1. ¥e think the Solicitor had a right to-comment on the fact that the defendant after having sworn Whitley as a witness declined to examine him. It' does not appear that his comments were in any way improper. It may be that no inference against the defendant should have been drawn from a circumstance which seems trivial enough, but the jury alone could pass on its weight.
2. The Judge spoke inaccurately and without due care when he said to the jury, that in “ passing on the credibility of the witness, Smith, they shall consider that it is
a rule of
law, a presumption that men testify truly and not falsely.” An expression somewhat similar was commented on in
State
v. Smallwood,
*522 3. We think also the Judge erred in saying, — “Suppose witness Smith did strike the defendant first, and that defendant drew his pistol in self-defence, although he did not cock it or point it at witness Smith, it would amount to the excessive use of force, and in that aspect they should convict him.” The error is plain. The same act cannot be in self-defence and also an excess. Moreover, it was for the jury to say whether a force was used in excess of what was necessary in defence.
Error.
Per Cumam. Venire de novo.
