and that it ought to be taken through an interpreter, which was done. in order that they might get it a little better and a little fuller. It was held that the defendant's testimony was not admissible upon his trial on the indictment.1 It will be seen that this later case follows in direct line with the rule announced in the McMahon Case and clearly distinguishes another case, the McGloin Case, upon the authority of which the trial court held the testimony of the prisoner in the Mondon Case admissible.

McGloin Case.-The case of McGloin was not that of the examination of a prisoner on oath before a magistrate before whom he was taken involuntarily, while in custody, and interrogated by the magistrate, who to all appearance had power to require him to answer, but while under arrest the prisoner said to the inspector of police who had him in charge that he would make a statement. The inspector then said that he would send for a coroner to take it. The coroner was then sent for and came to police headquarters and took down in writing the confession dictated by the prisoner, the coroner asking no questions and not acting in any official capacity, but as a mere amanuensis to take down the confession and prove the contents. It was held that the confession of the prisoner was admissible in evidence upon his trial for murder.2

Molineux Case.-The defendant's statements made at the coroner's inquest, before he had been accused of the murder, were held admissible, even though the coroner threatened to punish him for contempt unless he obeyed the subpoena.3

The decisions in other States are, with few exceptions, substantially in harmony with the New York decisions.

Rule in Pennsylvania.—The rule in Pennsylvania is substantially that testimony given by the prisoner under oath before a coroner's inquest, previous to his being charged or suspected of the murder of the individual upon whose body the inquest was sitting, may afterward be given in evidence against him, on his trial for the murder of such person.*

1 People v. Mondon, 103 N. Y., 211.

264.

People v. McGloin, 91 N. Y., 241.
People v. Molineux, 168 N. Y.,

Williams v. Commonwealth, 29 Pa. St., 102. In this case the prosecution was permitted to prove upon the trial that a justice of the peace had held an inquest on the body of a dead person, and appointed another person foreman of the inquest, and directed him to swear witnesses; and

while the inquest was still sitting, the foreman called upon and requested the defendant to be sworn and give evidence as a witness, and he was duly sworn and was examined by the foreman, in presence of the inquest. It was held on appeal that his evidence was admissible. On this point the Court said: "If the defendant had been awakened out of sleep, charged with crime, and then, in the necessary confusion of his faculties sworn to testify, I should have stead

Rule in Nebraska.-The statements of a prisoner to be competent evidence must have been voluntarily made. In cases of declaration made on an examination before a coroner's inquest by a person under arrest or charged with the crime and also under oath, they are not admissible. But when the person, although he be subsequently charged with the offence, appears voluntarily and gives testimony, before any accusation has been made against him, his statements are admissible in evidence against him on the trial of an indictment for the crime.'

Rule in Alabama.-The rule in Alabama is the same as in Nebraska."

Rule in Georgia.-The rule in Georgia is substantially the Whether defendant has been accused is of "secondary"

same.

importance.'

Rule in Illinois. -In Illinois evidence of statements made by the accused under oath before a coroner's jury, even though he was already suspected of the crime, were held admissible against him on his trial, when they were made voluntarily and not contradicted by him on his trial.*

Rule in Indiana.-The rule in Indiana is substantially the same as in Pennsylvania."

Rule in Maine.-The rule in Maine resembles the Illinois rule." Rule in Missouri.-Statements made by the defendant before the coroner are presumed to be voluntary, and unless shown otherwise are admissible against him in any case.'

Rule in South Carolina.-The rule in South Carolina resembles that in Nebraska."

fastly resisted the subsequent introduction of the testimony against him. The common law, which justifies an accused man in entire silence, appears in beautiful contrast to the continental systems, which permit the criminal to be racked by inquisitorial skill, until something be wrung from him which may be patched up into proof of guilt. This case shows nothing of the kind. The phrase 'called up' commented on by the counsel, does not appear in the record, and if employed by the witnesses related doubtless to the ordinary case of calling forth a witness, and not awakening him from slumber. When the defendant was sworn before the inquest, he had neither been

charged with nor suspected of crime. He might have declined to testify, and this would have pointed suspicion directly to him. He took the risk of a statement, and cannot complain that he met the legitimate consequences of the act. In the eye of all the authorities, it was a voluntary statement."

Clough . The State, 7 Neb., 320. 2 Wilson v. State, 110 Ala., 1.

3 Woolfolk e. State, 81 Ga., 551. Lyons e. People, 137 Ill., 602.

4

5

Epps e. State, 102 Ind., 539; Davidson v. State, 135 Ind., 254.

State v. Gilman, 51 Me., 206.
State v. David, 131 Mo., 380.
State v. Vaigneur, 5 Rich. Law
(S. C.), 391.

Rule in Texas.-The rule in Texas resembles that in Nebraska.1

Rule in West Virginia.—The West Virginia courts lay stress on whether the defendant has been accused when he testifies before the coroner, as in Nebraska.'

Rule in Wisconsin.-The Wisconsin courts have followed the New York cases."

1 Wood v. State, 22 Tex. App., 431. 2 State v. Hobbs, 37 W. Va., 812.

3 Dickerson v. State, 48 Wis., 288; Emery State, 92 Wis., 146.

MEDICO-LEGAL AUTOPSIES.

BY

H. P. LOOMIS, A.M., M.D.,

Professor of Pathology in the University of the City of New York; Visiting Physicicn and Curator to Bellevue Hospital, New York; Pathologist to the

Board of Health, New York City; President New

York Pathological Society, etc., etc.