
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT,
    COLUMBIA,
    APRIL, 1805.
    Hamilton v. Foster.
    Judgment will not be arrested, in an action brought on behalf of án in;' fant, on the ground that it does no; appear, that the prochein amy, or' guard.an, was admitted by the court. The court will not. intend, that h# was not duly ad nitled; and a verdict cures a title defectively set out,' although it will not cure a defective title.-
    Motion for a new trial, and in arrest of judgment. Action of trespass for taking a inure, tried in Abbeville district, before Bay. 3. 1 he motion lor a new trial was abandoned, and ihe defendant relied on the motion in arrest: on the ground, that it appeared, by th#' record of the proceedings in the cause, that the action was brought,as well as prosecuied, in the name of Little J mies Hamilton, friend and guardian of A. M. Hamilton and that it did not appear, that L; J. Hamilton was ever admitted, by the couit, to prosecute as next friend, and guardian of the said A. M. Hamilton. Nott, in support of the motion, cited I Str. 308. 2 Sir. 1006. See 2 lust. 263; 2 Sellon’s P,ne. 65-. 2 Sir. 783;
    Leslev, contra.
    
   Per Cur.

(Grimke, Watiks, Brevard,and Wilds, Justices,)

af; ter verdict, u i- too hue to take advantage of the error in the form of the process. The cause el action is defectively set forth, but the title to recover is substantially stated,- and- appears to be sugj» cient. The action appears to be brought for, and in behalf of the infant, and to have been prosecuted by his next friend and guardiau. This court will not intend that the guardian was not specially admitted, by the district court, to prosecute for the infant, but the contrary: and the general rule is, that a verdict cures a title defeclively set out, although it will not cure a defective title. See 1 Suppl. Vin. Abr. 234.

Motion refused.

Present, Grimke, Waties, Bay, Brevard, and Wilds, Jus, tices; Trezevant, J. absent.  