Thе amendment rested in the discretion of the trial Judge and is not reviewable.
Brown
v.
Mitchell,
102 N C., 347. In that case the same amendments as in the present cаse were allowed to be made, and after verdict. The
*177
Court says, “ If the action had bеen originally begun and prosecuted against the Sheriff individually, and not against him and the sureties on his official bond, it is obvious that the defencе would have been the same, and the same issues would have arisen. The nature of the action has not been so changed as tо surprise the defendant by making it necessary tо establish any fact not already materiаl under the issues submitted to the jury. The Judge could, in his discrеtion, refuse the motion to amend, or grant it with or without terms
The Code,
§§ 272, 273;
Carpenter
v.
Huffsteller,
The exception to the refusаl to require the plaintiff to give a prosеcution bond is based upon the ground that the аffidavit upon which leave to sue in forma pauperis was grantеd, did not allege that the plaintiff did not have rеal estite which he could mortgage to secure the costs. The affidavit is in the form requirеd by the statute, The Code, § 210, and it does not exact such allegation.
The first ground of demurrer was improperly overruled
(Norman
v.
Dunbar,
The second ground of demurrer was properly overruled.
The Code,
§ 267 i2\ allows the joinder of such causes of action. And although by the amendment the аction is no long r for the penalty of the bond, but is for three separate penaltiеs, as to which, if brought separately, a magistrate would have jurisdiction, the action being
ex contractu (Katzenstein
v.
Railroad,
The i hire! ground оf demurrer was also properly overruled,, as to the first and s cond causes of action. The penalty given by section 1819 is in the alternative, either for the
*178
failure to recоrd the substance of the license issued or fоr failure to record the substance of the return. The plaintiff sues for the first, and no allegаtion as to the failure to record the rеturn is necessary, nor was it material that the mаrriages authorized by the licenses were nоt celebrated till after the expiratiоn of the defendant’s term of office. The dеmurrer, however, should have been sustained as to the third cause of action, in that the сomplaint fails to allege that the defendant issued the license to a person under eighteen years of age “knowingly or without reasonable inquiry.” This is essential, under provisions of
The Code,
§ 1816, to constitute the third cause of action.
Bowles
v.
Cochran,
Error.