This right has often been upheld by this court. Long v. State, 61 Okla. Cr. 274, 67 P.2d 980; Allen v. State, 72 Okla. Cr. 102, 113 P.2d 835; Stouse v. State, 6 Okla. Cr. 415, 119 P. 271."

When the accused places his character in issue, according to the overwhelming weight of authority, a witness testifying to the good reputation or character of a defendant in a criminal prosecution may be interrogated on cross-examination with respect to rumors or reports of particular acts imputed to the defendant, and as to what the witness has heard of specific charges of misconduct made against the defendant prior to the time of the commission of the acts for which the defendant is on trial for the purpose of testing the credibility of the character witness. Smith v. State, 112 Miss. 802, 73 So. 793; Gunter v. Reeves, 198 Miss. 31, 21 So.2d 468; Campbell v. State, 194 Miss. 360, 12 So.2d 151; Wilkinson v. State, 143 Miss. 324, 108 So. 711, 46 A.L.R. 895; Proctor et al. v. United States, 100 F.2d 350; Pierce v. State, 228 Ala. 545, 154 So. 526; Allen v. State (Okla.), 113 P.2d 835; Rowe v. State (Okla.), 33 P.2d 233, 56 Okla. Cr. 64; Rowe v. State (Tex.), 179 S.W.2d 962; Townsley v. State, 103 Tex.Crim. 508, 281 S.W. 1054; People v. Rosa, 268 Mich. 462, 256 N.W. 483; People v. Haley (Cal.), 116 P.2d 498; 71 A.L.R. 1504. Argued orally by H.C. Stringer, for appellant, and by Ross R. Barnett and R.O. Arrington, for appellee.

county attorney in the cross-examination of his character witnesses. He cites no authority for this, and this Court presumes the reason being the great weight of authority in Oklahoma to the contrary, holding that a witness testifying to the good reputation or character of a defendant in a criminal prosecution may be interrogated on cross-examination with respect to rumors or reports of particular acts imputed to the defendant, and as to what the witness has heard of specific charges of misconduct made against the defendant. Teel v. State, 53 Okla. Cr. 200, 11 P.2d 197; Bond v. State, 53 Okla. Cr. 224, 11 P.2d 200; Johnson v. State, 54 Okla. Cr. 143, 16 P.2d 263; Davis v. State, 54 Okla. Cr. 285, 19 P.2d 384; Ellis v. State, 54 Okla. Cr. 295 19 P.2d 972; Rowe v. State, 56 Okla. Cr. 64, 33 P.2d 233; Steyh v. State, 58 Okla. Cr. 258, 52 P.2d 121; Seabolt v. State, 59 Okla. Cr. 1, 57 P.2d 278; Henderson v. State, 59 Okla. Cr. 86, 56 P.2d 915; Long v. State, 61 Okla. Cr. 274, 67 P.2d 980; Allen v. State, 72 Okla. Cr. 102, 113 P.2d 835; Lyons v. State, 76 Okla. Cr. 41 133 P.2d 898; Gallagher v. State, 81 Okla. Cr. 15, 159 P.2d 562 Lowrey v. State, 87 Okla. Cr. 313, 197 P.2d 637; Anglin v. State 92 Okla. Cr. 430, 224 P.2d 272; Whitten v. State, 94 Okla. Cr. 393 236 P.2d 706; Taylor v. State, 96 Okla. Cr. 1, 247 P.2d 749. The state's brief quotes at length from the Gallagher case, supra, as follows:

" Also, Allen v. State, 72 Okla. Cr. 102, 113 P.2d 835, 836: "It is permissible on cross-examination of a witness who has testified to the good character of a defendant to show the source of his information, and particular facts may be called to his attention, and he may be asked if he ever heard of them. This is especially true as to offenses of the same character with which he stands charged.

'" To the same effect is Allen v. State, 72 Okla. Cr. 102, 113 P.2d 835; Byrd v. State, 91 Okla. Cr. 433, 219 P.2d 1027; Jones v. State, Okla. Cr. 234 P.2d 427. In the recent case of Clark v. State, Okla. Cr. 270 P.2d 1103, the identical question was passed on as appealed from the same trial court in which the cause was reversed and remanded for the reason herein asserted by this defendant.

Clearly the cross-examination was proper if made in good faith. Long v. State, 61 Okla. Cr. 274, 67 P.2d 980; Allen v. State, 72 Okla. Cr. 102, 113 P.2d 835. If not made in good faith, such tactics would be most unfair and reprehensible, and would probably justify a reversal of the case. But if counsel for the defendant was convinced from his investigation that there was no basis for the question, but that they were asked for the purpose of prejudicing the minds of the jury, then the assignment of error should have been raised by the defendant's motion for new trial, and supported by affidavits, and thus afforded the court an opportunity to pass on the question of fact as to the good faith of the county attorney in asking questions complained of.

In the absence of bad faith this is not necessarily reversible error." This case is cited with approval in Allen v. State, 72 Okla. Cr. 102, 113 P.2d 835.

This right has often been upheld by this court. Long v. State, 61 Okla. Cr. 274, 67 P.2d 980; Allen v. State, 72 Okla. Cr. 102, 113 P.2d 835; Stouse v. State, 6 Okla. Cr. 415, 119 P.2d 271. We cannot agree with defendant's contention that the evidence in this case is insufficient to sustain the judgment and sentence.

On cross-examination the defendant admitted that he was convicted in Logan county on the 22nd of May, 1939, of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor. See Allen v. State, 72 Okla. 102, 113 P.2d 835. To support his contention that a copy of the warrant was not presented to him, the defendant called three or four witnesses who testified that they were present at the time of the raid, and that they did not see a copy of the warrant delivered to the defendant.