CHAPTER. In Ecclesiastical Law. A congregation of clergymen.
Such an assembly is termed capitulum, which signifies a little head; it being a kind of head, not only to govern the diocese in the vacation of the bishopric, but also for other purposes. Coke, Litt. 103.
The possession by a per son of certain qualities of mind or morals, distinguishing him from others.
In Evidence. The opinion generally enter tained of a person derived from the common report of the people who are acquainted with him ; his reputation. Kimmel v. Kim mel, 3 S. & R. (Pa.) 336, 8 Am. Dec. 655; Boynton Kellogg, 3 Mass. 192, 3 Am. Dec. 122; 3 Esp. 236; Tayl. Ey. 328, 329.
A clear distinction exists between the strict mean ing of the words character and reputation. Char acter le defined to be the assemblage of qualities which distinguish one person from another, while reputation is the opinion of character generally en tertained; Worcester, Dict. This distinction, how-. ever, is not regarded either in the statutes or in the decision of the courts ; thus, a libel is said to be an injury to character; the character of a witness for veracity is said to be Impeached; evidence is offered of a prisoner's good character ; Abbott, Law Dict. See Leverich v. Frank, 6 Or. 213; Powers v. Leach, 26 Vt. 278. The word character is therefore used in the law rather to express what is properly signified by reputation.
The moral character and conduct of a person in society may be used in proof be fore a jury in three classes of cases; first, to afford a presumption that a particular person has not been guilty of a criminal act; second, to affect the damages in particular cases, where their amount depends on the reputation and conduct of any individual ; and, third, to impeach or confirm the veraci ty of a witness.
Where the guilt of an accused person is doubtful, and the character of the supposed agent is involved in the question, a presump tion of innocence arises from his former conduct in society, as evidenced by his gen eral reputation; since it is not probable that a person of known probity and humanity would commit a disnonest or outrageous act in the particular instance. But where it is a question of great and atrocious, crim inality, the commission of the act is so un usual, so out of the ordinary course of things and beyond common experience—it is so manifest that the offence, if perpetrated, must have been influenced ,by motives not frequently operating 'upon the" hunian —that evidence of reputation and of a man's habitual conduct under common circumstanc es, must be considered far inferior to what it is in the instance of accusations of a low er grade. Against facts strongly ,proved,
good character cannot avail. It is therefore in smaller offences', in such as relate to the actions of daily and common life, as when one is charged with pilfering and stealing, that evidence of a high character for hon esty will satisfy a jury that the accused is not likely to yield to so slight a tempta tion. People v. Ryder, 151 Mich. 187, 114 N. W. 1021. In such case, where the evi dence is doubtful, proof of character may be given with good effect. But still, even with regard to the higher crimes, evidence of good character, though of less avail, is com petent evidence to the jury, and a species of evidence which tne accused has a right to offer. But it behooves one charged with an atrocious crime, like murder, to prove a high character, and by strong evidence, to make it counterbalance a strong amount of proof on the part of the prosecution. It is the privilege of the accused to put his character in issue, or not. Lewis v. State, 93 Miss. 697, 47 South. 467. If he does, and offers evidence of good character, then the prosecution may give evidence to rebut and counteract it. But it is not competent for the prosecution to give in proof the bad character of the defendant, unless he first opens that line of inquiry by evidence of good character; Per Shaw, C. J., Com. v. Webster, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 325, 52 Am. Dec. 711. See 1 Campb. 460; 2 St. Tr. 1038; State v. Wells, 1 N. J. L. 424, 1 Am. Dec. 211; Nash v. Gilkeson, 5 S. & R. (Pa.) 352 ; Gregory v. Thomas, 2 Bibb (Ky.) 286, 5 Am. Ddc. 608; Grannis v. Branden, 5 Day (Conn.) 260, 5 Am. Dec. 143 ; Humphrey v. Hum phrey, 7 Conn. 116; Fowler v. Ins. Co., 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 673, 16 Am. Dec. 460; Jeffries v. Harris, 10 N. C. 105; Felsenthal v. State, 30 Tex. App. 675, 18 S. W. 644; State v. Ellwood, 17 R. I. 763, 24 Atl. 782; Carter v. State, 36 Neb. 481, 54 N. W. 853; Smoth ers v. City of Jackson, 92 Miss. 327, 45 South. 982.