See Niemeyer v. McCarty, 221 Ind. 688, 51 N.E.2d 365 (1943). However, our supreme court appears to have foreclosed this result in Pandula v. Fonseca, 145 Fla. 395, 199 So. 358 (1940), which was a civil case for assault and batter. In affirming the refusal to charge the jury that in reaching its verdict it could consider evidence which the defendant had introduced concerning his good reputation for truth and veracity and as a law abiding citizen, the court said that "evidence of good character or reputation is not relevant in the first instance in a civil action or where the reputation of the party has not first been attacked by evidence of bad character."

The court properly instructed the jury that provocation could not be shown to bar the action, but could be considered in mitigation of damages. The following authorities justify the verdict and judgment: Vol. 4, Amer.Jur., Sec. 164, pg. 203; Seaver v. Stratton, supra [ 133 Fla. 183, 183 So. 335]; Vanvaks v. Chantly, 107 Fla. 647, 145 So. 838; Pandula v. Fonseca, 145 Fla. 395, 199 So. 358; Adler et al. v. Saffran, 147 Fla. 549, 3 So.2d 364."

The evidence is sufficient to show such conduct on the part of the defendant resulting in such injury to the plaintiff as would make the defendant liable to plaintiff in damages for the injury sustained. In the case of Pandula v. Fonseca, 145 Fla. 395, 199 So. 358, we affirmed the judgment in the sum of $3500.00 for damages resulting from assault and battery and, while the injury suffered in the instant case was not as severe as that which was shown to have been suffered in the Pandula case, we cannot say that the verdict and judgment are so excessive as to require a remittitur or reversal of the judgment. See also Winn Lovett Grocery Co. v. Archer, 126 Fla. 308, 171 So. 214.

"The court properly instructed the jury that provocation could not be shown to bar the action, but could be considered in mitigation of damages. The following authorities justify the verdict and judgment: Vol. 4, Amer.Jur., Sec. 164, pg. 203; Seaver v. Stratton, [ 133 Fla. 183, 183, So. 335,] supra; Albert v. Miami Transit Co., [ 154 Fla. 186, 17 So.2d 89,] supra; Vanvaks v. Chantly, 107 Fla. 647, 145 So. 838; Pandula v. Fonseca, 145 Fla. 395, 199 So. 358; Adler et al. v. Saffran, 147 Fla. 549, 3 So.2d 364." (Emphasis supplied.)