Information (criminal procedure) – Amendment. The justices had been entitled to conclude that there had been a mere misstatement of a name on the summons for ten alleged offences against a company and their amendment, notwithstanding the expiry of the statutory time limit, had been a course they could properly take. However, the Divisional Court declined to answer the questions set out in the appellant's case stated, as the justices' decision had been interlocutory, but treated it as an application for judicial review, which was dismissed.