
    Sargent v. Wilson.
    Evidence of the general reputation of a witness is not admissible to impeach his credit, unless it be confined to reputation for truth.
    Trover. On the trial before a referee, the general reputation of the defendant’s principal witness was shown to be bad. His impeachment was general, and not restricted to his reputation for truth. The award is, that the referee “ has come to the conclusion that the principal witness for the defence is discredited, and he therefore finds for the plaintiff.”
    
      J. B. Parlcer and Cutter, for the defendant.
    
      Fassett, for the plaintiff.
   Allen, J.

Testimony introduced to impeach the credit of a witness, to be competent must be founded, upon the witness’s reputation for truth. General reputation affecting his character-in other ways than for truth is not sufficient, and a belief in the want of veracity of the witness, founded on personal dealings with him, is not a belief derived from reputation, and is not admissible evidence to impeach his credit. The testimony admitted to impeach the witness was not competent for that purpose. State v. Howard, 9 N. H. 485; Chase v. Blodgett, 10 N. H. 22; Hoitt v. Moulton, 21 N. H. 586, 591, 592; Kelley v. Proctor, 41 N. H. 139.

Award set aside.

Foster, J., did not sit: the others concurred.  