To give it that effect would be to make it substantive evidence as to the matter in controversy. The charge was therefore erroneous and calculated to mislead the jury, falling directly within the principle decided in Henson v. King, 47 N.C. 385; Luther v. Skeen, 53 N.C. 356; S. v. Davis, 78 N.C. 433; 1 Starkie Ev. 238-41. PER CURIAM.
While the inquest testimony of Maddox was clearly admissible, it could not legally be considered, except in passing on his credibility. Weir v. McGee, 25 Texas Supp., 20; Halsell v. Decatur Cotton Oil Co., 36 S.W. 848; Spiars v. Dallas Cotton Mills, 32 S.W. 777; Bekkeland v. Lyons, 96 Tex. 225; Henson v. King, 47 N.C. 385; Black v. Marsh, 67 N.E. 201; Sprague v. Bond, 113 N.C. 551; Sprague v. Bond, 18 S.E. 701; Burton v. Wilmington Ry. Co., 84 N.C. 192; Georgia Home Ins. Co. v. Kelley, 113 S.W. 882; Owensboro City St. Ry. Co. v. Allen, 108 S.W. 357; Missouri, K. T. Ry. Co. v. Cherry, 44 Texas Civ. App. 232[ 44 Tex. Civ. App. 232]. The charge was not upon the weight of the testimony, nor subject to any of the objections urged against it by appellants.