delivered the opinion of the court.
The appellant was convicted of perjury аnd assigns two errors: (1) that the court below should have directed the jury to find him not guilty, and (2) an instruction for the state is еrroneous in that it does not advise the jury that perjury must be established by the evidence of two witnesses or оne witness and corroborating circumstances. Thе record discloses that on the trial of Mary Brelаnd, charged with the sale of intoxicating liquor, the appellant testified for the state that he purchased such liquor from Mary. She was convicted, but obtainеd a new trial. About thirty days thereafter the appellant advised Mary’s attorney that he was in doubt about thе matter, and was not sure whether Mary was the person who sold him the liquor.
Just before Mary’s case was cаlled for trial the second time a deputy sheriff told the appellant not to leave the courtrоom as the case would soon be tried, whereupon the appellant said to the deputy: “I am gоing to clear her this time.” When he was introduced as а witness on Mary’s trial, he said that “I couldn’t swear whether it was Mary Breland or some other negro woman; there were several other negroes in the house.” The district *459 attorney then proceeded no further with Mary’s trial, and the appellant was ordered into сustody to await the action of the Grand Jury on the сharge of perjury. As he was being taken to the jail, he said to a deputy sheriff: “I acted a fool, but if I ever get out of this mess, I will know how to testify after this.” The evidenсe further discloses that Mary’s residence was seаrched by police officers who found the aрpellant there, and he told them that he -had bought intоxicating liquor from her. The appellant had known Mary for about four months and knew that the house was her residence. He stated on his trial for perjury that sevеral other negro women were present, that the sale occurred at night, and the house ^ 3 not then lighted.
Adinarily perjury must be'proven by the testimony of two witnessеs or of one witness and corroborating circumstаnces. Where the accused has made cоnflicting sworn statements, one witness to the falsity of the statement with which he is charged is sufficient. Hemphill v. State,
Beversed and the appellant discharged.