For  it  has  been  held  that  the  names
of  parties  cannot  in  any  action  be
altered,  if  it  appears  that  the  non-
joinder or  misjoinder  was  not  by
mistake,  but  by  design,  to  try  the
right  ( Wickens  v.  Steel,  26  L.  J.,
C.  P.  241).  And  to  in  ejectment,
if  it  appears  that  the  object  of  the
insertion  or  omission  of  the  names
was  to  try  a  question  of  title,  and
that  the  object  of  the  amendment
is  to  try  another  and  a  different
title,  no  doubt  the  application
would  be  refused.
No  doubt  the  stat  3  &  4  Will.  4
does  not  apply  where  the  amend-
ment is  material  to  the  merits,
whether  or  not  it  is  material  for
the  "  real  qnestion  in  contro-
versy between  the  parties  ;*'  but
if  the  question  is  one  of  mere
mistake  in  a  name  more  or  less,
and  the  title  is  the  same,  it  should
seem  not  to  be  material  to  the
merits.  If,  however,  the  question
must  be  decided  on  the  terms  of  the
C.  L.  P.  Act  alone,  it  is  to  be  ob-
served, that,  although  it  has  been
held  that  ejectment  does  not  come
under  the  term  " personal  actions"


(b)  See  n.  (a),  post,  p.  577.
SOUTH  WALES  CIRCUIT.
577


Grove,  for  the  defendant,  opposed  the  application,  and
claimed  the  costs.
Bramwell,  B. — If  the  defendant  will  consent  to  a  ver-
dict for  the  plaintiff,  I  will  make  the  amount  only  on  con-
dition of  his  paying  all  the  costs.
1861.
(Doe  d.  Gitlett  v.  Roe,  1  C,  M.
