The judgment below, as certified to this Court, is wholly inconsistent with the findings of fact, and is meaningless. The *755 defendant, wbo is the moving party, is ordered to pay the allowance to herself. Patently the word “defendant” as it first appears therein was inadvertently and erroneously used for the word “plaintiff.” However, be that as it may, it is the duty of the court below, and not ours, on application, or ex mero motu, to correct the record to speak the truth, and to make entries nunc pro tunc that were certainly intended to be made, but omitted by mistake, accident, or inadvertence of the court. Such authority is essential. Wall v. Covington, 83 N. C., 144; Strickland v. Strickland, 95 N. C., 471; Cook v. Moore, 100 N. C., 294, 6 S. E., 795; Brooks v. Stephens, 100 N. C., 297, 6 S. E., 81; Durham v. Cotton Mills, 144 N. C., 705, 57 S. E., 465; S. v. Brown, 203 N. C., 513, 166 S. E., 396.

On the face of the judgment, the plaintiff is not the party aggrieved— and is not, therefore, entitled to appeal. O. S., 632.

The defendant may find it expedient to apply to the court for permission to amend her answer and the verification thereof to meet objections made on this appeal. Moore v. Moore, 130 N. C., 333, 41 S. E., 943; Martin v. Martin, 130 N. C., 28, 40 S. E., 822; Nichols v. Nichols, 128 N. C., 108, 38 S. E., 296; C. S., 1661.

The appeal will be

Dismissed.