
    [Lancaster,
    May 29, 1824.]
    WIKE against LIGHTNER.
    IN EBBOB.
    Evidence to discredit a witness, must go to his general character, and not to particular acts of misconduct.
    A witness called to discredit another witness, cannot be asked: ,f Have you ever heard, of others, whether he was a dishonest man, or bore a bad character ?”
    If a witness on being asked, whether he would believe a witness who had been examined on the opposite side, on his oath, answer, “ I would not place as much confidence in his testimony, as in that of a man of integrity,” it is not evidence.
    On the trial of this cause, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster county, one York Frever having been examined as a witness of the part of the defendant, the plaintiff, for the purpose of discrediting him, offered in evidence the deposition of George Thompson, which contained the following questions and answers:
    
      Question by the plaintiff. —What is the general character of York Frever, negro, or do you know him ?
    
      Answer. — I do not know him by the name Frever, but I know Black York, who gave evidence in a case’ of William, Lightner and others against Wike, about twelve years ago; he worked for me three days; and from his conduct during that time, I had reason to believe him not to be an honest man.
    
      Question by plaintiff. — Have you ever heard, of others,whether he was a dishonest man, or bore a bad character ?
    
      Answer. — I heard others say, that he was a bad fellow.
    
    
      Question by plaintiff. — Would you believe him on his oath?
    
      Answer. — I could not place so much confidence in his testimony, as in that of a man of integrity.
    The court, on an objection being made by the counsel for the defendant, refused permission to read the deposition, and a bill of exceptions to their opinion was tendered and sealed.
    
      Jenkins and Hopkins, for the plaintiff in error,
    admitted, that the answer to the first interrogatory was properly rejected, but insisted, that the last two were good evidence. They tended to show, that the witness’s moral character was bad, which was sufficient. To ask the deponent, whether, he had heard others speak of him as a bad man, or as bearing a bad character, is equivalent to asking him what people in general, say of him, in respect to these matters; a form of question which cannot be objected to. It is difficult to make some witnesses understand what is meant by general character; and unless the question be put in different ways, the evidence will be lost, merely because the question is not understood. Kimmel v. Kimmel, 3 Serg. & Rawle, 336. Phill. Ev. 211. 2 Hayw. Rep. 300.
    
      Rogers and Buchanan, for the defendant in error,
    were stopped by the court; whose opinion was delivered by
   Tilghman, C. J.

The error assigned in this case, is, the rejection of certain parts of the deposition of George Thompson, a witness, examined in the court below, on the part of the plaintiff. The object of Thompson’s testimony was, to discredit a witness of the name of York Frever, who had been examined on the part of the defendant. The first interrogatory put to Thompson, was, “ Whether he knew the general character of Frever?” This was a very proper question, but the answer of the witness is admitted not to be evidence, because, instead of speaking to general character, he went into particulars. The second .interrogatory was, “ Have you ever heard, of others,whether he was a dishonest man, or bore a bad character:” Answer, “ I heard others say, he was a bad fellow.” The third interrogatory was, “Would you believe him on his oath?” Answer, “I could not place so much confidence in his testimony, as in that of a man of integrity.” The court would not permit the second and third interrogatories, with the answers to them, to be read to the jury.

The law on this subject, is accurately laid down in Kimmel v. Kimmel, 3 Serg. & Rawle, 336. In order to discredit a witness, you can examine only to his general character. The first interrogatory in this case, was strictly proper, and every thing that the witness could say, on the subject, might Have been said, in answer to it. But it was remarked by the plaintiff’s counsel, that witnesses do not always understand, what is meant by general character; and therefore, it is necessary to vary the question, so as to adapt it to their comprehension. That is true, and therefore, there is no impropriety in proposing the question in various forms, so that the substance, be retained. But you must never depart from general character. Now, what was done here? The first question pointed to general character in express terms. The second went to what was said by others. I think this was too narrow. It might be very true, that the witness had heard others speak ill of Frever, and yet that might not have been his general character. Two or three, are others. There are few men, of whom some do not speak well, and some evil. But the question is, what is said by people in general. That is the true point of inquiry, and every thing which stops short of it, is incorrect. As to the other question, “whether the witness would believe Frever on his oath,” a direct answer, would hot be objectionable, provided the belief was founded on the witness’s knowledge of his general character, otherwise, it would be nothing to the purpose. It may happen, that a man may have knowledge of a particular fact, which would induce him to disbelieve another on his oath. But such a disbelief would not be evidence; because it would be to disparage the witness, not from his general character, but from a single fact, resting within the knowledge of an individual. In the case before us, however, the question is not answered. Thompson does not say, whether he would believe Frever on his oath or not, but only, that he would place less confidence in his testimony, than in that of a man of integrity. This is an evasion of the question, an equivocal answer. And moreover, from Thompson’s whole deposition, there is reason to think, that the want of confidence, expressed in his answer to the last question, was founded, not on Frever’s general character, but on his ill behaviour during three days, in which he had worked for Thomson, some time before. I am of opinion, therefore, that the Court of common Pleas decided right, in suppressing the second and third interrogatories, with the answers to them. The judgment is to be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  