Sprague

The Court below was justified in denying defendant’s motion for a continuance.

The order excluding such of the jurors as were not empanneled to try the case was not a deprivation of the right of public trial.

The wife and daughters of defendant were witnesses, and were properly included within the order which excluded from the Court-room all witnesses but the one under examination.

The Court properly held that the affidavit of a juror could not be received to impeach his verdict, and the alleged communication of the Deputy Sheriff (if it could be considered as proved) was utterly unimportant, and could not have influenced the verdict.

Defendant requested the Court to charge the jury: “ A witness false in one part of his testimony is to be distrusted in others.”

The Court gave the instruction, after inserting the word “ willfully ” immediately before the word “false,” and. refused to give the charge as asked, to which the defendant excepted.

*494 The maxim, ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus,” is not to be construed as authorizing a Court to charge that if a witness perjures himself in respect to one or more particulars, the jury must reject all his testimony. (People v.…