WARFIELD vs. THE STATE

WARFIELD vs. THE STATE. [iNDICTMlONT POE ASSAULT TOTH IMEKT TO MUEDBK.] 1. Form of judgment of conviction for assault. — Under a conviction for an assault and battery, the judgment for the fine assessed should be in the name of the State, for the use of the particular county. 2. Judgment corrected and affirmed. — A clerical misprision in entering up a j'udgment, which might have been corrected on motion in the primary court, furnishes no cause for a reversal of the j'udgment, (Code, §2401,) unless the primary court refused to correct it on motion. ERROR to the City Court of Mobile. Tried before the Hon. Alex. McKiNSTry. The plaintiff in error, Hazael Warfield, was indicted for an assault on one John Eeid, with intent to murder him ;, was found guilty of an assault, and a fine of $2,000 was assessed against him by the jury; and thereupon the court rendered the following judgment against him : “It is therefore considered by the court, that the State of Alabama have and recover of the defendant, H. Warfield, and of Caleb Price, his surety, the said sum of $2,000 fine, together with the costs in this behalf expended, for which execution may issue.” Upon this judgment the defendant sued out a writ of error, and he here assigns as error the rendition of said judgment. G-eo. N. Stewart, for plaintiff in error. M. A. BaldwiN, Attorney-General, eonira. [MAJORITY — STONE, J.] STONE, J. There a clerical mistake in entering the judgment in this case. It should have been entered in the name of the State for the use of Mobile county. Code, § 8619. This mistake being clerical, and amendable in the court below, without resort to any thing outside of the record and the public statutes, furnishes no cause for reversing the judgment of the city court, unless that court had first refused to make the amendment. — Code, § 2401. The judgment of the city court is affirmed.