Thе defendant was convicted of burglar}'. The оnly-assignment of error in his motion for a new trial which we deem of sufficient importance to specially notice is that relating to the right of the defendant to read to the jury as a part of his statement a letter which he stаted had been received by him. Under our sys-tern оf criminal procedure, the defendant is given the right to make a statement. This privilege is аccorded the defendant so that he may acquaint the jury with his version of the matter under invеstigation, and may make reply to the charge against him by way of denial, explanation, or avoidance. In availing himself of this privilege, the accused is not hampered by striсt rules of evidence (Vaughn v. State, 88 Ga. 735), but at the same time hе may not indulge in a long, rambling, and irrelevant harangue. Loyd v. State, 45 Ga. 58; Coxwell v. State, 66 Ga. 310. The prisoner must have some regard tо relevancy and the rules of evidence, for it was never intended that in giving his narrative of mаtters pertaining to his defense he should attempt to get before the jury wholly immaterial facts or attempt to bolster up his unsworn statеment by making profert of documents, letters, or the like, which if relevant might be introduced in evidеnce on proof of their genuineness. Without such proof he can not placе them before the jury as corroborating еvidence of what he says; it would be extending his рrivilege far enough to accord him the right оf making a statement to the effect that he had received a document or letter of a certain purport, without permitting him to produce the same and read it for the purpose of convincing the jury of its existеnce or genuineness. If he desires to corroborate his statement by documentary еvidence, the writing itself should be offered in evidence in the usual and regular way; and if the writing be immаterial or for any other reason inadmissiblе, then for a greater reason should the defendent be denied the privilege of making profert of it and reading it to the jury as a pаrt of his statement. In Montross v. State, 72 Ga. 262, the prisoner was restrainеd from reading to the jury extracts from a newsрaper; and in Wells v. State, 97 Ga. 210, this court distinctly ruled that it was not error to refuse to allow the accused to read a letter as a part of his unsworn statement.
The evidence supported the verdict, and there was no error in refusing a new trial on the ground stated in the second headnote.
Judgment affirmed.