From a rather exhaustive search of the cases, we find that the language contained in the second excerpt has been explicitly approved or applied in the following criminal cases: Chapman v. State, 40 Ga. App. 725 ( 151 S.E. 410); Wallace v. State, 44 Ga. App. 571 (162 S.E. 162); Cavender v. State, 46 Ga. App. 782 ( 169 S.E. 253); Moye v. State, 46 Ga. App. 727 ( 169 S.E. 59); Austin v. State, 47 Ga. App. 191 ( 170 S.E. 86); Lanier v. State, 52 Ga. App. 459 ( 183 S.E. 658); Parker v. State, 53 Ga. App. 344 ( 185 S.E. 598); Stegall v. State, 53 Ga. App. 353 ( 185 S.E. 596); Hall v. State, 58 Ga. App. 398 ( 198 S.E. 713). We find that the language contained in the first excerpt has been explicitly approved or applied in the following criminal cases: James v. State, 45 Ga. App. 228 ( 164 S.E. 104); Hinson v. State, 88 Ga. App. 318 ( 77 S.E.2d 834); Isenhower v. State, 88 Ga. App. 762 ( 77 S.E.2d 834); Hamilton v. State, 89 Ga. App. 159 ( 78 S.E.2d 875); Hart v. State, 26 Ga. App. 64 ( 105 S.E. 383). In Kea v. State, 52 Ga. App. 211 ( 182 S.E. 802), we find that each of the two excerpts was charged together, the second excerpt being followed by the first, and that the combination of instructions was approved by this court.