Lee, 944 So.2d at 40 (¶ 16). ¶22. In Stevens v. State, 232 So.2d 730, 730 (Miss.1970), the Supreme Court found no error in a similar amendment to an indictment, albeit with little analysis. There, “[t]he indictment originally charged the theft of many items of personal property,” but “[a]t the trial, the district attorney asked to amend by eliminating all of said articles except four.” Id. The defendant “claimed surprise and asked for a continuance,” but the circuit “court permitted the amendment and overruled the motion for continuance.” Id. The Supreme Court stated simply, “Of course, there was no error in this.” Id. The same is true here. ¶23. The only other amendment to the indictment was the change of “diamond ring with diamond clusters” to read simply “diamond ri , 41 (1954) (<HOLDING>). Nations has not explained how the slight
holding that the amendment of the indictment was permissible under the statutory predecessor to code  192231 because the amendment did not within the meaning of the statute change the nature of the offense charged in the original indictment holding that the indictment was permissibly amended to change the brand name of the barbed wire stolen holding that the amendment made to the indictment in this case was not authorized by code  192231 because the amended indictment materially changed the nature of the offense originally charged holding that the indictment was permissibly amended to change the description of a stolen watch holding that failure of indictment to include the defendants name was not fatal because the original complaint that initiated the prosecution properly listed the defendants name and the record indieated that the defendant  knew what he was charged with and what facts the charge was based upon