(1.) A confession made on the preliminary examination, taken in writing, pursuant to statute.

(2.) The plea of guilty, made in open court, to an indictment.

Either of these is sufficient for conviction. Extra-judicial confessions are those made elsewhere than before the magistrate or in open court. The whole confession must be taken together. The confession must be voluntary, and without the appliance of hope or fear. Confessions have been rejected, when the following language has been used to the prisoner:

(1.) "Unless you give me a more satisfactory account, I will take you before the magistrate."

(2.) "If you will tell me where my goods are, I will be favorable to you."

(3.) "It is of no use for you to deny it; for there are the man and the boy, who will swear they saw you do

it."

If the confession is drawn from the witness by threats, it is not voluntary, and, therefore, cannot be received.

3. Although promises or threats have been made, yet if it appear to the satisfaction of the judge that their influence was totally done away before the confession was made, the evidence will be received. Instances of confession not strictly spontaneous may be admitted, and laid before the jury. Such are the following:

(1.) Confessions induced by spiritual exhortation, whe‐ ther of a clergyman or of any other person.

(2.) Confessions induced by a solemn promise of secrecy, even confirmed by an oath.

What two classes of confessions? What are judicial confessions? Must the prisoner be made acquainted with the effect of a judicial confession? How are judicial confessions made? For what are either of these sufficient? What are extra-judicial confessions? Must the whole confession be taken together? What language addressed to the prisoner has caused his confession to be rejected? If the confession be drawn from the wit ness by threats?

3. If promises or threats have been made, yet if it appear that their influence had ceased before the confession was made? What instances of confession, not strictly spontaneous, have been admitted and laid before

(3.) Confessions induced by a person's having been made drunk.

(4.) Confessions induced by a promise of some collateral benefit, no hope of favor being held out in respect to the criminal charge against him.

(5.) Confessions induced by deception practised on the prisoner, or false representations made to him for that purpose; provided there is no reason to suppose that the inducement held out was calculated to produce any

untrue statement.

It is not necessary to warn the prisoner that his confession will be used against him. The object of excluding confessions not voluntarily made, is to exclude evidence not probably true.

4. When, in consequence of information obtained from the prisoner, any material fact is discovered, such as(1.) The stolen property;

(2.) The instrument of crime;

(3.) The bloody clothes of the person murdered;

it is competent. to show that such discovery was made in conformity with the information given by the prisoner. When a conspiracy or combination of several persons in the commission of a crime is established, the confession of one is evidence against all. Each is deemed to assent to or command what is done by any other, in furtherance of a common object. No person is amenable, criminally, for the acts of his servants or agents, unless a criminal design is brought home to him.

the jury? Is it necessary to warn the prisoner that his confession will be used against him, if the confession be extra-judicial? What is the object of excluding confessions not voluntarily made?

4. When, in consequence of information obtained from the prisoner, any material fact is discovered, what is it competent to show? When a combination of several persons in the commission of a crime has been established, what effect does the confession of one have? What is each deemed to consent to or to command? Is any person amenable for the criminal acts of his servants or agents?

CHAPTER CXII.

EVIDENCE EXCLUDED.

1. THE law excludes certain kinds of evidence, because greater mischief would probably result from its admission than from its rejection. The confidential attorney or counsellor of a client cannot be compelled, nor is he allowed to disclose confidential communications, either oral or written, made to him in his official capacity. Their clerks, agents, and interpreters are considered as standing in precisely the same situation as the attorney or counsel himself, and under the same obligation of secrecy. The executors of attorneys or counsellors cannot give testimony respecting papers coming into their hands, as the personal representatives of the attorney or counsellor. This protection extends to every communication which the client makes to his legal adviser for the purpose of professional advice or aid, upon the subject of his rights and liabilities. It does not cease at the termination of the suit. The seal of the law once fixed remains forever, unless removed by the party himself, in whose favor it was there placed. The attorney or counsel may give evidence in the following cases:

(1.) When the communication was made before the attorney was employed.

(2.) When it was made after his employment ceased. (3.) When the matter communicated was not in its nature private.

1. Why does the law exclude certain kinds of evidence? What is the rule as to confidential communications made by clients to their attorneys and counsellors? What is the rule as to their clerks, agents, and interpreters? What is the rule as to their executors? To what does this protection extend? Does it cease with the termination of the suit? Can the party himself remove the seal? In what cases may attorneys and counsellors give evidence?

(4.) When the attorney is a subscribing witness.

2. The law of Papal Rome excludes confessions made to clergymen, that the guilty conscience may with safety disburden itself by penitential confessions, and by spiritual instruction and advice seek pardon and relief. Another ground of exclusion is, that the confession is not so much to the priest, as to the Deity, whom he represents; and therefore the priest, when appearing as a witness in his private character, may lawfully swear that he knows nothing of the subject. The law punishes the priest, if he reveals such communications. In Scotland, when a prisoner in custody has confessed his crime to a clergyman, in order to obtain spiritual advice, the clergyman is not required to give evidence of such confession. The law of England encourages confessions; and the minister to whom the confession is made is excused from presenting the offender to the civil magistrate. He is also enjoined not to reveal the facts confessed, under the penalty of irregularity. In all other respects, he is left to the full operation of the rules of the common law. He is bound by the common law to testify, when summoned. By the common law of evidence, there is no distinction between clergymen and laymen; and all confessions and other matters of evidence not confided to legal counsel, must be disclosed when required for the purposes of justice.

3. Physicians are required to give in evidence confessions made to them confidentially, while attending their patients in their professional character, unless exempted by statute. The following are privileged communica

tions:

2. What does the law of Papal Rome exclude? What are the grounds of exclusion? What is the rule in Scotland, where a clergyman has received the confession of a prisoner in custody? What does the law of England encourage? From what is the minister to whom the confession is made excused? What is he enjoined not to do? To what, in all other respects, is he left? To what is he bound by the common law? What distinction at common law does not exist?

3. What is the rule as to the confessions made to physicians confi dentially, while attending their patients in their professional character ?

(1.) Official transactions between the head of the department of State and his subordinate officers. (2.) The proceedings of grand-juries.

(3.) Communications between husband and wife. (4.) Disclosures offensive to public morals.

Grand-jurors are sworn to secrecy. It is the policy of the law to keep secret the preliminary inquiries respecting the guilt or innocence of the accused. The clerk of the grand-jury, and also the district attorney, are placed under the same restrictions of secrecy. A grand-juror may be asked if twelve of their number agreed to the indictment, the certificate of the foreman not being conclusive evidence of the fact. Confidential communications between husband and wife are excluded, on the ground that the married state requires that there should be the most unlimited confidence between husband and wife; and that nothing should be extracted from the bosom of one, confided to him or to her by the other. After the parties are separated by death or otherwise, they are prohibited from disclosing any conversations had between

them.

CHAPTER CXIII.

THE NUMBER OF WITNESSES.

1. Ar common law, the crime of treason was proved by the evidence of one credible witness. In this country, two witnesses to the same overt act, or to different acts of the same treason, are required to convict, or a voluntary

What four privileged communications are named? What is the policy of the law as to grand-jurors? What question may be put to a grandjuror? On what ground are confidential communications between hus band and wife excluded? If the parties are separated by death or otherwise?

1. How many witnesses are required at common law, to prove the crime of treason? How many are required by statute law? How many wit