“At the commencement of the examination,, the prisoner shall be informed by the Magistrate that Ire- is- at liberty to refuse to answer any question that may bn- put to-him, and that' his refusal to answer shall not be used! to his prejudice in any stage of the proceedings.” Bat. Rev., chap. 33, sec. 23.
In the case at bar, when the prisoner was brought before-, the Magistrate, he was told by that official that “ he was. charged with selling stolen, corn, and that if he wanted to tell anything he could do so, but it was just as he chose.”
Was this a compliance with the statute. ? We think it was not. It is essential that judicial confessions be made of the free will of the party, and with full and perfect knowledge of the nature and consequences of the confession j and if the prisoner does not feel at liberty wholly to decline any explanation or declaration whatever, the examination is not held to have been voluntary. 1 Greenleaf, Ev., sec. 225.
It was the duty of the Magistrate to inform the prisoner-that his refusal to answer should not be used' to his prejudice, in any stage of the proceedings.
This caution is not a mere matter of form, it it is a substantial right, necessary for the protection of prisoners who are too poor to employ counsel, and too ignorant to- conduct their own defence.
In the language of this court in the State v. Matthews, 66 N. C., p. 106, “ this caution is an essential, part of the proceedings, and must be given to the prisoner- under arrest to> make his examination admissible in evidence.!”
But the State says this was a denial of guilt,, and not & *151-confession. It was a declaration which.the State used to procure a eonviction ; and it is not for the State to say the declaration did not prejudice the prisoner’s case. Why introduce it at all unless it was to lay a foundation for the prosecution ?
The use which was made of the prisoner’s statement precludes the State from saying. that it was not used to his prejudice.
There must be a venire de nov-'.
Pjce Curiam. Venire de novo.