"The only evidence offered on the trial, of the guilt of Wright, was his admissions made to Darius Dodd and Stiles Wheeler, two of the witnesses produced and sworn on the part of the state. Dodd testified that he resided in the county of Portage, and knew Wright; that after the fire, and in the month of March, 1860, he had a conversation with him in relation to it, at the city of Dubuque, in the state of Iowa, and that Wright said he burned the barn by lighting matches and putting them in the straw in the night time. Wheeler testified that he saw Wright the next morning after the barn was burned, when he said, 'he had better get out of this, that he had burned the barn.' This was all the testimony offered concerning Wright's guilt or connection with the affair. To its reception proper objections and exceptions were taken by the prisoner. It is very evident that upon this testimony the conviction cannot be sustained. In order to establish the guilt of Ogden, it was first incumbent on the prosecutor to prove the guilt of Wright as alleged in the indictment. This done, he must then prove that Ogden previously procured, hired, advised or commanded Wright to commit the felony. Both these facts must be established by competent evidence. Now, however the confessions of Wright, as to the first, might have been used against him, had he been indicted and put upon his trial, it is very evident that as against Ogden they were wholly inadmissible. As to him they were mere hearsay, and open to all the objections which exist to that kind of testimony. For however clearly it may have appeared that Ogden counseled and advised Wright to commit the offense, yet if Wright never did so in point of fact, and the barn was set on fire by some one else, or by other means, then Ogden was innocent of the crime with the commission of which he stood charged. If such admissions were to be received, Wright, after the advice was given, but without having acted upon it, and being innocent, and believing that his personal safety would not thereby be endangered, might make them, from feelings of ill-will and hatred to Ogden, for the sole purpose of deceiving and misleading others, and betraying him into the conviction of an offense of which he knew him to be innocent. They were made privately, and without the sanction of an oath; the jury had not the advantage of observing his deportment, or the manner in which his statements were made; no opportunity was afforded to ascertain whether he was friendly or hostile to the accused; he was subjected to no cross-examination, and his motives, means of knowledge and situation, could not be inquired into and exposed."