case Harcourt versus Sherrard and dame anderson ux Lord keeper may Eq can ab  pl S c defendant have by answer consent that a award make by her father may be  confirm pray she may amend her answer she have make oath that she never read  the award and that her answer be prepare by her father who have wrong her in  the award motion deny per cur the defendant the lady Anderson have by her  answer consent that a award make by her father may be confirm desire leave to  amend her answer in that particular have make oath that she never read the  award and that such answer be prepare for her by her father who have wrong her  in the award but the court refuse to give her leave to amend her answer Reg  lib a fol the application be by petition to be at liberty either to take the  answer off the file or to amend and it be also state that lady Anderson have  never see the bill nor a draft of her answer nor give instruction for draw or  engross it but that a engrossment thereof be send to her one morning by her  father with direction to put it in that day by noon which she do and the  decree on appeal to dom proc affirm journ house lord vol Colles p c vide  distinction take by Hardwicke Lord chancellor between matter of fact and law  as to permit amendment of answer pierce v grove Amb but on discovery of a new  title in the defendant after answer file answer order to be take off the file  and the new matter add Patterson v slaughter Amb but court will not permit  defendant to amend a schedule to her answer after indictment for perjury  threaten though the defendant have no interest in perjure himself earl Verney  v Macnamara bro Ch Rep so in the like case Vaux v Lord Waltham cite in note  there but Lord chancellor incline to grant it if the affidavit have clear show  it to be a mistake ibidem and it seem to be settle that where the court be  clear that a mere mistake have be make in a answer it will suffer the  defendant to rectify it and the mode now be to permit a supplemental answer to  be file that course leave the party the effect of what have be swear before  with the explanation give by the supplemental answer per Eldon Lord chancellor  Dolder v the bank of England Ves which see also as a authority for amend  exception and further on the principal point Jennings v Merton college Ves  well v wood Ves from these case and indeed from the nature of the thing it  appear that though the court will under circumstance permit a answer after it  be on the file to be alter or rectify yet saint that it be very jealous of so  do dly that the propose alteration must be state in the affidavit and dly that  it be complete at the discretion of the court and that no general rule can be  lie down on the subject note in the report of the principal case in Eq can ab  ub sup it be say one reason why the court deny this motion be because the  father be a arbitrator of the defendant I e lady Anderson own choose but this  circumstance do not appear in any part of the statement in the register book  Livesy v Wilson v b strange v Collins v b Edward v MLeay ib white v Godbold  mad French v mile mad and in the exchequer tenant v Wilsmore Anst Harris v  Daubeny Anst tailor v obee price