Evidence of general good reputation may be offered to support a witness, whenever his credit is impeached, either by general evi dence affecting his reputation, or on cross examination; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 469 ; Pulliam v. Cantrell, 77 Ga. 563, 3 S. E. 280.
A party cannot attack the credibility of his own witness in the case, even after he has become the witness of his adversary ; White v. State, 87 Ala. 24, 5 South. 829; ex cept where the witness does not testify as he did on the preparatory examination and his testimony is unfavorable ; National Syrup Co. v. Carlson, 42 III. App. 178; Hickory v. U. S., 151 U. S. 303, 14 Sup. Ct. 334, 38 L. Ed. 170; the contradiction of such witness may be allowed ; Hollingsworth v. State, 79 Ga. 605, 4 S. E. 560 ; Chester v. Wilhelm, 111 N. C. 314, 16 S. E. 229.
Under statutes forbidding comment upon the failure of the accused to testify in his own behalf or providing that it shall not create any presumption against him, it was held error for either court or counsel to re fer to it; Ruloff v. People, 45 N. Y. 213 ; or for the judge to permit, against objection, al lusion to it by the prosecution ; Crandall v. People, 2 Lans. (N. Y.) 309; but not where the reference was in a retort by counsel to an interruption of his argument by the prisoner ; Calkins v. State, 18 Ohio St. 366, 98 Am. Dec.
121; and see People v. Tyler, 36 Cal. 522 ; but the error resulting from such comments by the district attorney was held to be cured by the court calling attention to the provi sions of the statute ; People v. Priori, 164 N. Y. 459, 58 N. E. 668. Though in another case where the prosecuting attorney made such comments, and the court subsequently direct ed the jury to disregard them, it was held reversible error; State v. Marceaux, 50 La. Ann. 1137, 24 South. 611; otherwise, where the court made such comments ; [1899] 1 Q. B. D. 77 ; State v. Lawrence, 57 Me. 574. The failure of a federal court to condemn emphatically such comment by a prosecuting officer was held reversible error under the federal statute of the same character ; Wil son v. U. S., 149 U. S. 60, 13 Sup. Ct. 765, 37 L. Ed. 650.
The failure to produce a witness equally accessible to both sides cannot be made the subject of unfavorable comment by the pros ecuting officer ; Brown v. State, 98 Miss. 786, 54 South. 305, 34 L. R. A. (N. S.) 811, and note collecting the cases on this point and also as to comments on character and fail ure to prove it. But the rule was held in applicable in the case of a railroad failing to produce its engineer who caused the acci dent ; Story v. R. R., 70 N. H. 364, 48 Atl. 288.