_Hendrickson Case._—In the first case the wife of the defendant died suddenly in the morning, and in the evening of the same day a coroner’s inquest was held. The defendant was called and sworn as a witness upon the inquest. At that time it did not appear that any crime had been committed, or that the defendant had been charged with any crime, or even suspected, except so far as the nature of some of the questions asked of him might indicate such a suspicion. On his subsequent trial on an indictment for the murder of his wife, the statements made by him at the coroner’s inquest were held admissible, on the ground that he was not examined as a party charged with the crime, that it had not appeared even that a crime had been committed, and that he had simply testified as a witness on the inquiry as to the cause of the death.[561] _McMahon Case._—Following this came the _McMahon Case_, in which it appeared that the defendant was arrested by a constable, without warrant, on a charge of having murdered his wife. The constable took him before the coroner, who was holding an inquest on the body, by whom he was sworn and examined as a witness. It was held that the evidence thus given was not admissible on the prisoner’s trial for the murder, and his conviction was reversed upon that ground.[562] _Teachout Case._—The doctrine of this case was more clearly defined and somewhat limited in a later case, the _Teachout Case_. In that case the defendant appeared at the coroner’s inquest in pursuance of a sub-pœna to testify, and voluntarily attended; he was not under arrest, but was informed by some one that it was charged that his wife had been poisoned and that he would be arrested for the crime. Before he was sworn he was informed by the coroner that there were rumors that his wife came to her death by foul means and that some of those rumors implicated him, and that he was not obliged to testify unless he chose. He said he had no objection to telling all he knew. The Court in delivering its opinion preludes it by a reference to these facts as showing that the statements made were voluntary in every legal sense, and held that a mere consciousness of being suspected of a crime did not so disqualify him that his testimony, in other respects freely and voluntarily given before the coroner, could not be used against him on his trial on a charge subsequently made of such crime. On that ground it held the evidence properly admitted, at the same time referring with approval to the _McMahon Case_, and distinctly limiting the rule of exclusion to cases within its bounds.[563]