¶1 We know that in England a defendant cannot' be convicted upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. His testimony is’ allowed to go to the jury to be weighed by them for what it is worth, when supported by other evidence or by circumstances confirmatory of his testimony. But in this state a different doctrine obtains. Here, a defendant may be convicted upon the unsupported testimony of an accomplice.
¶2 In the case of State v. Haney, 2 Dev. & Bat., 390, this court held that “ the unsupported testimony of an accomplice, if it produces entire belief of the prisoner’s guilt, is sufficient to warrant a conviction ; and the usual direction to the jury not to convict upon it, unless supported by other testimony, is only a precautionary measure to prevent improper confidence being reposed in it, and the propriety of giving this caution must be left to the discretion of the judge who tries the cause.” The same doctrine is announced in the case of State v. Hardin, Ibid., 407, where Chief Justice RuffiN says: “It is however dangerous to act exclusively on such evidence, and therefore the court may properly caution the *626 jury, and point out the grounds for requiring evidence confirmatory of some substantial part of- it. Rut the court can do nothing more, and if the jury yield faith to it, it is not only legal but obligatory on their consciences to found their verdict upon it.”
¶3 There-is no error. Let this be certified to the-superior -court of Chatham county, that further proceedings may be had in conformity to this opinion and the law.
¶4 Per CuriaM. No error.