
    (100 South. 82)
    (8 Div. 133.)
    GRIGSBY v. STATE.
    (Court of Appeals of Alabama.
    May 13, 1924.)
    f. Criminal law <&wkey;785U6) — Requested charge as to disregarding testimony held properly refused.
    Requested charge that, if jury believed a certain state witness testified falsely as to a stranger being at a still, then they could disregard all of the testimony of such witness, held, properly refused.
    2. Witnesses <&wkey;3!7(l) — 'When jury may reject all testimony of witness.
    A jury is justified in rejecting the entire testimony of a witness only when it appears from the evidence that the witness has willfully sworn falsely to a material fact in the case. „
    Appeal from Circuit Court, Lauderdale County; Chas. P. Almon, Judge.
    Lee Grigsby was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and appeals.
    Affirmed.
    Requested charge 5, refused to the defendant, is as follows:
    “Gentlemen of the jury, if you believe that state witness, Preston Danly, testified falsely as to a stranger being at the still, then in your discretion you may disregard all of his testimony.”
    Mitchell & Hughston, of Florence, for appellant.
    No brief reached the Reporter.
    Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., for the State.
    No brief reached the Reporter.
   SAMFORD, J.

The evidence in this case was sufficient to justify the jury in finding a verdict of guilt.

Charge 5 was properly refused. ‘ Before the jury is justified in rejecting the entire testimony of a witness on the ground of “falsus in uno. falsus in omnibus,” it must appear from the evidence that the witness has willfully sworn falsely to a material fact in the ease.

There is no error in the record,- and- the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.  