king's seals,) two witnesses are required, both before the grand jury and at the trial; both of them being witnesses to the same overt act, or one of them to one overt act and another of them to another overt act of the same species of treason; unless the defendant shall willingly and without violence confess the same.-4 Bl. C. 356; 1 Ch. Cr. Law, 560.

And if the jury do not give credit to both witnesses, the defendant must be acquitted.-Arch. 145; 3 St. Tr. 56.

But one witness is sufficient in treason, to prove a collateral fact, e. g. to prove defendant a natural born subject, or the like.-2 Salk. 634; Fost. 240.

And by 39 & 40 Geo. III. c. 93, where the overt act of treason is the assassination of the king, or a direct attempt on his life or person, one witness is sufficient.

So, by 1 Edw. VI. c. 12, s. 22, in misprision of treason there must be two witnesses, unless the defendant willingly and without violence confess the offence.

To convict for perjury also, there must be two witnesses. -4 Bl. C. 358; 10 Mod. 194.

But if the assignment of perjury be directly proved by one witness, and any material circumstances be proved by another, or by written documents in confirmation of the witness who directly proves the perjury, this may suffice.2 Russ. 545.

And if the perjury consist in the defendant's having sworn contrary to what he had himself before sworn upon the same subject, this is not within the rule requiring two witnesses-Ibid.; 5 Barn. & Ald. 929 n.

A free and voluntary confession by the prisoner, of an offence charged, is in general sufficient to convict, without any other evidence.-Russ. & Ry. 440.

And this whether the confession was made before apprehension, or after, whether on judicial examination, or after commitment, and whether reduced into writing or not.4 Bl. C. 357, n. (32) by Ryland; 1 Ch. Cr. Law, 570.

But if the confession was drawn from the prisoner by

means of a threat or a promise, however slight, it is not admissible evidence.-1 Ch. Cr. Law, 571; 1 Phil. Ev. 104.

Any facts, however, that may be brought to light in consequence of such confession, may be proved.-Russ. & Ry. 151.

A confession, (if made on examination before a magistrate,) ought to be taken in writing, and signed by the magistrate, as directed by 7 Geo. IV. c. 64; and parol evidence of such a confession will not be received, unless it is clearly proved not to have been reduced into writing.See 1 Ch. Cr. Law, 572, 573.

The confession when taken in writing, ought to be read over to the prisoner, and he should be asked to sign it. But his refusing to do so will not make it inadmissible, if in other respects regularly obtained.-4 Bl. C. 357, n. (32) by Ryland.

The prisoner's confession must not be taken on oath, and if so taken, it cannot be received.-1 Ch. Cr. Law, 573.

His confession is evidence only against himself; not against others, though proved aliunde to be his accomplices.-4 Bl. C. 357, n. (32) by Ryland.

Nor although he charge his accomplice in his hearing, and the latter do not deny it.-3 Stark. Rep. 33.

In all cases the whole of the confession should be given in evidence; for it is a general rule that the whole account. must be taken together, both that which makes for the prisoner, and that which makes against him.—Arch. 112.

But what he says in his favour, is not to be taken as conclusive. The whole is to be left to the jury.-1 Ry. & M. 258; 3 Carr. & P. 603; 4 Carr. & P. 221.

The depositions of witnesses upon oath, before magistrates and coroners, duly put in writing, and subscribed and delivered to the officer of the court, (see 7 Geo. 4, c. 64, S. 2, 3, 4, 5,) upon being produced at the trial, and proved by the magistrate or his clerk to have been truly taken, may be given in evidence against the prisoner, in cases of felony and misdemeanor, if the person who made the deposition is dead or insane, or kept out of the way by the de

fendant, or (as it seems) sick, or unable to travel.—1 Chitty, Cr. Law, 585, 586; 2 Hawk. c. 46, s. 6; Arch. 123.

But not in treason. - Ibid.

Nor in any case can depositions before magistrates be read as evidence against the prisoner, unless taken in the presence of the prisoner, so that he had the opportunity of cross-examining.—Ibid.; 5 Mod. 165.

If duly taken, they are admissible in evidence after the death, &c. of the deponent, not only on the trial of the same offence with which the defendant was charged when they were taken, but also on an indictment for any other offence. -Russ. & Ry. 339.

