But it is not proper to engage in a general attack on the character of the witness. Pandula v. Fonseca, 145 Fla. 395, 199 So. 358 (1940); Taylor v. State, 139 Fla. 542, 190 So. 69 (1939); Nelson v. State, 99 Fla. 1032, 128 So. 1 (1930). While the defense had the right to question Capo as to the whole of the conversation he spoke of on direct examination, Louette v. State; Haager v. State, and as to the factual background of the conversation, to question him generally about his role in the marijuana smuggling operation would have been to engage in a general attack on his character.

A ruling by the trial judge on matters pertaining to the reputation for truth and veracity of a plaintiff is within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and will not be reversed unless the appellant establishes an abuse thereof which has resulted in prejudice to his case. Pandula v. Fonseca, 1940, 145 Fla. 395, 199 So. 358. Obviously, the trial judge determined that the testimonial evidence in the deposition which defendants sought to employ to impeach Mrs. Yuhas was too remote to the issue presented in this case.