Case ID: va_46/html/0694-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Br the Court.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Commonwealth v. Buzzard.
    By mistake a wrong name is inserted in an indictment for a misdemeanor; though the record of the Court and the endorsement on the indictment shews the correct name. The indictment cannot be amended by striking out the wrong name and inserting the name of the person intended.
    
      At the May term 1848, of the Circuit Court of Pocahontas county, the record states that on the 2d day of May the grand jury were sworn, and having retired to consider of their presentments, in a short time came into Court and presented an indictment against Peter Buzzard for a wilful trespass, a true bill, also an indictment against Eli Buzzard for a trespass, assault and battery, a true bill, and having nothing further to present, were discharged.
    One of the indictments found by the grand jury presented Benjamin Collins for wilfully injuring and killing twenty sheep, the property of Eli Buzzard. This indictment was found on the evidence of Eli Buzzard, a witness called upon by the grand jury ; and was endorsed : “ Commonwealth v. Peter Buzzard. An indictment for a wilful trespass. A true bill. William Caclcley, foreman.”
    At the next term of the Court, Peter Buzzard having been summoned to answer the indictment, appeared in Court; whereupon the attorney for the Commonwealth moved the Court for leave to amend the indictment by striking therefrom the name of Benjamin Collins, and inserting in lieu thereof the name of the said Peter Buzzard; and the Court, with the consent of Peter Buzzard, adjourned to this Court for its opinion the following questions:
    1st. Is it competent for this Court, under the 10th section of the 20th chapter of the act, entitled “an act to reduce into one the several acts concerning crimes and punishments, and proceedings in criminal cases,” passed 14th of March 1848, to grant the leave asked
    2d. Does the said 10th section apply to this case, the act aforesaid having gone into operation after the of-fence was committed, (if committed at all,) and after the said indictment was found a true bill by the grand jury?
   Br the Court.

It is to be certified to the Circuit Court, that the act of Assembly referred to in the first question adjourned, does not authorize the Court to grant the leave asked for. It is unnecessary therefore to answer the second question.