_Criminal Actions and Evidence of Crime in Civil Actions._—The statutes confining the restriction to civil actions have been cited above.[242] In Iowa, in an action for breach of promise to marry, it was said that the privilege does not extend to the protection of advice for the commission of a crime.[243] In New York the rule was at first embodied in the Revised Statutes of the State,[244] but upon the adoption of the Code of _Civil_ Procedure it was included therein,[245] and subsequently the provision of the Revised Statutes was repealed.[246] In that State by law the rules of evidence in civil cases are applicable also to criminal cases, except as otherwise expressly provided;[247] and the statutes provide no different rule in criminal actions as to this class of evidence. Notwithstanding this fact, however, it has been said by the Court of Appeals, in a case where there was an attempt to screen a murderer by insisting that his victim’s physician was not a competent witness as to information acquired by him while attending his patient,[248] that the design of the law was to enable the patient to make known his condition to his physician without the danger of disclosing what would annoy his feelings, damage his character, or impair his standing while living, or disgrace his memory when dead, but that it was not intended to protect a murderer rather than to shield his victim; and quoting from the opinion of Talcott, J., in the court below,[249] the Court said: “The purpose for which the aid of the statute is invoked is so utterly foreign to the purpose and object of the act and so diametrically opposed to any intent which the legislature can be supposed to have had in enacting it, so contrary to and inconsistent with its spirit, which most clearly intended to protect the patient and not to shield one who is charged with his murder; that in such a case the statute is not to be so construed as to be used as a weapon of defence to a party so charged instead of a protection to his victim.” Accordingly it was held that the evidence was not to be excluded under the statute. But the rule is still applicable to criminal actions. In a later case, where the accused was indicted for abortion, the same court held, that where the patient was living and the disclosure tended to convict her too of crime or to cast discredit and disgrace upon her, the evidence of her physician as to information acquired by him in attendance upon her was inadmissible in the trial of the man charged with the crime.[250] In a still later case,[251] the General Term of the Supreme Court held, where the accused was on trial for murder and he had confided to a physician what he had done, that the physician could not disclose the confidence. The rule deducible from these decisions seems to be that in New York the privilege extends to criminal actions, even though they be trials for murder, and even though the person accused