There is nothing which distinguishes between the proceedings of a coroner’s inquest and any other official proceedings taken and returned in the discharge of official duty as to their admissibility in evidence. A witness, therefore, may be contradicted by the production of a deposition thus given by him before a coroner.[558] But the line is sharply drawn in what cases the testimony of a witness examined before a coroner’s inquest can be used on his subsequent trial, and in what cases it cannot. When a coroner’s inquest is held before it has been ascertained that a crime has been committed, or before any person has been arrested charged with the crime, and a witness is called and sworn before the coroner’s jury, the testimony of that witness, should he afterward be charged with the crime, may be used against him on his trial, and the mere fact that at the time of his examination he was aware that a crime was suspected, and that he was suspected of being the criminal, will not prevent his being regarded as a mere witness, whose testimony may be afterward given in evidence against himself. If he desires to protect himself he must claim his privilege. But if, at the time of his examination, it appears that a crime has been committed, and that he is in custody as the supposed criminal, he is not regarded merely as a witness, but as a party accused, called before a tribunal vested with power to investigate preliminarily the question of his guilt, and he is to be treated in the same manner as if brought before a committing magistrate, and an examination not taken in conformity with the statute cannot be used against him on his trial for the offence.[559] So the doctrine as to silence being taken as an implied admission of the truth of allegations spoken or uttered in the presence of a person, does not apply to silence at a judicial proceeding or hearing, and since the proceedings at a coroner’s inquest are of a judicial character, what there transpired must be considered as a part of the proceedings.[560] The leading cases which have been before the New York Court of Appeals upon this important question, and from which that court has finally deduced that rule, may be here referred to.