CANAL ZONE V. KERR.26

A peculiarity in this offense relates to the number and corroboration of witnesses:
The doctrine is that, since the testimony alleged to be perjured was delivered on oath, such oath as well as that of the contradicting witnesses should be regarded on the trial for the perjury. And where the evidence, thus viewed, presents "only oath against oath," it will be insufficient. Whence it became the old rule that two witnesses directly contradicting what the defendant testified to, are indispensable to a conviction for perjury.
But
Present rule-Evidently where there is only one witness directly to the alleged falsity of the swearing, there may be something in the case, or brought forward by a witness who can not speak to the main charge, indicating, With reliable distinctness, which of the two contradictory oaths be false. Hence by the modern rule it is sufficient either that there are two witnesses, or that the testimony of the one witness is corroborated or sustained by other facts appearing in the case or testified to by other witnesses.
(Bishop's New Criminal Procedure, 4th edition, volume 2, section 927.)
Mr. Underh ill in his book on Criminal Evidence says:
According to the earlier cases no conviction of perjury could be had unless the falsity of the evidence given under oath was proved by the direct evidence of two credible witncscs, the evidence of the second witness being required to overcome the presumption of innocence which the law indulged in favor of the accused. Such is not now the law. The accused* may be convicted on the evidence of one witness, which, however, must in all cases be corroborated. The corroboration by circumstances must be strong, though it need not be equivalent or tantamount to another witness. But it must be clear and positive and so strong that, with the evidence of the witness who testifies directly to the falsity of the defendant's testimony, it will convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
(Underhill on Criminal Evidence, second edition, section 468.)
We are of the opinion that the foregoing quotations correctly state the general rule of evidence which prevails in the various jurisdictions cf the United States. Our investigation has led us to the examination of many authorities and cases pertinent to the subject under discussion and they all point to the one rule as to proof of the corpus deticti.. We think it would be difficult to discover any authority which upon analysis sustains any other rule. The few cases which may seem on their face to sustain a different rule are cases in which the false statement charged was Of such an unusual character that it was held that the evidence offered by the government amounted to testimony of the same quality and quantity as that required by the rule ",s stated.
A leading case on the subject is that of th-e State vs. CourtwrigTht (66 Ohio State, 35). In that case the defendant had been

269