
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Luciano Sansa, Appellant.
    Second Department,
    July 30, 1915.
    Crime — carrying of dangerous weapon—evidence of good character.
    Where upon the prosecution of a defendant not a citizen for the crime of carrying a dangerous weapon, it was established that he had the weapons in his room, evidence of good character is of little weight, especially where it was not directed to "show the defendant’s peaceful and inoffensive traits.
    Testimony as to the good reputation of the defendant, which started into circulation and was built up after his arrest, is incompetent.
    . Appeal by the defendant, Luciano Sansa, from a judgment of the County Court of Kings county, rendered against him on the 15th day of March, 1915, convicting him of the crime. of carrying a dangerous weapon on December 30, 1914.
    
      Thomas C. Whitlock, for the appellant.
    
      Harry G. Anderson, Assistant District Attorney [James C. Cropsey, District Attorney, with him on the brief], for the respondent.
   Per Curiam:

Evidence of the accused’s good character may bear upon the improbability of his committing any offense involving a criminal intent. But the charge here made was established by his having and possessing these revolvers in his bedroom without a written license therefor, defendant not being a citizen. (Penal Law, § 1897, as amd. by Laws of 1913, chap. 608. Since amd. by Laws of 1915, chap. 390.) Hence evidence of good character could have little weight. (People v. Greenwall, 108 N. Y. 296, 302.) Further, such testimony was not directed to show defendant’s peaceful and inoffensive traits, the only subject for such character evidence. (Wigm. Ev. § 59; People v. Van Gaasbeck, 189 N. Y. 408.) The good reputation testified to started into circulation, and was built up after the defendant’s arrest. Hot being ante litem motam, it was subject to be swayed by the feelings which arose after his arrest, and, therefore, was incompetent. (State v. Sprague, 64 N. J. L. 419.) Such testimony, having come in improperly, was rightly stricken out.

The judgment of conviction is, therefore, affirmed.

Carr, Stapleton, Mills, Rich and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

Judgment of conviction of the County Court of Kings county affirmed.  