
    STATE vs. PIERCE.
    Spring 1812.
    I. District.
    Examination of prisoner on oath, rejected.
    Horse-stealing. The attorney-general offered as evidencethe examination oi the prisoner, taken bythe mayor. It appeared to have been subscribed and sworn to by the prisoner.
    Bennen for the defendants.
    It cannot be read. The examination of the person accused ought not to be upon oath. Hale's P. C. 584. The confession of a person taken up on oath, cannot be ready in evidence against him. Of course, no prisoner, brought before a magistrate, ought to be sworn. The reasons of this restriction result from the most obvious principles of justice, policy, andhu-manity. M'Nally's P. C. 47. The examination of the prisoner shall be without oath. Buller's N. P. 242. 2 Bacon's Abr. 664.
   Our act of assembly, 1805, c. 8, sec. 1, requires the magistrate to take the voluntary declarations of such persons so accused.

Examination rejected.  