¶1 We are of opinion that the alleged confession, having been made under the circumstances described by the officers, was involuntary and incompetent. The admission of it in evidence is error. S. v. Anderson, 208 N. C., 771, at 777 and 783; S. v. Myers, 202 N. C., 351, 162 S. E., 764; S. v. Livingston, 202 N. C., 809, 164 S. E., 337; S. v. Grier, 203 N. C., 586, 166 S. E., 595; S. v. Gosnell, 208 N. C., 401, 181 S. E., 323; S. v. Moore, 210 N. C., 686, 188 S. E., 421.
¶2 The factual situation here is very similar to that in S. v. Anderson, supra, where a new trial was granted the defendant Overman. There the Court stated: “A. free and voluntary confession is deserving of the highest credit because it is presumed to flow from the strongest sense of guilt, but a confession wrung from the mind by flattery of hope or by the torture of fear comes in such questionable shape as to merit no consideration,” citing S. v. Livingston, supra. S. v. Patrick, 48 N. C., 443.
¶3 “Yoluntary confessions are admissible in evidence against the party making them; involuntary confessions are not. A confession is voluntary in law when- — and only when — it was in fact voluntarily made.” S. v. Anderson, supra, citing S. v. Newsome, 195 N. C., 552, 143 S. E., 187.
¶4 While it is not necessary, in view of the turn of this appeal, to consider the exception to the procedure followed in' determining the volun-tariness of the alleged confession, it is appropriate to refer to S. v. Whilener, 191 N. C., 659, 132 S. E., 603, where the subject is fully discussed.
¶5 As the case goes back for a new trial for the error described, other exceptions upon which defendant relies need not be considered. Shoemake v. Refining Co., 208 N. C., 124, 179 S. E., 334; Callahan v. Roberts, ante, 223; Warren v. Ins. Co., ante, 354.
¶6 For error stated, defendant is entitled to
¶7 New trial.