
    Andrew Price v. The State of Ohio.
    In order to exclude evidence of confessions by the defendant in a criminal'' case, it is not enough to show that they were made to an officer having him in custody, and were induced by a false assurance that an accomplice had given information of the crime, if it also appears that nothing was said or done calculated to induce a hope of advantage from confession, or fear of harm from its refusal.
    Motion for writ of error to the court of common pleas of Lawrence county.
    The plaintiff in error has been convicted of murder in the first •degree, and sentenced to be hung; and he now asks for *the [419* allowance of a writ of error, on the alleged ground that the courtl below admitted evidence of his confession, contrary to law. The record shows that the confession was made to an officer, who at the time had the plaintiff in error in custody as a prisoner, having arrested him without any warrant or writ, and that previous to making the confession, and for the purpose of inducing him to make them, he was falsely assured by the officer that an alleged accomplice had “ blowed upon him,” and would testify to his guilt. But the record shows that no threats or promises were made tending to induce the confession.
    
      R. Leete, for the motion.
    
      W. H. West, .attorney-general, contra.
   By the Court.

We see no error in the ruling of the court. The ■evidence was properly admitted. The true rule seems to be, that in order to exclude the evidence, there must have been something ■said or done calculated 'to induce a hope of advantage or fear of harm. The fact that he was a prisoner, and that a fraud was practiced upon him, are not sufficient. They have no tendency to make him swerve from the truth. However we may condemn the fraud, we can not reject the voluntary confession.

Writ refused.  