_Mondon Case._—Then followed the _Mondon Case_, where on the finding of the body of the deceased, the defendant was arrested without warrant as the suspected murderer. While he was thus in custody the coroner empanelled a jury and held an inquest, and the defendant was called as a witness before the inquest and was examined by the district attorney and by the coroner. The prisoner was an ignorant Italian laborer unfamiliar with the English language. He was unattended by counsel, and it did not appear that he was in any manner informed of his rights, or that he was not bound to answer questions tending to criminate him He was twice examined; on the first occasion the examination was taken by questions put either by the district attorney or by the coroner, and the result written down by the coroner, who then read the evidence over to him, line by line, and asked him if he understood it and if it was the truth, and he said it was, and the coroner then reswore him to the deposition. The coroner, after taking the defendant’s testimony on the first day, came to the conclusion that the defendant did not understand English well enough to be examined, and that it ought to be taken through an interpreter, which was done, in order that they might get it a little better and a little fuller. It was held that the defendant’s testimony was not admissible upon his trial on the indictment.[564] It will be seen that this latter case follows in direct line with the rule announced in the _McMahon Case_ and clearly distinguishes another case, the _McGloin Case_, upon the authority of which the trial court held the testimony of the prisoner in the _Mondon Case_ admissible. _McGloin Case._—The case of _McGloin_ was not that of the examination of a prisoner on oath before a magistrate before whom he was taken involuntarily, while in custody, and interrogated by the magistrate, who to all appearance had power to require him to answer, but while under arrest the prisoner said to the inspector of police who had him in charge that he would make a statement. The inspector then said that he would send for a coroner to take it. The coroner was then sent for and came to police headquarters and took down in writing the confession dictated by the prisoner, the coroner asking no questions and not acting in any official capacity, but as a mere amanuensis to take down the confession and prove the contents. It was held that the confession of the prisoner was admissible in evidence upon his trial for murder.[565] _Rule in Pennsylvania._—The rule in Pennsylvania is substantially that when the testimony given by the prisoner under oath before a coroner’s inquest, previous to him being charged or suspected of the murder of the individual upon whose body the inquest was sitting, may afterward be given in evidence against him, on his trial for the murder of such person.[566]