Brown v. Moon
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
ANDERSON, C. J.
(1, 2) In impeaching a witness upon bad character, the proper inquiry is the general character of the witness sought to be impeached, and the inquiry need not be confined to truth and veracity. —Holland v. Barnes, 53 Ala. 83 , 25 Am. Rep. 595 ; Ward v. State, 28 Ala. 53 ; Kilgore v. State, 124 Ala. 24 , 27 South. 4 . The trial court therefore erred in sustaining the objection to the defendant’s question to the witness Martin as to the plaintiff’s general character, instead of character for truth and veracity, he having testified as a witness; but we think this was error without injury, as the said Martin subsequently testified that he not only did not know the plaintiff’s character for truth and veracity, but that he had not heard the plaintiff’s reputation and character discussed, and that all he knew about it was his personal transaction with him. “Reputation” is what people generally in a community say and think of a person, and individual acts or opinions are immaterial. —Way v. State, 155 Ala. 52 , 46 South. 273 ; Andrews v. State, 159 Ala. 14 , 48 South. 858 ; So. R. R. Co. v. Hobbs, 151 Ala. 335 , 43 South. 844 . It is manifest that the witness Martin would have answered the defendant’s question in the negative had the court not improperly sustained the objection to same.
The judgment of-the circuit court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
McClellan, Sayre, and Gardner, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.