technical, I think the point is of some substance and important. 4 I do not myself understand why the learned Judges referred to “evidence” that the character of the suit remained the same, for, surely whether a suit is the same suit or not is a question of law which any competent Court can determine merely by reading the amended pleadings and comparing them with the unamended pleadings; and I cannot help feeling that perhaps some mistake has been made in reporting what was said on the point. But apart from that in my opinion, when the Court referred to an amendment which “did not substantially change the character” of the suit and which Broomfield and Macklin, JJ. though could be made without sanction, I do not think they intended for one moment to refer to anything more substantial than, say, an amendment correcting some obvious slip, as for example, if the word “plaintiff” had been used for “defendant” by mistake, or correcting an error in punctuation or something of that kind; I certainly do not think they intended to suggest that a party could be added as a defendant without the sanction previously obtained of the Advocate General. An amendment of that kind, it seems to me, necessarily in my opinion if this expression of opinion is at variance with the decision of Davar J., which I do not think it really, is, I have little doubt that the proper course for me
