If  it  had  been  a  true  assertion,  and  the  House  had  been  deceived  upon  the
subject,  then  perhaps  the  House  might  have  proceeded,  upon  that  ground,
to  consider  the  judgment ;  because  if  the  House  is  imposed  upon  by  a
firaud,  that  may  be  a  ground  for  revising  the  judgment  so  fraudulently
obtained.  However,  as  it  seems,  it  was  untruly  alleged;  the  House  affirmed
what  they  had  before  done ;  and  they  heard  the  application  simply  on  the
point  whether  that  decree  had  been  obtained  by  misrepresentations  or  not

There  are  other  cases  in  which  additions  have  been  made,  where  the
House  have  omitted  necessary  words.  In  fact,  as  your  Lordships  will  see,
the  omission  of  those  necessary  words  made  what  they  had  done  imperfect,
and  they  rendered  their  order  perfect  by  the  insertion  of  the  necessary  word&

There  are  other  cases  in. which  there  have  been  evident  mistakes.  Mis-
takes in  the  form  of  a  judgment  may  be  amended  in  the  courts  of  law.  There
is  a  considerabienumber  in  which  the  House  proceeded  as  they  did  in  the  case
of  Scudamore  v.  Morgan,  (*)  to  direct  issues  to  be  tried  for  the  purpose  of  ascer-
taining the  facts  before  they  would  determine  whether  they  should  or  should
not  affirm  or  reverse  what  had  been  done  in  the  Court  below  ;  and  it  seems
to  have  been  the  practice  in  those  early  times,  to  detain  the  cause  in  the
House  until  the  issues  were  tried.  Your  Lordships  are  aware  that  now
it  is  the  practice,  instead  of  doing  that  (which  is  really  very  inconvenient),

(")  The  case  here  referred  to  was,  I  think,  that  of  Jackson  v.  Warren,  infra,  p.  491.
(■)  Supra,  p.  439.
