before the magistrates—that the warrant (which was admitted to have been made by the District Attorney) was proper, and conformable to the law which admitted of search in the premises and in the persons of thieves and counterfeiters for the tools and implements with which they were enabled to commit their crime—and that it was competent to use the evidence which had been obtained, although it was illegally gotten in the first instance.

The Court was of opinion that the evidence was competent, on the principle upon which evidence might be given of stolen goods found in consequence of confession, though the confession might be forced from the prisoner by threats or evil treatment. The confession might not be evidence, but the fact of finding the stolen goods could be proved to the jury.

The Court also overruled the objection to the form of the count, and did not consider it so imperfect as to authorize them to reject evidence offered under it.