They may also be given in evidence by the defendant, where the witnesses appear, in order to show some material variance between their evidence at the trial, and their evidence before the magistrate; and they may be read by the prosecutor (it would seem), and certainly by the judge, to impeach the credit of a witness who gives evidence contradictory to facts contained in his deposition.-Arch. 124; Russ. & Ry. 88.

Hearsay is in general no evidence.

But it is evidence to prove public rights, customs, boundaries, and the like.-1 Phil. Ev. 236.

And upon an indictment for murder, the dying declarations of the deceased are admissible in evidence, if it appear to the satisfaction of the judge that the deceased. was conscious of his being in a dying state when he made them, and impressed with a sense of his situation.-1 Chitty, Cr. Law, 569, 570; 1 Phil. Ev. 225.

But they are admissible only where the death of the deceased is the subject of the charge, and the cause of death the subject of the dying declaration.-2 Barn. & Cres. 608.

An insane person cannot, while in that condition, be admitted to be sworn as a witness.-2 Hale, P. C. 278.

But a person deaf and dumb may; and a person accustomed to confer with him by signs, may interpret.-1 Leach, 455.

A child, however young, may be sworn, if he understands the obligation of an oath.-1 Leach, 237.

Husband and wife cannot be witnesses for or against each other; and this is the only relation which makes a witness incompetent. -1 Phil. Ev. 71.

And where several persons are jointly indicted, the wife of one of them cannot be produced as a witness for or against the others.-Ibid. 75.

But where a woman has been taken away by force and married, she may be admitted as a witness against the offender, unless after abduction she consented to the marriage. Ibid. 78.

And generally, in cases of violent injuries to the person of the wife, the wife is evidence against the husband.-Ibid. And where he is suspected of having murdered her, her dying declarations are evidence against him.-1 Chitty, Cr. Law, 595.

A witness is by the general rule of evidence rendered incompetent if he be directly interested in the event of the trial, or could avail himself of it on any future occasion as evidence in support of his own interest.-1 Phil. Ev. 52.

But in criminal cases there are many instances of apparent interest which are not considered as within the rule. Thus, a man who has laid a wager on the event of the prosecution, may still be examined as a witness.--1 Chitty, Cr. Law, 596.

And the testimony of the party injured is constantly admitted; nor will the right of the prosecutor to costs on an indictment removed by certiorari, disqualify him.-Ibid. And persons entitled to a reward on conviction, are not disqualified.—Ibid.

So, in an indictment for perjury, the testimony of the person aggrieved by the false deposition, is admissible.— Ibid.; 4 East, 572.

By 1 Ann. st, 1, c. 18, s. 13, and 13 Geo. III. c. 78, s. 77, inhabitants of the county or parish are good witnesses when the question is who are obliged to repair a bridge or highway.

By 9 Geo. IV. c. 32, s. 2, on any prosecution by indictment or information, either at common law or by virtue of any statute, against any person for forging any deed, writing, instrument, or other matter whatsoever, or for uttering or disposing of any deed, writing, instrument, or other matter whatsoever, knowing the same to be forged; or for being accessary before or after the fact to any such offence, if the same be a felony; or for aiding, abetting, or counselling the commission of any such offence, if the same be a misdemeanor, no person shall be deemed to be an incompetent witness in support of any such prosecution by reason of any interest which such person may have or be supposed to have in respect of any such deed, writing, instrument, or other matter.

A conviction of any description of felony, or any species of the crimen falsi, whether barratry, conspiracy, perjury, fraud in gaming, or other crime, will incapacitate the party as a witness, while it continues in force.-1 Ch. Cr. Law, 600.

But by 9 Geo. IV. c. 33, s. 4, where any offender is convicted of any such misdemeanor as renders him an incompetent witness, (except perjury or subornation of perjury,) and hath endured the punishment for the same, he shall not afterwards be deemed an incompetent witness by reason of such misdemeanor, in any court or proceeding, civil or criminal.

In general a legal infamy arising from conviction, may be removed by the king's pardon; which will restore the competency.-1 Phil. Ev. 33.

But not in case of conviction of perjury on 5 Eliz. c. 9. -Ibid.

A witness cannot be compelled to answer any question tending to render him the subject of a criminal prosecution, or having a direct tendency to subject him to penalties, or having such a connection with them as to form a step towards that consequence.-Chitty's Cr. Law, 620.

Nor (according to some opinions) any question which tends to degrade his moral character. But upon this the autho