Case Name: Leonori, Respondent, v. Bishop, Appellant
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1855-03-24
Citations: 4 Duer 420
Docket Number: 
Parties: Leonori, Respondent, v. Bishop, Appellant.
Judges: (Before Duer and Bosworth, J.J.)
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Superior Court of the city of New York
Volume: 11
Pages: 420–423

Head Matter:
Leonori, Respondent, v. Bishop, Appellant.
Evidence, that the general character of a -witness for truth and veracity is good, is inadmissible, unless such general character has been attacked by witnesses examined in relation to it, or unless extrinsic facts have been proved which tend to impeach it. , -
If such evidence be received against the objection and exception of the adverse party, a new trial will be granted for that reason.
(Before Duer and Bosworth, J.J.)
March 13; March 24, 1855.
This action was brought to recover damages for the conversion, by the defendant, of personal property alleged to belong to the plaintiff. It was tried on the 10th of May, 1854, before Mr. Justice Duer and a jury. One Charles Lupton was examined on behalf of the plaintiff, and gave evidence tending to show that the property was owned by the plaintiff.
Evidence was given, which, if credited, would justify the inference that Lupton was inaccurate in respect to some material matters deposed to by him. It appeared that he executed a bill of sale of this and other property which stated it to be .free and clear of any incumbrance. This was executed while the plaintiff owned the property. When the defendant rested, one R. G-. Leonori, who had been examined as a witness for the plaintiff, was recalled by plaintiff’s counsel, who “asked the witness whether he was acquainted with the general character of Charles Lupton, or whether, from such his knowledge, he would believe him on oath.”
The defendant’s counsel objected to this inquiry and examination, on the ground that no witness had been called or examined by the defendant to attack the general character of the witness Lupton; that the bill of sale went to contradict the witness on a distinct fact sworn to by him, and did not authorize proof as to his general character; but the court overruled the objection, and permitted the inquiry, to which decision and ruling the defendant by his counsel excepted.
The witness thereupon testified that he was acquainted with the general character of Charles Lupton, and from his acquaintance with his general character, would believe him on oath in a court of justice.
Exceptions were also taken to portions of the charge to the jury, which it is deemed unnecessary to state. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, and from the judgment entered thereon, the defendant appealed to the General Term.
H. U. Huntington, for Appellant.
C. G. Egan, for Respondent.

Opinion:
Bosworth, J.
The admission of evidence, to prove that the general character of Lupton for truth and veracity was good, is an error, for which the judgment must be reversed.
A party is not allowed to give evidence that the general character-of his witness is good, unless it has been attacked by witnesses of the adverse party, or unless extrinsic facts have been elicited by his cross-examination, going to impeach his general character. (The People v. Hulse, 8 Hill, 309; Starks v. The People, 5 Denio, 106.)
Lupton's general character had not been assailed by any evidence that had been given. At most, his accuracy as to some particular facts had been discredited by evidence which fell short of impeaching his general character. A new trial must be granted solely on the ground, that evidence in support of Lupton's general character was admitted, against the objection of the defendant. "We think there was no error in any of the parts of the charge which were excepted to.