HARWOOD, Presiding Judge.
This appellant stands convicted of robbery, hence this appeal.
The evidence introduced by the State tended to show that about 8 P.M., on a night in March 1958, this appellant entered a store in Rainsville, DeKalb County, Alabama, operated by Mr. and Mrs. L. B. Johnson. The appellant was accompanied by another man. At gun point they demanded and obtained the contents of the cash register in the store, estimated by Mr. Johnson to be about $150.00. They also took a pocketbook containing $25.00 to $30.00 belonging to Mrs. Dora Ashley, the mother of Mrs. Johnson, Who was in the store at the time.
Both Mr. and Mrs. Johnson positively identified the appellant as being the person who had robbed them on the night in question.
For the defense, Mr. Andy Bell, the grandfather of the appellant, testified that he had had several conversations with Mr. and Mrs. Johnson concerning the robbery and they had stated to him that they did not know the parties who had robbed them.
In rebuttal, Mr. Johnson testified that he did not tell Mr. Andy Bell that he did not know who had robbed them after he had been shown a photograph of the appellant.
At the beginning of the trial at a point while the Solicitor was stating the State's case to the jury, the record shows the following:
No evidence tending to show any confession by Ralph Keith was at any time injected into the trial. In view of the court's admonition to the jury, we are unwilling to say that a reversal shall be cast upon the trial court in the above instance. Supreme Court Rule 45.
Counsel for appellant also argues that the court erred in its refusal of the appellant's written charges numbers 3 and 4. Charge 3 is to the effect that if the jury is reasonably satisfied from the evidence that the witness, Mrs. L. B. Johnson, has willfully testified falsely as to any material fact, the jury would be authorized to disregard her testimony in its entirety.
Charge 4 is identical with Charge 3, except that it is directed toward the testimony of Mr. L. B. Johnson.
During its oral instructions to the jury, the court stated:
In Shaw v. State, 19 Ala.App. 581, 99 So. 319, the court had refused a charge of almost identical import as refused charges 3 and 4 in the present case. The court, however, in its oral charge instructed the jury as follows:
The court stated that the rule given by the court in its oral instructions substantially and fairly covered the principles sought to be enunciated in the refused charge and therefore the refusal of the charge was not reversible error.
We think that the Shaw case, supra, must therefore be deemed to have decided the point now contended for by counsel for appellant adversely to such contention.