sworn states that he acted as the attorney of the plaintiff in the above case, and that the decree in said case in the handwriting of Thomas J. Perkins, whom this affiant employed to draw up the same. This affiant further states that it was his intention to have taken said decree and judgment against said defendant in her representative character only, to be levied of the goods & chattels lands etc. of said Samuel in the hands of said administratrix to be administered, in conformity with the pleading and proof in the cause by that through in advertence, misrepresentation or mistake the usual words were omitted. And he now prays the Court that the judgment and decree may be made to conform to such pleadings and proof. He further [?] that said omissions was clerical and not judicial, as he had no instructions from the Court to prepare the decree in such manner as to charge said defendant personally. And that he had no intention whatever to have taken a decree against her personally.
Sworn to & subscribed G.K. Walker before me this 25[th] Novr. 1843.
N.P. Bemis D.C.
But the Court after hearing argument on both sides of each of said motions so pending, overruled the plaintiff motion to amend, and proceeded to give its judgment, quashing the said execution