Where, in a criminal trial, no evidence has been offered, there is a presumption of good character, as to which the jury should, on his request, be instructed; it is error for the court to comment unfavorably upon the character of the accused; Mullen v. U. S., 106 Fed. 895, 46 C. C. A. 22; and a prosecut ing officer may not appeal to the jury to assume that his character was bad, because he had produced no evidence to the con trary ; Lowdon v. U. S., 149 Fed. 673, 79 C. C. A. 361; Gater v. State, 141 Ala. 10, 37 South. 692; McQuiggan v. Ladd, 79 Vt. 90, 64 Atl. 503, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 689; People v. Van Gaasbeck, 189 N. Y. 408, 82 N. E. 718, 22 L. R. A. S.) 650, 12 Ann. Cas. 745.
In a trial for rape there is no presumption, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that the defendant was of good character. Ad dison v. People, 193 Ill. 405, 62 N. E. 235.
On the trial of an indictment for homi cide, evidence offered generally to prove that the deceased was well known, and un derstood to be a quarrelsome, riotous, and savage man, is inadmissible ; 1 Whart. Cr. L. § 641; see Perry v. state, 94 Ala. 25, 10 South. 650; Com. v. Straesser, 153 Pa. 451, 26 AtL 17; but for the purpose of showing that the homicide was justifiable on the ground of self-defence, proof of the charac-' ter of the deceased may be admitted, if it is also shown that the prisoner was inflo-1 enced by his knowledge thereof in commit ting the deed; Marts v. State, 26 Ohio St. 162 ; Garner v. State; 28 Fla. 113, 9 South. 835, 29 Am. St. Rep. 232; but in a civil ac tion for damages for homicide which defend ant alleges was committed in self-defence evidence of good character was held not ad missible; Morgan v. Barnhill, 118 Fed. 24, 55 C. C. A. 1. The general reputation of the deceased as a violent and dangerous per son is presumptive proof of knowledge of decedent's character ; Trabune v. Com. (Ky.) 17 S. W. 186. Unless the character of the deceased is attacked, it is clearly not ad missible for the prosecution to prove its peaceableness ; Davis v. People, 114 Ill. 86, 29 N. E. 192. Good character will not avail one if the crime has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt; People v. Sweeney, 133 N. Y. 609, 30 N. E. 1005; Hathcock v. State, 88 Ga. 91, 13 S. E. 959; Kistler v. State, 54 Ind. 400; People v. Jassino, 100 Mich. 536, 59 N. W. 230; contra, Com. v. Cate, 220 Pa. 138, 69 Atl. 322, 123 Am. St. Rep. 683. It is erroneous to instruct a jury that evidence of good character can only be con sidered when the question of guilt or inno cence is in doubt; Rowe v. U. S., 97 Fed. 779, 38 C. C. A. 496; State v. Dickerson, 77
Ohio St. 34, 82 N. E. 969, 122 Am. St. Rep. 479, 11 Ann. Cas. 1181. In a criminal case the defendant has the right to prove his reputation for honesty and truth; Browder v. State, 30 Tex. 614, 18 S. W. 197; though he be indicted for murder by poison ing, lie can show his reputation for peace and quietude ; Hall v. State, 132 Ind. 317, 31 N. E. 536.
In a prosecution for theft, the accused may prove his reputation for honesty and integrity, but not particular acts; Leonard v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. R. 187, 109 S. W. 149; nor special traits or particular instances not bearing on the peculiar nature of the crime charged; Arnold v. State, 131 Ga. 494, 62 S. E. 806. Proof of previous occupations and of family history is inadmissible; State v. Clem, 49 Wash. 273, 94 Pac. 1079. It is competent for a witness to testify that he has never heard the reputation of the de fendant questioned; state v. McClellan, 79 Kan. 11, 98 Pac. 209, 17 Ann. Cas. 106; Foerster v. U. S., 116 Fed. 860, 54 C. G. A. 210, but proof that ne has never before been arrested or accused of crime is incom petent ; State v. Marfaudille, 48 Wash. 117, 92 Pac. 939, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 346, 15 Ann. Cas. 584.
It is proper to cross-examine a witness who has testified to the defendant's reputa tion for peace and quiet, as to how many men she had heard he had shot; People v. Laudiero, 192 N. Y. 304, 85 N. E. 132.
In an action by a locomotive engineer for injury resulting from a collision, evidence that he frequently had slept at his post, and run by stations where he should have stop ped, was properly excluded; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Johnson, 92 Tex. 380, 48 S. W. 568.
In some instances, evidence in ment of character is admissible, not in order to prove or disprove the commission of a particular fact, but with a view to damages. In actions for criminal conversation with the plaintiff's wife, evidence may be given of the wife's general bad reputation for want of chastity, and even of particular acts of adultery committed by her previous to her intercourse with the defendant; Whart. Ev. 51; Bull. N. P. 27, 296; 12 Mod. 232: 3 Esp. 236; and a wife who has confessed her adultery cannot prove previous good conduct; State v. Foster, 136 Ia. 527, 114 N. W. 36. See Ligon v. Ford, 5 Munf. (Va.) 10. As to the statutory use of the word "character," see Carpenter v. People, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 603; People v. Kenyon, 5 Park. Cr. C. (N. Y.) 254 ; Andre v. State, 5 Ia, 389, 68 Am. Dec. 708; Boak v. State, 5 Ia. 430 ; State v. Prizer, 49 Ia. 531, 31 Am. Rep. 155.