Lutfy

This is an appeal from a judgment of ■conviction of violation of the Federal Narcotics Laws. The only question presented is whether the trial court erred in declining to instruct the jury on the defense of entrapment. Appellant relied upon that ■defense and requested several instructions, which, as appellee concedes, correctly stated the law. The court' refused to give any of them and did not give any instruction on the subject of entrapment. Appellant took adequate and timely exception.

We need not recite the facts in detail. We think it will serve our purpose to summarize only the testimony given by -appellant in his own behalf. His testimony was disputed in many important particulars by the Government’s witnesses, it is true, but it was the exclusive function of the jury to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses and resolve the conflict. The jury had the right to believe appellant’s testimony and if, at face value, it supported the defense of entrapment, the factual issue was one for the jury; and an appropriate instruction on the law should have been given.

According to appellant’s testimony, some time in 1946, one William R. Young approached him and struck up an…