¶1 If the defendant, Newton, the record of whose .■submission was admitted, had been present at the trial he ■would not have been a competent witness, for or against his co-defendant. Vide Bruner’s case at this term, ante. How ithen can this record between other parties made in the absence .of the defendant be evidence for any purpose?
¶2 It is admitted by the Attorney General, that the record is mot competent evidence tending to establish the guilt of the defendant; but it is urged that it is still evidence tending to (Corroborate the testimony of the witness attempted to be impeached.
¶3 The Court is wholly unable to perceive this tendency, and the Attorney General, in his argument, failed to explain in what manner the record could tend to corroborate the impeached witness. The admission of the record for the purpose ■alleged, would be establishing a principle to the competency of evidence heretofore unheard of.
¶4 'There was error.
¶5 Bek Curiam. Venire de novo.