
    Balkum v. The State.
    
      Indictment for Assault and Battery.'
    1. Proof of character-, evidence in rebuttal. — On a trial under an indictment for assault and battery upon a woman, where the evidence shows that the assault was committed by the defendant, a man, when making an indecent proposal to the said woman and in attempting to compel submission thereto, upon the defendant adducing evidence of his good character, it is competent on the cross-examination of the character witnesses, or otherwise, to show that the defendant’s general reputation “was bad for running after womensuch evidence being in rebuttal and tending to overcome the presumption of innocence arising from good character.
    
      Appeal from the Circuit Court of Dale'.'
    Tried before the Hon. J. M. Carmichael.
    The defendant was indicted, tried and convicted for ah assault and battery upon one Martha Ann Best. The facts pertaining to the only ruling upon the present appeal are sufficiently stated in the opinion:'
    Sollie & Kirkland, for appellant,
    cited 1 Greenleaf ■on Evidence, (15th ed.), §54; Cauley v. State, 92 Ala. 71; Morgan v. State, 88 Ala. 223. ’
    William C. Fitts, Attorney-General, for the State.
   COLEMAN, J.

The defendant was convicted of an assault and battery upon one Martha Best. On the trial, she testified that defendant came to her house during the absence of her husband, and said to her, “I want you to be mine, * * * and let 'me do what I want' to ■with you ;” “that he approached her and put- his ' arms around her and started with-her towards the bed,” when 'she got loose from him, etc. If this testimony was true; -the defendant was guilty as charged. The defendant introduced evidence.of his good character. Oh cross-examination, many of the witnesses who- testified to the good character of the defendant, in answer to questions propounded by the State’s solicitor, testified that the general character of the defendant “was bad for funning after women.” Both the question and answer were objected to by the defendant, but his objections were overruled. We are of opinion the court ruled correctly, in admitting the testimony. There can be no misunderstanding of what was meant by the question and answer, “that his character was bad for running after women.” We regard the case. of Cauley v. The State, 92 Ala. 71, and the reasoning of the court, as a direct authority upon the question in support of the admissibility of the-evidence. We find no other question worthy of consideration in the record.

Affirmed.  