CHAPTER VI.* CHARACTER, WHEN DEEMED TO BE RELEVANT AND WHEN NOT. ARTICLE 55. CHARACTER GENERALLY IRRELEVANT. The fact that a person is of a particular character is deemed to be irrelevant to any inquiry respecting his conduct, except in the cases mentioned in this chapter. (a) CHARACTER IN CIVIL ACTIONS. In General. In civil actions, even in cases arising through fraud, violence or other criminal conduct, evidence of the character of the parties is generally inadmissible: Arkansas: Powers v. Armstrong, 62 Ark. 267, 35 S. W. 228 (replevin for goods seized under attachment as those of another; plaintiff, accused of acquiring title by fraud against his vendor's creditors, may not show his general good character). California: Anthony v. Grand, 101 Cal. 235, 35 P. 859 (assault; defendant's reputation for being peaceable inadmissible, where evidence showed he violently assaulted plaintiff). Kansas: Simpson v. Westenberger, 28 Kan. 756 (replevin; plaintiff claiming he had title under a mortgage, assailed as fraudulent against creditors, may not show good character); Lowrey v. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co., 90 Kan. 180, 133 P. 719 (assault by conductor; plaintiff's prior assault on employes of another railroad inadmissible, it not being shown that the conductor knew of it). a (1 Wigmore Ev., § 52 et seq.) See Note at end of Chapter. Nebraska: Stoppert v. Nierhle, 45 Neb. 105, 63 N. W. 382 (paternity of bastard; previous reputation of defendant for chastity and virtue, inadmissible); Barr v. Post, 56 Neb. 698, 77 N. W. 121 (assault and battery; that defendant had never used profane language, inadmissible). North Dakota: State v. Brunette, 28 N. D. 539, 150 N. W. 271 (bastardy, practice as in civil actions; reputation of defendant for chastity, inadmissible). Oklahoma: Great Western Life Ins. Co. v. Sparks, 38 Okl. 395, 132 P. 1092 (action on life policy, defense of false answers in application; reputation for truth and honesty, inadmissible). Oregon: McIntosh v. McNair, 63 Or. 57, 126 P. 9 (agreed price for capital stock in dispute; that plaintiff would make promises to pay his debts and fail to keep them, inadmissible); Munkers v. Farmers' & Merchants' Ins. Co., 30 Or. 211, 46 P. 850 (action on policy; defense, setting fire; general good character of insured, inadmissible). Texas: Houston & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Bell, (Tex. Civ. App.), 73 S. W. 56 (assault by employe; particular acts of plaintiff, showing violence and turbulence, inadmissible); Hurst v. Benson, (Tex. Civ. App.), 71 S. W. 417 (action for rent, tenant reconvening for damages through levy of distress warrant; that landlord's reputation for honesty and fair dealing was bad, inadmissible); Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Swancey, (Tex. Civ. App.), 128 S. W. 677 (injuries to passenger; that he had been a minister and had seduced a girl of his congregation, inadmissible); Houston Elec. Co. v. Jones, (Tex. Civ. App.), 129 S. W. 863 (personal injuries; testimony in behalf of plaintiff that his character was good, inadmissible); Boiders v. Dooley, (Tex. Civ. App.), 154 S. W. 614 (that a landlord was close and thrifty, inadmissible to contradict testimony that defendant was behind in his rent); Wilmot v. Fore, (Tex. Civ. App.), 163 S. W. 1014 (reputation for honesty and fair dealing inadmissible, there having been no effort to impeach). Washington: Poler v. Poler, 32 Wash. 400, 73 P. 372 (divorce; defendant's general reputation not being questioned, his reputation as a law-abiding, moral man, inadmissible); Kangley v. Rogers, 85 Wash. 250, 147 P. 898 (action against notary for false certificate; that he was ordinarily careful in taking acknowledgments, inadmissible). It has been held in several cases that in civil actions, where the character of a party or another through whom rights of the party are affected is assailed by the defense or claim interposed, evidence of his good character is admissible: Kansas: Allison v. McClun, 40 Kan. 525, 20 P. 125 (action against guardian of insane person, the latter being charged with converting proceeds of notes to his own use; evidence as to his character admissible). Texas: Fire Ass'n of Philadelphia v. Jones, (Tex. Civ. App.), 40 S. W. 44 (action on insurance policy, plaintiffs being charged with wilful misrepresentations and with causing their property to be burned; general reputation for truth, honesty and fair dealing, admissible); Houston Elec. Co. v. Faroux, 59 Tex. Civ. App. 232, 125 S. W. 