#### Joseph Cane and others *vs.*John W. Watson.

*Error*to *Louisa.*

Appearance and pleading in the District Court, on appeal, waives all defects in the Bervice of process &c., in the original proceeding before, the justice of the peace.

The District Courts may amend a verdict in matter of form, at any-time before flual judgment is rendered, although at a subeequcnt term of the court.

This court will not disturb a judgment on account of any defect in the form of tho verdict, provided the intention of the jury is unequivocal and evident.

In trespass against several defendants, a general verdict for the plaintiff, without spflftfying against which of tho defendants, will be understood as applying to all.

An action of trespass *quare clausum fregit*was brought before a justice ofthe peace, by John W. Watson, against Joseph Cane, John H. Henderson, Ebenezer Carmichael, Arthur Carmichael, Alexander Hamilton, Samuel Bell and William *Bell.*The two latter were nut served 'with process, The transcript of the justice sets forth however, in general, that *the defendants appeared,*and that a verdict of guilty was found against them. An appeal was then taken to the District Court,

In that court, the defendants, Cane, Hamilton, and Arthur Carmichael appeared in the first instance, and filed a plea of “not guilty.”— All the original defendants afterwards appeared by their counsel, and moved to'dismiss the suit, for reasons appearing on the face of the papers, which motion the court overruled. And thereupon the defendants pleaded *“not guilty.”*Upon this issue being joined, the jury found the following verdict : “ We, the jury, find for tho plaintiff, and assess his damages at twenty-five dollars. ” A motion in arrest of judgment was then filed and the cause continued tiII the next term.

At the next.term, the c uirt directed that the verdict be amended in matter o/form and that judgment bo rendered thereon. The case was afterwards brought to this court on writ of error.

Grimes, for plaintiff in error.

*53Spiungek & Woods, for defendant ig error.

By the Court,

Mason, Chief Justice.

This suit was brought up .to the District Court bv appealing from the judgment of a justice of the peace. Two of the defendants, William and Samuel Bell, wetc not ■served with process. Tho transcript of the justice, however, states that the piaintiffand *defendants*appeared on the day set for trial. The appearance of the two Bells’ would have supperceded tiio necessjiy of service. „

It is urged, however, that the word *“defendants*” in tho |a-nrescript ought .to he understood as roferlng only to those who have boon' duly served with process. Such, however, does not seem to have been the understanding of the justice, for he afterwards states that “ the *defendants*Samuel Bull and William Bell filed their bond for an appeal.” *

But whethcrlhe record would justify tho conclusion that these defendants appeared in the justices court or not, it clearly shows an appearance in the District Court. The three other defendants had pleaded the general issue, after which a motion was made to dismiss tho suit, in which all the defendants are named. This being overruled the “ *defendants"*pleaded “ not guilty, ” and issue was j lined thereon. The defendants here mentioned must necessarily include the two Bells, for they were the appellants in the case, and they in particular, had joined in the motion to dismiss. Appearing and submitting to a trial, was, we think, a waiver of all objections to any preceding irregularity.

Another objection urged, is that the court permitid the verdict of 1)10 jury to be amended at the next term after it was rendered. A motion in arrest had been made, immediately after the trial, and the cause continued. The amendment of the verdict took place beftre tho judgment Xvas rendered. It makes no difference whether tin's was at the trial term or not. An amendment by the court in matter of substance would be error if made at any time; but if in mere matter of form, it, would never be such an irregularil v-as could bo rectified here. Tho District \ Court has control of its owh records, so far as to direct the *form*in which entries shall be made therein, hut must never alter substantial ¡¡facts. If, therefore, the change in the verdict. Was such as.,the court might have made at the very time it was.rendered, without the express assent of the jury, it was perfectly competent to direct the alteration at the time alleged in this case.

This court will not disturba judgment on account of any defee? in tho *54form of (he verdict, provided the intention of the jury is unequivocal and evident. In this case we think there can be r.o mistake as to what the jury intend'd, in their original verdict. The plaintiff charged the defendants below with the commission of a trespass. They pleaded “ not guilty. ” Issue was thereupon joined and the jury found “ for the plaintiff. ” Although as was urged by counsel it is not stated as to which of the defendants they *find fir the plaintiff.*The same objection might have been urged with equal force had there been a general verdict of “ guilty*.” It applies to all the defendants. If, therefore, we would not have disturbed the judgment for the defective verdict, had the same not been amended, we certainly shall not under present circumstances.

The judgment below will therefore be affirmed.