
    STATE v. HARRISON SHEW.
    (Filed 12 December, 1928.)
    Criminal Daw — Evidence—Testimony of Convicts, Accomplices or Co-defendants — Requests for Instructions.
    While it is a rule of law that the evidence of a witness who is con- ' fined upon the roads for a criminal offense should be received with certain caution, the failure of the judge to so charge the- jury will, not be held for error in the absence of a request for instructions by the appellant to that effect.
    Appeal by defendant from Bchenck, J., and a jury, at March Term, 1928, of Wilkes.
    No error.
    Defendant was convicted for receiving a stolen Ford touring car knowing it to have been stolen. From .the judgment he appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning errors.
    
      Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant; Attorney-General Nash for the State. ' ■
    
      J. Hubert Whicker and Trivette & Corner for defendant.
    
   Pee CueiaM.

Did bis Honor err in permitting Harvey Campbell, wbo was serving a term in tbe State’s penitentiary for stealing automobiles to testify against tbe defendant, without charging tbe jury that tbe jury should scrutinize tbe testimony of said Campbell? We think not.

Defendant asked no prayer on tbe subject, it is ordinarily not incumbent on tbe court to charge without a request. S. v. O’Neal, 187 N. C., 22.

It is well settled in this jurisdiction that tbe uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice should be received with caution, yet there is no rule of law forbidding a conviction on bis evidence alone. S. v. Ashburn, 187 N. C., at p. 728.

Tbe testimony of W. W. Ashburn was positive as to tbe ownership of tbe stolen car — “that be knew that this car belonged to Miss Ora L. Beam.”

We can find no error in tbe record.

No error.  