Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 3).pdf/78

 was held that the same grand jury could not return, without a re-examination of the witnesses, a second indictment, the former indictment having been quashed by the prosecuting attorney. These cases are not in point. In Ex parte Bain, 121 U. S. 1; 7. Sup. Ct. Rep. 781; the trial court, without the consent of the grand jury, amended the body of an indictment by expunging therefrom certain words, and it is apparent from the opinion in this case that the words were not regarded by the Supreme Court as mere surplusage. The words struck out by the trial court were, “The comptroller of the currency and.” The gist of the charge was making a false report with intent to deceive the comptroller of the currency and others. The court said: ‘How can the court say that there may not have been more than one of the jurors who found this indictment who were satisfied that the false report was made to deceive the comptroller, but was not convinced that it was made to deceive anybody else?” It is elementary that the body of an indictment cannot be amended by the court without the consent of the grand jury. Whenever the accused is arraigned on such an amended indictment, he can plead that the grand jury have found no such indictment against him. The body that found the indictment has not amended it. But when an information is amended, as it’ may be, this objection cannot be urged against the amended information. The officer that presented the orignaloriginal [sic] information has amended it by either interpolating into the old one the amendment, or by filing a new one containiagcontaining [sic] such amendment. It has always been the rule that an information could be amended with leave of court, by the prosecuting attorney. 10 Amer. & Eng. Enc. Law, 709, note 1; Whart Crim. Pl. § 87. The decision in State v. vey, (N.C.) 5 S. E. Rep. 407, is confidently relied on by counsel for the plaintiff in error. In that case a bill of indictment was sent to the grand jury, and, upon examination of witnesses, it was returned a true bill. The solicitor of the state considering that it did not charge the offense committed, it was, on his motion, quashed; whereupon another bill was sent the grand jury, which was returned a true bill, without