¶1 The evidence appearing on the record is not sufficient to carry the case to the jury on the issue of perjury. S. v. Hawkins, 115 N. C., 712, 20 S. E., 623. It is true, the testimony of Sam Yail may inferentially be in conflict with that of the defendant, but he does not say the defendant testified falsely before the justice of the peace. This is not enough on an indictment for perjury. S. v. Gates, 107 N. C., 832, 12 S. E., 319; S. v. Peters, 107 N. C., 876, 12 S. E., 74; 21 R. C. L., 259.
¶2 After losing his case before the justice of the peace and without appealing, Yail testifies: “I indicted him (the defendant) before one magistrate and the magistrate dismissed the case. Then I indicted him before a second magistrate for perjury, as my lawyer told me to do it, and it was dismissed, and then I went down to the city hall to get a warrant.”
¶3 When it is considered that the defendant expresses himself stumblingly in English, and that the plaintiff in the civil action was doing business under a trade name which did not disclose his identity, the testimony of the defendant seems readily explainable.
¶4 Eeversed.