Cohen

Appellant was convicted of the crime of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment and he appeals-from the order denying his motion for a new trial and from the judgment of conviction.

The record discloses sufficient circumstantial'evidence to sustain the conviction of the defendant by the jury, and in his appeal brief appellant raises the following points:

1. Appellant maintains in connection with the first point, that there was an absolute break in the state’s chain of circumstantial evidence in that it failed to connect the defendant with the whisky or sack found by Mr. Lipsitz, and that the evidence discloses an equal or greater opportunity on the part of Lipsitz to have placed poison in the whisky, and that thus, as a matter of law, the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict.

"It was a matter for the jury to decide whether or not this special piece of evidence or circumstance was a necessary link in the chain. (People v. Ah Jake, 91 Cal. 98, 100 [ 27 Pac. 595 ].)

2. The court refused to give the following instruction requiréd by appellant; “The defendant is not required by law to testify in his own behalf, nor is he bound to explain his actions or conduct. The…