922 (damages for personal injuries by passenger, causing hernia, a defense being that plaintiff was fraudulently attempting to mulct defendant in damages for a pre-existing hernia; reputation for truth and veracity, honesty and fair dealing, admissible); Cudlipp v. C. R. Cummings Export Co., (Tex. Civ. App.), 149 S. W. 444 (action for balance on logs scaled by defendant's scalers, plaintiff alleging that the persons who did the scaling and classifying practiced fraud; general reputation of the scalers for honesty, admissible). Washington: Rasmusson v. North Coast Fire Ins. Co., 83 Wash. 569, 145 P. 610 (action on fire insurance policy by deceased, who died before trial, a defense being false swearing by deceased as to losses and values; his reputation for truth, veracity and honesty, admissible). California. In civil actions evidence of good character is irrelevant except in certain cases, viz., chastity, libel, certain kinds of fraud; but not assault and battery.-Vance v. Richardson, 110 Cal. 414, 42 P. 910. Kansas. Evidence of good character and reputation for honesty and fair dealing is inadmissible in favor of a mortgagee, when the question is as to fraud against creditors of mortgagor.-Simpson v. Westenberger, 28 Kan. 756. Where character in issue, question should be restricted to general reputation.-Spain v. Rakestraw, 79 Kan. 758, 101 P. 466. Texas. Evidence of the character or reputation of the parties is not relevant in civil cases unless the action is such that general character is involved.-Timmony v. Burns, (Tex. Civ. App.), 42 S. W. 133. In an action for trespass to try title, testimony as to character or reputation of a party is not relevant, although he is a stranger in the county.-Timmony v. Burns, (Tex. Civ. App.), 42 S. W. 133. Character As An Issue In Case. In actions for damages for assault and battery, malicious prosecution, libel, and breach of marriage promise, character evidence is relevant under some circumstances: Arkansas: Taylor v. Gumpert, 96 Ark. 354, 131 S. W. 968; Cooper v. Demby, (Ark.), 183 S. W. 185. California: Anthony v. Grand, 101 Cal. 235, 35 P. 859; Hearne v. De Young, 132 Cal. 357, 64 P. 576; Edwards v. San Jose P. & P. Co., 99 Cal. 431, 34 P. 128; Davis v. Hearst, 160 Cal. 143, 116 P. 530. 1 Colorado: Lord v. Guyot, 30 Colo. 222, 79 P. 683; Fleet- Montana: Martin v. Corscadden, 34 Mont. 308, 86 P. 33. Oklahoma: Vorhees v. Toney, 32 Okl. 570, 122 P. 552; W. 919. Christensen v. Holm, 33 S. D. 174, 144 N. Texas: San Antonio & A. P. Ry. Co. v. Griffin, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 91, 48 S. W. 542; King v. Sassaman, (Tex. Civ. App.), 64 S. W. 937; Clark v. Reese, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 619, 64 S. W. 783; Burkhiser v. Lyons, (Tex. Civ. App.), 167 S. W. 244. Utah: Fenstermaker v. Tribune Pub. Co., 12 Utah 439, 43 P. 112. Washington: Hall v. Elgin Dairy Co., 15 Wash. 542, 46 P. 1049. In actions for seduction, actual personal chastity is an element.-Walton v. State, 71 Ark. 398, 75 S. W. 1; People v. Kahoe, 123 Cal. 224, 55 P. 911. South Dakota. Civil action for assault and battery. The quarrelsome nature of plaintiff is not proper cross-examination on plaintiff's case.-Christensen v. Holm, 33 S. D. 174, 144 N. W. 919. Malicious Prosecution. Montana. The bad reputation of plaintiff is admissible on the question of want of probable cause and in mitigation of damages.—Martin v. Corscadden, 34 Mont. 308, 86 P. 33. Nebraska. Plaintiff may show previous good reputation, known or probably known to defendant, as bearing on the question of probable cause.-Bank of Miller v. Richmon, 64 Neb. 111, 89 N. W. 627. Oregon. Defendant may rebut inference of want of probable cause shown by plaintiff's evidence of good character as to honesty and integrity, by evidence of his bad reputation.-Smith v. McDuffee, 72 Or. 276, 143 P. 929. South Dakota. Plaintiff's good reputation is admissible as bearing on want of probable cause, to show that defendant should have known it.-Roshay v. Hessenius, 36 S. D. 163, 153 N. W. 936. Defamation of Character. Oregon. Action for libel. Error to admit evidence of good character of plaintiff in absence of attack thereon.-Cooper v. Phipps, 24 Or. 357, 33 P. 985. Texas. Plaintiff charged with want of chastity, suing for slander, may prove good reputation for chastity, as that matter is directly in issue.-King v. Sassaman, (Tex. Civ. App.), 64 S. W. 937. Washington. Specific instances of misconduct, in converting money, does not justify plaintiff in giving evidence |