The case of The People v Powers (2 Seld, 50) is relied on by the coun- 1 sel for the defendant as a decisive authority against the indictment in this case.

I do not so understand that case.

On the contrary, the court held expressly, in that case, just what I have held in this, that this defect is matter of form merely, and was cured by the statute.

In that case, it is true, the objection was raised after verdict ; but that makes no difference if it be matter of form merely, for the statute is as explicit that the indictment shall not be deemed invalid nor shall the trial thereon be affected by reason of any defect or imperfection in matters of form which shall not tend to the prejudice of the defendant.

This statute is as effectual to cure formal defects in the indictment, before and upon the trial, as it is in regard to the judgment or other pro- ceedings; and if the Court of Appeals, therefore, were right in the case of The People v Powers, in holding Ihe defect complained of a matter of form merely, then certainly the statute cures the defect in the indictment.