delivered the opinion of the court.
Thе plaintiff in error, defendant below, was convicted of larceny. He has sued out a writ of error, and the cause is before us upon his application for a supersedeas.
The information to which the defendant pleaded аnd upon which the trial was begun, charged the defendant with the lаrceny of “the personal goods and chattels of Mrs. C. C. Hamlin, to-wit, three saddles.”
At the trial, the first witness for the peoplе was Mrs. C. C. Hamlin, the person whose property was alleged to have been stolen. She testified that four saddles were stolen from a garage, one belonging to Mrs. Gunnell, one tо Mr. Hamlin, one to “Dr. Swan or his daughter,” and the fourth to herself. Two of the saddles were in the court room as exhibits, and the witness identified one as the property of Mrs. Gunnell and the other as the property of Mr. Hamlin. Thereupon counsel for thе people moved to amend the information so as to charge larceny of only one saddle and lay the ownership of the same in C. C. Hamlin. The mo-
One of the questions presentеd by the record for our determination, is whether the information, in respect to the allegation of ownership of the property, could lawfully be amended, at the time and in the manner it was permitted by the trial court to be amended.
As аbove noted, the information was amended after the triаl had begun and after the first witness had given her testimony. If the amendmеnt was one of substance, and not merely of form, it was madе too late. Amendments of informations in matters of substancе cannot be made at the trial, but amendments in matters of form are allowable. 22 Cyc. 437; 14 E. C. L. 193, sec. 38; 12 Standard Enc. Proc. 556.
The аmendment in question did not change the offense. The amended information charged the same offense as the original information. In State v. Bell,
“The name of the owner of property stolen is not a material part of the offense chargеd in the indictment, and it is only required to identify the transaction, so thаt the defendant by proper plea may protect himself against another prosecution for the same offense.”
It has generally been held that amendments changing thе name or description of the owner of propеrty in a charge of larceny, are amendments in a matter of form, and allowable during the trial. 22 Cyc. 441. In State v. Bright,
In our opinion there wаs no error in permitting the amendment to be made.
The remaining questions relate to rearraignment of the defendant аnd to the reverification of the information. It was not necessary to rearraign the defendant, nor to have the information reverified, after the amendment in question
The application for supersedeas is denied, and the judgment is affirmed.
Mr. Chief Justice Garrigues and Mr. Justice Bailey concur.