
    John Sharpe v. The State of Ohio.
    On the trial of a person indicted under the 36th section of the crimes act (S. & S. 266), for procuring another to commit an offense, it is not competent to prove the declarations of the principal offender made after the completion of the offense, for the purpose of showing the guilt of the procurer.
    Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Darke county.
    ■The plaintiff in error was indicted and convicted, under the 36th section of the crimes act, for procuring one David Swank to steal certain bonds, the property of Henry Swank, of the value of $70.
    On the trial, Henry Swank was called as a witness for the state, and having testified that the bonds had been stolen, also testified, against the objection of the defendant, to a conversation between the-witness and said David Swank, which took place about the last of February or first of March, 1875, as follows : “ I asked my son, David, if he did not know where they werp, or something about them, and. he then told me that he stole the bonds himself, some time in January or first of February, 1875 ; that he had taken them out of his grandfather’s bible ; and that afterward, on the same night, and within a period of from one to one and a half hours, taken them to a big meeting at Neighley meeting-house, in Twin township, Darke county, Ohio, and delivered them to John Sharpe.” To the introduction of this testimony the defendant excepted, and now, among other things, assigns it for error.
    
      A. R. Calclerwood and II. M. Cole, for plaintiff in error.
   By the Court.

On the trial of a person indicted under the 36th section of the crimes act (S. & S. 266), for procuring another to commit an offense, it is not competent to prove the declarations of the principal offender, made after the completion of the offense, for the purpose of showing the guilt of the procurer.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.  