Idem per idem

The same for the same. An illustration of a kind that really adds no additional element to the consideration of the question. IDEM 80NANS (Lat). Having the same sound. In Indictments and pleadings, when a name which it is material to state Is wrongly spelled, yet If It be idem aonana with that proved, it is sufficient. The following have been held to be idem aonana, Segrave for Seagrave; 2 Stra. 889; Whyneard for Winyard; Russ. & R. 412; Benedetto for Benedltto; 2 Taunt 401; Keen for Keene; Thach. Cr. Cas. 67; Deadema for Dladema; State V. Patterson, 24 N. C. 346, 38 Am. Dec. 699; Hutson for Hudson; Cato v. Hutson, 7 Mo. 142; Coonrad for Conrad; Carpenter v. State, 8 Mo. 291; Gibney for Giboney; Fleming V. Giboney, 81 Tex. 422, 17 S. W. 13; Allen for Allaln; Guertln v. Mombleau, 144 111. 32, 33 N. E. 49; Emerly for Emley; Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Daniels, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 695, 20 S. W. 955; Johnston for Johnson; Mlltonvale State Bank v. Kuhnle, 60 Kan. 420, 31 Pac. 1057, 84 Am. St Rep. 129; Busse for Bosse; Ogden v. Bosse, 86 Tex. 336, 24 S. W. 798; Chambles for Chambless; Ward v. State, 28 Ala. 53; Oonly for Conolly; Fletcher v. Conly, 2 G. Greene (la.) 88; Usrey for Usury; Gresham v. Walker, 10 Ala. 370; Faust for Foust; Faust V. U. S., 163 U. S. 452, 16 Sup. Ct 1112> 41 L. Ed. 224; Bubb for Bopp; Myer v. Fegaly, 89 Pa. 429, 80 Am. Dec. 534; Heckman for Hackman; Appeal of Bergman, 88 Pa. 120; Shaffer for Shafer; Rowe v. Palmrine; Elliott v. Knott 14 Md. 121, 74 Am. Dee. 519; Barbra for Barbara; State v. Halst, 62 Kan. 35, 34 Pac. 463; Isreal B. for Israel B.; Boren v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 637, 25 S. W. 775; Alwin for Alvin; Jockisch V. Hardtke, 50 111. App. 202; Helmer for Hillmer; Cline v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R 415, 31 S. W. 175; July for Julia; Dickson v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R 1, 28 S. W. 815, 30 S. W. 807, 53 Am. St Rep. 694; Elliott for Ellett; Robertson V. Winchester, 85 Tenn. 171, 1 S. W. 781; Chegawgequay for Chegawgoquay: Brown v. Qulnland, 75 Mich. 289, 42 N. W. 940; Keollher, Kelliher, Kellier, Keolhler, Kelhler, are held sufficient for Kealiher; Mlllett V. Blake, 81 Me. 531, 18 Atl. 293, 10 Am. St. Rep. 275; Luckenbough for Luckenbach; Schee v. La Grange, 78 la. 101, 42 N. W. 616; Rooks for Riix; Rooks v. State, 83 Ala. 79, 3 South. 720; Tasso for Dasso; Napa State Hospital v. Dasso, 153 Cal. 698, 96 Pac. 355, 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 643, 15 Ann. Cas. 910; Wadkins for Watkius; Bennett v. State, 62 Ark. 616, 36 S. W. 947; GIttiugs for Giddans; Woody v. State, 113 Ga. 927, 39 S. E. 297. The rule seems to be that If names may be sounded alike without doing violence to the power of letters found in the various orthography, the variance Is immaterial; Wilks V. State, 27 Tex. App. 381, 11 S. W. 415; 1 Whart. Cr. L. 309; 1 Bish. Cr. Proc. § 688. Whether or not the names are idem sonantfa was held a question for the jury, where the name was laid Darius C (pronounced in Dorset dialect D’rlus) and It was in fact Trius; 2 Den. Cr. Cas. 231; 3 Russ. Cr. Sharsw. ed. 317. See Kirk v. Suttle, 6 Ala. 679; Com. v. Brigham, 147 Mass. 414, 18 N. E. 167. In the following cases the variances there mentioned were declared to be fatal; Mc- Carn for Mc Cann; Russ. & R. 351; Shakspeare for Shakepear; 10 East 83; Calver for Calvert and Day for Dax; 2 Cr. & M. 189; Moores for Mohr; State v. Mohr, 55 Mo. App. 325; Mulette for Merlette; Merlette V. State, 100 Ala. 42, 14 South. 562; Siemson for Simonson; Simonson v. Dolan, 114 Mo. 176, 21 S. W. 510; Bart for Bartholomew; Curtis V. Marts, 29 111. 508; Comyns for Cummins; Cruikshank v. Comyns, 24 111. 602; Grautls for Gerardus; Mann v, Carley, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 148; Henry for Harry; Garrison V. People, 21 111. 535; Jeffery for Jeffries; Marshall v. Jeffries, 1 Hempst. 299, Fed. Cas. No. 9,128a. The same principle applies to words as well as names, and a verdict is not vitiated by misspelling If the words are idem aonana, as mrder for murder, turn for term, too for two; but a verdict for damages was void when given for impunl Uve damages, or when a burglar was' found guilty of bergellery, or last three In English; Shaw v. State, 2 Tex. App. 487; Haney v. State, 2 Tex. App. 504; Keeller v. State, 4 Tex. App. 527; Dillon v. Rogers, 36 Tex-, 152. See, generally, 3 Chltty, Pr. 231, 232; 6 M. & S. 45; Tibbets v. Kiah, 2 N. H. 557; CJom. V. Ol Uesple, 7 S. & R. (Pa.) 479, 10 Am. Dec. 475; Petrie v. Woodworth, 3 Oal. (N. Y.) 219; Gordon v. Holiday, 1 Wash. 0. C. 285, Fed. Cas. No. 6,610; Mann v. Carley, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 148; 3 Stark. Bv. § 1678; Gonzalia v. Bartelsman, 143 111. 634, 32 N. E. 632; 24 Alb. L. J. 444; 27 Am. St. Rep. 785, note; 13 L. R. A. 641, note; Harris, Identification, Ch. III.

The same for the same. An illustration of a kind that really adds no additional element to the consideration of the question. Idem semper antecedenti proximo refertur, Co, Litt, 685. “The same” is always referred to its next antecedent.