¶1 As no judgment of forfeiture or confiscation was entered at tbe trial term in tbe criminal prosecution, as required by tbe statutes on tbe subject, G. S., 18-48 and 18-6, it was proper to enter appropriate judgment therein nunc pro tunc at a later term. Ferrell v. Hales, 119 N. C., 199, 25 S. E., 821; McIntosh on Procedure, page 692, et seq. Moreover, a court has “tbe right to amend tbe records of any preceding term by inserting what has been omitted, either by tbe act of tbe Clerk or of tbe Court; and a record so-amended stands as if it bad never been defective, or as if tbe entry bad been made at tbe proper time.” S. v. Warren, 95 N. C., 614. See Strickland v. Strickland, 95 N. C., 471; Walton v. Pearson, 85 N. C., 35; McIntosh on Procedure, page 732, et seq. Tbe order of condemnation and sale of tbe vehicle seized is perforce no part of tbe personal judgment against tbe accused, albeit both are dependent upon bis conviction. S. v. Hall, 224 N. C., 314, 30 S. E. (2d), 158; 30 Am. Jur., 551.
¶2 Indeed, since tbe statute provides for a separate bearing to determine tbe rights of claimants to “any wagon, buggy, automobile, water or aircraft, or other vehicle,” used in transporting intoxicating liquor in *647 violation of law, it would seem that judgment of forfeiture or confiscation might well have been entered in the claim and delivery proceeding, treating it as a petition in the criminal case, S. v. Ayres, 220 N. C., 161, 16 S. E. (2d), 689, but as to this we make no present ruling, as it is unnecessary to do so. In re State v. Gordon, 225 N. C., 241, 34 S. E. (2d), 414; S. c., 224 N. C., 304, 30 S. E. (2d), 43; Motor Co. v. Jackson, 184 N. C., 328, 114 S. E., 478; 30 Am. Jur., 551.
¶3 In the absence of a more substantial showing on the part of the appellant, the judgment will be upheld.
¶4 Affirmed.