Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-12-14

attention Is directed 10 the words used
in the affidavit he discovers that he
has wholly misunderstood the words
used for him. At any reading the afli-
davits submitted in these cases. the
necessity for croSS-cXaminatiOn of the
atlantis become manifest. And the
causes were referred to a master. After
that the answers were filed. Replica
ton being in, the testimony was taken
on behalf of complainant and the tin q
for taking it is about to end. At the
date of this opinion it has ended Then
the motion now under consideration is
made.
There is no doubt that amendments
can be allowed to the pleadings at al
most any stage OF a case. Richmond
VS.. irons, 121 u. S., 81. In matters of
form. mistake of date. verbal inaccu-
racies always. material amendments in
an answer rarely. Walden VS.. Bradley.
II Peters, 1856. y bill may be amended
without material detrment to de-
PENDANT. because to such an amend
ment lie has the right to answer But
if an answer he amended, shifting the
issue or the ground of defense. COM
plainant may be driven to file II new
bill. Among other rules laid down as
directing the discretion of the court
in granting leave to amend, are two OF
great weight.
The proposed amendment should not
contain the same matter and defense
as the original answer. Story Eq. p.
1 sec. S6S. The amendment must not
be of matter, which could, with proper
diligence have been put in the answer.
Undian Rubber Comb Co. VS. Phelps
Fed. eases No. 7025)
The answers in these cases were pre-
pared by counsel OF the highest stand
ing at the bar not only for learning
but accuracy. II would be difficult to
hot
language not conveying the meaning
they intended and now they assert that
the answer does not express their in
tention. II this appears in the answer
rs fled then there is no occasion for
any amendment. There is no need for
the expression Of the intention in lam
guaSe of classic purity. 1t is enough
II the language used cain bear the idea
intended
An amendment at this stage of the
case IS too grave Il matter to be used
simply to improve the style of the
answer. If the language used i'll the
answer does not express the purpose
for which 1t is used so that the oppo-
site party and the court cannot inter-
rret it and If the amendment gives
new complexion TO the case. 1t could
not be allowed The compiainants
have completed their testimony i'm
chief. If the proposed amendment gave
new complexion to the case. If it
raised issues not logically or properly
raised in the answer, then complain
ants would have the right to ask leave
to introduce evidence looking to this
new complexion OF the issue, and the
cause which should be speedily decided
may be prolonged In a difficulty.
There are nine cases involved in this
litigation. The bill of complaint
charges that the defendants have as
sessed the property of the railroads at
its fun value and that in this they
have Disseminated against the rail-
roads inasmuch as by universal rule,
ali property other than railroad prop
erty in North Carolina, is assessed for
taxation greatly below lis actual value
in money.
Although expressing in varying lam
guase this is the gravamen of each
bill. In the original answers this charge
is categorically denied. The amend
ments proposed are eight in number
numbered II a. b, G. d, r, f, G, II.
These proposed amendments simply
deny the allegations in detail and aver
that n practice to the contrary exists
in every respect
Very much of the argument in sup
port OF the amendments go to the mer-