is bound by the declaration of the person referred to in the same manner, and to the same extent, as if they were made by himself. The admission of the wife will bind the husband only when she has authority to make such admission. The cases on this subject are generally those of implied authority, turning upon the degree the husband permits the wife to participate in the transaction of his affairs. The admissions of attorneys bind their clients in all matters relating to the progress and trial of the action.

2. The deliberate confession of crime is one of the strongest evidences of guilt. Their value depends upon the supposition that they are deliberately and voluntarily made. Confessions made by the prisoner to any person, at any time after the commission of the crime, are received in evidence. It has been held that a confession of guilt might be inferred from the conduct of the prisoner, and from his silent acquiescence in the statement of others respecting himself, and made in his presence; provided they are not made under circumstances which prevented him from replying to them. The justice of such a rule is subject to great doubt. The degree of credit to be given to confessions is a subject to be determined by the jury. Confessions are divided into two classes-

(1.) Judicial confessions.

(2.) Extra-judicial confessions.

Judicial confessions are those which are made before a magistrate, or in court, in due course of legal proceedings. It is necessary that they be free and voluntary, and be made with full knowledge of the nature and consequences of the confession. The following are examples of judicial confessions:

admission of such third party binding? When will the admissions of the wife bind the husband? What will determine her agency? Wher will the admissions of an attorney bind his client?

2. What is one of the strongest evidences of guilt? Upon what does the value of confessions depend? What confessions are received in evidence? How has it been held that confessions might be inferred? By whom is the degree of credit to be given to confessions determined?

(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 se crecy, 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 witness 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 at torneys 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 communications:

What are the

2. What does the Jew of Papal Rome exclude? 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?