Section 156

A is charged under section *242 of the Penal Code with “having been in possession of counterfeit coin, having known at the time when he became possessed of it that the coin was counterfeit” the word “fraudulently” being omitted in the charge. Unless it appears that A was in fact misled by this omission the error shall not be regarded as material.

A is charged with cheating B, and the manner in which he cheated B is not set out in the charge, or is set out incorrectly. A defends himself, calls witnesses, and gives his own account of the transaction. The Court may infer from this that the omission to set out the manner of the cheating is not material.

A is charged with cheating B, and the manner in which he cheated B is not set out in the charge. There were many transactions between A and B, and A had no means of knowing to which of them the charge referred, and offered no defence. The Court may infer from these facts that the omission to set out the manner of the cheating was, in this case, a material error.

A is charged with the murder of John Smith on 6 June 1910. In fact the murdered person’s name was James Smith and the date of the murder was 5 June 1910. A was never charged with any murder but one, and had heard the inquiry before the Magistrate which referred exclusively to the case of James

Smith. The Court may infer from these facts that A was not misled, and that the error in the charge was immaterial.

A was charged with murdering James Smith on 5 June 1910, and John

Smith (who tried to arrest him for that murder) on 6 June 1910. When charged for the murder of James Smith he was tried for the murder of John Smith. The witnesses present in his defence were witnesses in the case of James Smith. The

Court may infer from this that A was misled and that the error was material.