Haugh

Appellant was convicted on the first count of an information containing two counts. The second count was dismissed on motion of the district attorney and the appellant appeals from the judgment and order denying his motion for a new trial.

In so far as the objections to the sufficiency of the evidence is concerned, there was legally sufficient evidence in the record to sustain the verdict of the jury.

The objection, however, to the following instruction, referring to the testimony of the defendant, is evidently well taken: “No greater presumption attaches in favor of his testimony than attaches to that of any other witness.” In the case of People v. Fritz, 54 Cal. App. 137, 140 [ 201 Pac. 348, 350 ], and cases there cited, such an instruction is ' held to he error. The instruction in the case of People v. Fritz, supra, reads: “No greater presumption attaches in favor of her testimony than attaches in favor of that of any other witness. ” It is true that in that case it is held that it did not furnish sufficient ground for reversal; but in the case at bar there is no disputed evidence to be weighed by the jury excepting only the evidence of the complaining witness and the…