In one of the Eastern States a case was recently tried in which damages were claimed for the burning of some "ash lumber" owned by the plaintiff. Upon the trial it appeared that the lumber was birch instead of ash, and an amendment of the complaint was asked for; but the lawyer for the defendant, who seems to have been quite ingenious, argued in this way : " It is true that trees are all different varieties of the vegetable kingdom. So are all our domestic animals different varieties of the animal kingdom. But when the defendant is sued for an injury to a horse, an amendment could not be allowed showing an injury to a cow. There are different varieties of ash and birch, but ash and birch are of different species. An amendment may be allowable changing from one variety to another, but not from one species to another. Thus, an amendment substituting brown ash for white ash may be allowable but not to substitute birch. Just as you may amend by substituting a Jersey or Hereford for a Durham cow, but not by substituting a horse."

This reasoning does not seem to have had much weight with the judge, for he allowed the amend ment, saying: "The charge in either case is for burning lumber, and whether ash or birch, is mere matter of description. The subject matter remains the same. The lumber is lumber still, and in this case the same that was destroyed."