delivered the opinion of the court:

This is not an amendment, it is a discontinuance or nolle prosequi, (1 Tidds Practice, 628-6 30, J as to one defendant, which does not necessarily change the defence. Any alteration in the body of the declaration, either in fqrm_or substancey would necessarily require an 9I7 *413teration in the pleadings, and, then, there may be a necessity for other witnesses, than those who had been subpoenaed, consequently, a good ground of continuance. Here the plea was non est factum, and it was as competent for the remaining defendant to have supported his plea after his co-defendant’s name was stricken from the record, ae it would have been had it remained. There may have been a difference,- but if there was, it is presumable the defendant was not prepared to support it.

The motion is dismissed.

I concur in this opinion, on the ground that the defendant signed the name of his co-obligor himself as his agent, and on the trial disavowed his agency, and therefore it became his own several bond.