In actions for slander or libel, the law is well settled that evidence of the previous general character of the plaintiff, before and at the time of the publication of the slander or libel, is admissible, under the general issue, in mitigation of damages. The ground of admitting such evidence is that a person of disparaged fame is not en titled to the same measure of damages as one whose character is unblemished. Anti the reasons which authorize the admission of this species of evidence under the general issue alike exist, and require its admission, where a justification has been pleaded but the defendant has failed in sustaining it ; Stone v. Varney, 7 Mete. (Mass.) 86, 39 Am. Dec. 762; where the decisions are collected and reviewed; Hamer v. McFarlin, 4 Denio (N. Y.) 509; Bowen v. Hall, 20 Vt. 232; Steinman v. McWilliams, 6 Pa. 170; Eifert v. Sawyer, 2 Nott & McC. (S. C.) 511, 10 Am. Dec. 633. When evidence is admitted touching the general reputation of a per son, it is manifest that it is to be confined to matters in reference to the nature of the charge against him ; Douglass v. Tousey, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 352, 20 Am. Dec. 616. See People v. Cowgill, 93 Cal. 596, 29 Pac. 228.
In an action for damages for assault and battery it is error to admit evidence of de fendant's good character ; Pokriefka v. Mackurat, 91 Mich. 399, 51 N. W. 1059 ; Sturgeon v. Sturgeon, 4 Ind. App. 232, 30 N. E. 805.
The party against whom a witness is called may disprove the facts by him, or may examine other witnesses as to his gen eral character ; but they will not be allowed to speak of particular facts or parts of his conduct ; Bull. N. P. 296; State v. Rose, 47
Minn. 47, 49 N. W. 404. For example, evi dence of the general character of a prose cutrix for a rape may be given, as that she was a streetwalker; but evidence of specific acts of criminality cannot be admitted; 3 C. & P. 589. And see Cadwell v. State, 17 Conn. 467; Low v. Mitchell, 18 Me. 372; Common wealth v. Murphy, 14 Mass. 387; 5 Cox, Cr. Cas. 146. The regular mode is to inquire whether the witness under examination has the means of knowing the former witness's general character, and whether, from such knowledge, he would believe him on his oath; 4 St. Tr. 693; 4 Esp. 102; Knode v. William son, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 586, 21 L. Ed. 670. In answer to such evidence against character, the other party may cross-examine the wit ness as to his means of knowledge and the grounds of his opinion, or he may attack such witness's general character, and by fresh evidence support the character of his own; 2 Stark. 151, 241; Stark. Ey. pt. 4, 1753 to 1758; 1 Phill. Ev. 229. A party cannot give evidence to confirm the good character of a witness, unless his general character has been impugned by his antagonist; Brad dee v. Brownfield, 9 Watts (Pa.) 124 ; State v. Cooper, 71 Mo. 436; Fitzgerald v. Goff, 99 Ind. 28 ; Turner v. Commonwealth, 86 Pa. 74, 27 Am. Rep. 683; Atwood v. Dearborn, 1 Allen (Mass,) 483, 79 Am, 'Dee, 755. See note in 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 689.