Under the common law, the oath of the accused must be contradicted by at least two witnesses before a charge of perjury can be sustained, for the reason that the testimony of one witness is simply one oath against another.83

But this old rule has been greatly modified: the charge may be sustained by any material circumstance corroborating one witness.84

78 State vs. Joaquin, 69 Me., 218;

Hughes Cr. Law, Sec. 1613.

79 Jacobs vs. State, 61 Ala., 448;

Hughes Cr. Law, Sec. 1612.

80 State vs. Waddle, 100 Iowa, 57; but see State vs. Howard, 137 Mo., 289.

81 Cooper vs. Com., 21 Ky. Law, 546.

82 State vs. Williams, 61 Kan., 739;

Mackin vs. People, 115 111., 325;

State vs. Schill, 27 Iowa, 263. 83 U. S. vs. Wood, 14 Pet. (U. S.), 430; Hughes Cr. Law, Sec.

1650; Butler vs. State (Tex.

Cr.), 38 S. W., 46.

So where an indictment contains several different assignments of perjury, a conviction cannot be had on the direct evidence of one witness to one assignment, with other evidence of the' falsity of another assignment.85

So if the only evidence consists in showing two opposing statements of the accused, there being nothing to show which of the two is false, there can be no conviction.86

Immaterial averments alleged in an indictment, if true, may be shown in evidence if they tend to prove the false testimony on the material matters.87