Case ID: tapp-rep_1/html/0108-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "President.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MALLORY vs. SMITH.
    The enquiry as to the character of a witDess is this: “Is his character for truth and veracity, as good as that of men in general?”
    Trespass, for an assault and battery.
    Plea — Not guilty.
    Nicholas Hine was examined as a witness for the defendant; after-wards the plaintiff called Michael Martin and others, to prove Hine to be a person not deserving- credit. The counsel differing as to the proper course of examination, appealed to the court for direction.
   President.

When a person is brought forward to impeach the character of a witness, it is proper to examine, first, as to his knowledge of that character, how it was acquired, the length of time the witness has been known, &c. &c.; then the proper form in which to put the question as to character, is this: — “ Is his character for truth and veracity as good as that of men in general ?” For it is only as to general character, and not as to particular facts, that you may enquire; nor is it the opinion of the person called, which is to have weight, but the public opinion of a man’s character, as that is what gives credit to his testimony. ;

Verdict for plaintiff.