12 WALSH v. SMYTH.—3 BLAND.

and the answer to it; the amendments cannot be used in support
of the injunction. Vernon v, Vawdry, 2 Atk. 119; Long v. Burton,
2 Atk. 218; Vere v. Glynn, 2 Dick. 441; McMechen v. Story, I Bland,
184, note.

* Hence it is evident, that whatever may be the nature of
21 the amendment, it should be so perspicuously and distinctly
introduced and placed upon the record as to afford the means of
readily, and at once distinguishing the original bill from each one
of the amendments to it, and also of ascertaining the day when
each one of the amendments was put upon the record.

No amendment of a bill can be made without the leave of the
Court, which in all cases should be applied for by petition concisely
stating the circumstances which render an amendment necessary.
Under a leave to amend, a practice has however prevailed here, as
in England, of allowing short and apparently unimportant amend
ments to be made by interlineation; such as the mere correction
of a verbal error; the alteration, striking out, or introduction of a
name; (d) or the making of a single allegation, not materially vary-
ing the general structure of the case. But the safer and better
coarse, in almost all cases, is to put the new matter upon the
record by a separate amended bill, in which the original bill
should be recited, no further than may be necessary to introduce
the amendment, so as to avoid impertinency; for, as on the
one hand, the original perspicuity and distinctness of the record
should be preserved, without obscuration or defacement, so on the
other it is the duty of the Court to discountenance as much as pos-
sible any attempt to put a suitor to unnecessary expense. Conse
quently, under a leave to amend, the plaintiff should not be per-
mitted, as in this instance, by interlineation, to confuse the new
with the original matter; or by an amended bill to recite all the
allegations, and all the charges in the original bill, making a com-
plete duplicate of the record. Willis v. Evans, 2 Sail and Bea.
228; Boyd v. Mills, 13 Ves. 86; Webster v. Threlfall, I Cond. Chan.
Rep. 67; 1 Newl. Prac. Cha. 193; 1 Monta. Dig. 297; 1 Fowl. Exch.
Pra. 106; Onge v. Truelock, 12 Cond. Chan. Rep. 332.

Much has been said about the mismanagement of this case; and
it may be true, that the interests of the parties have been griev-
ously neglected. But upon this occasion, and in this stage of the
proceedings, I am not allowed to take into consideration the in
terests of any one who does not complain; nor can I regard the
prayer of this petitioner farther than his rights may be injuriously
affected by the decree which has been passed.

(a!) GAMBRIL v. LYON AND OTHERS.—HANSON, C., 20th June, 1804.—On appli-
cation of the complainant, leave is given to strike out the defendant R. Lyon,
as immaterial, MS.—1 Newland's Pra. Chan. 193; Pitt v. Macklew, 1 Cond-
Chan. Rep. 67, note; M'Comb v. Armstrong, 13 Cond. Chan. Rep. 459