IDEM SONARS (Lat.). Having the same sound.
In indictments and pleadings, when a name which it is material to state is wrong ly spelled, yet if it be idem sonans with that proved, it is sufficient. The following have been held to be idem sonans, Segrave for Seagrave ; 2 Stra. 889 ; Whyneard for Winyard ; Russ. & R. 412 ; Benedetto for Beneditto; 2 Taunt. 401; Keen for Keene; Thach. Cr. Cas. 67; Deadema for Diadema ; State v. Patterson, 24 N. C. 346, 38 Am. Dec. 699; Hutson for Hudson; Cato v. Hutson, 7 Mo. 142; Coonrad for Conrad; Carpenter v. State, 8 Mo. 291; Gibney for Giboney; Flem ing v. Giboney, 81 Tex. 422, 17 S. W. 13 ; Allen for Allain; Guertin v. Mombleau, 144 Ill. 32, 33 N. B. 49; Emerly for EmleY; Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. v. Daniels, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 695, 20 S. W. 955 ; Johnston for Johnson ; Miltonvale State Bank v. Kuhnle, 50 Kan. 420, 31 Pac. 1057, 34 Am. St. Rep. 129; Busse for Bosse; Ogden v. Bosse, 86 Tex. 336, 24 S. W. 798; Chambles for Chambless; Ward v. State, 28 Ala. 53 ; Conly for Conolly ; Fletcher v. Conly, 2 G. Greene (Ia.) 88; Usrey for. Usury; Gresham v. Walker, 10 Ala. 370 ; Faust for Foust ; Faust v. U. S., 163 U. S. 452, 16 Sup. Ct. 1112, 41 L. Ed. 224; Bubb for Bopp; Myer v. Fegaly, 39 Pa. 429, 80 Am. Dec. 534; Heck man for Hackman ; Appeal of Bergman, 88 Pa. 120; Shaffer for Shafer; Rowe v. Palm er, 29 Kan. 337; Woolley for Wolley; Power v. Woolley, 21 Ark. 462; Penryn for Penny rine; Elliott v. Knott, 14 Md. 121, 74 Am. Dec. 519 ; Barbra for Barbara; State v. Heist, 52 Kan. 35, 34 Pac. 453; Isreal B. for Israel B.; Boren v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. R. 637, 25 S. W. 775; Alwin for Alvin; Jockisch v. Hardtke, 50 Ill. App. 202 ; Helmer for Hill mer ; Cline v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 415, 31 S. W. 175 ; July for Julia; Dickson v. State, 34 Tex. Cr. R. 1, 28 S. W. 815, 30 S. W. 807, 53 Am. St. Rep. 694; Elliott for Ellett ; Rob ertson v. Winchester, 85 Tenn. 171, 1 S. W. 781; Chegawgequay for Chegawgoquay; Brown v. Quinland, 75 Mich. 289, 42 N. W. 940; Keoliher, Kelliher, Kellier, Keolhier, Kelhier, are held sufficient for Kealiher ; Millett v. Blake, 81 Me. 531, 18 Atl. 293, 10 Am. St. Rep. 275; Luckenbough for Lucken bach; Schee v. La Grange, 78 Ia. 101, 42 N. W. 616; Rooks for Rux ; Rooks v. State, 83 Ala. 79, 3 South. 720; Tasso for Dasso; Napa State Hospital v. Dasso, 153 Cal. 698, 96 Pac. 355, 18 L. FL A. (N. S.) 643, 15 Ann. Cas. 910; Wadkins for Watkins ; Bennett v.
State, 62 Ark. 516, 36 S. W. 947; Gittings for Giddans; Woody v. State, 113 Ga. 927, 39 S. E. 297.
The rule seems to be that if names may be sounded alike without doing violence to the power of letters found in the various orthography, the variance is immaterial; Wilks v. State, 27 Tex. App. 381, 11 S. W. 415 ; 1 Whart. Cr. L. 309; 1 Bish. Cr. Proc. § 688. Whether or not the names are idem sonastia was held a question for the jury, where the name was laid Darius C (pro nounced in Dorset dialect D'rius) and it was in fact Trius; 2 Den. Cr. Cas. 231; 3 Russ. Cr. Sharsw. ed. 317; See Kirk, v. Suttle, 6 Ala. 679; Com. v. Brigham, 147 Mass. 414, 18 N. E. 167. = In the following cases the variances there mentioned were declared to be fatal ; Mc Cam for McCann ; Russ. & R.' 351; Shalt speare for Shakepear; 10 East 83; Calver for Calvert and Day for Dax; 2 Cr. & M. 189 ; Moores for Mohr ; State v. Mohr, 55 Mo. App. 325; Mulette for Merlette; Merlette v. State, 100 Ala. 42, 14 South. 562; Siemson for Simonson; Simonson v. Dolan, 114 Mo. 176, 21 S. W. 510; Bart for Bartholomew; Curtis v. Marrs, 29 Ill. 508 ; Comyns for Cummins ; Cruikshank v. Comyns, 24 Ill. 602; Grautis for Gerardus; Mann v. Carley, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 148; Henry for Harry; Gar rison v. People, 21 Ill. 535 ; Jeffery for Jeff ries; Marshall v. Jeffries, 1 Hempst. 299, Fed. Cas. No. 9,128a.
The same principle applies to words as well as and a verdict is not vitiated by misspelling if the words are idem softens, as mrder for murder, turn for term, too for two; but a verdict for damages was void when given for impunitive damages, or when a burglar was found guilty of bergellery, or where the defendant was found guity instead of guilty, there being no such words as the last three in English ; Shaw v. State, 2 Tex. App. 487 ; Haney v. State, 2 Tex. App. 504; Keeller v. State, 4 Tex. App. 527; Dillon v. Rogers, 36 Tex. 152.
See, generally, 3 Chitty, Pr. 231, 232 ; 6 M. & S. 45; Tibbets v. Kiah, 2 N. H. 557; Cora. v. Gillespie, 7 S. & R. (Pa.) 479, 10 Am. Dec. 475; Petrie v. Woodworth, 3 Cal. (N. Y.) 219 ; Gordon v. Holiday, 1 Wash. C. C. 285, Fed. Cas. No. 5,610 ; Mann v. Carley, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 148; 3 Stark. Ev. § 1678; Gonzalia v. Bartelsman, 143 Ill. 634, 32 N. E. 532; 24 Alb. L. J. 444 ; 27 Am. St. Rep. 785, note; 13 L. R. A. 541, note; Harris, Identi fication, Ch. III.