(Sec. 5-905 I. C. A.; Scamman v. Bonslet, 118 Cal. 93; 50 P. 272; 62 Am. St. 226; Mathers v. Mathers, 42 Idaho 821; 248 P. 468; Commonwealth Trust Co. v. Lorain, 43 Idaho 784; 255 P. 909; McAllister v. Erickson, 45 Idaho 211; 261 P. 242.) While a Court of record has inherent power to cause its act and proceedings to be correctly set forth in its records, it cannot, under the form of amendment of its records, correct a judicial error or make of record an order or judgment that was, in fact, never given. The power of a Court to change its judgment, as well as the time within which such change can be made, depends upon different principles. ( State v. Douglass, 35 Idaho 140; 208 P. 236; Fall River Irrigation Co. v. Swendsen, et al., 41 Idaho 686; 241 P. 1021; Occidental Life Insurance Co. v. Niendorf, 55 Idaho 521; 44 P.2d 1099.) HOLDEN, J.

The Court of Appeals then considered these requirements in apparent conflict, but capable of reconciliation. They examined two Idaho cases, Donaldson v. Henry, 63 Idaho 467, 121 P.2d 445 (1942), and Fall River Irrigation Co. v. Swendsen, 41 Idaho 686, 241 P. 1021 (1925), and one Washington case, In re Tabery, 14 Wn. App. 271, 540 P.2d 474 (1975), and concluded that the "issue of nunc pro tunc relief turned upon a determination of intent." Ward, supra, at 43, 720 P.2d at 226.

The former, lesser sorts of error could be corrected at any reasonable time at the discretion of the court, the latter could be corrected only by appeal or on a timely motion for a new trial. E.g., Baldwin v. Anderson, 50 Idaho 606, 299 P. 341 (1931); Fall River Irr. Co. v. Swendsen, 41 Idaho 686, 241 P. 1021 (1925); Wyllie v. Kent, 28 Idaho 16, 152 P. 194 (1915). ( See also Baldwin v. Anderson, 51 Idaho 614, 8 P.2d 461 (1932); and Occidental Life Ins. Co. v. Niendorf, 55 Idaho 521, 44 P.2d 1099 (1935) on the inherent power of the court to vacate void judgments at any time).

Omission of this provision under the circumstances cannot reasonably be said to be other than a clerical error. From the absence of such reference we can only conclude that no such problem arose and that the two paragraphs were inadvertently left out in the typing of the findings and decree. The evidence, we hold, is clear and convincing. Fall River Irr. Co. v. Swendsen, 41 Idaho 686, 241 P. 1021; Application of Beaver Dam Ditch Co. (Crowell v. City of Cheyenne), 54 Wyo. 459, 93 P.2d 934. The order denying appellants' motion is reversed.

However, it also has been stated that a judgment may not be given nunc pro tunc effect to correct a judicial error, as opposed to a clerical error, neither may it contain a ruling or recite an event that did not actually occur. E.g., Donaldson v. Henry, supra; Fall River Irrigation Co. v. Swendsen, 41 Idaho 686, 241 P. 1021 (1925); In re Tabery, 14 Wn. App. 271, 540 P.2d 474 (1975). The second conflict relates to responsibility for seeing that a judgment is timely entered.