of Francis P. Drake, nunc pro tunc, as proposed in the question adjourned.

2d. That the entry upon the record is sufficient to shew that the indictment was found against Joseph, Cochren.

3d. That the motion to quash, ought to be overruled as to the defendant Joseph Cochren; and the proseention dismissed as to the defendant Drake: The Court not intending to express any opinion except on the particular points adjourned.  