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. Statton, supra; Albert v. Miami Transit Co., 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. The judgment is affirmed.

It has been held that the prospective amount of compensation may be inquired into, even though not presently agreed upon. Grutski v. Kline, 43 A.2d 142 (Pa.). But there is authority to the contrary. Pandula v. Fonseca, 199 So. 358 (Fla.). In the instant case, if we assume that the trial court was in error in sustaining the objection, we think it was not so prejudicial as to constitute reversible error.

Affirmed. See Pandula v. Fonseca, 1940, 145 Fla. 395, 199 So. 358. KANNER, Acting C.J., SHANNON, J., and HEWITT, ROBERT S., Associate Judge, concur.

Affirmed. See Pandula v. Fonseca, 1940, 145 Fla. 395, 199 So. 358. KANNER, Acting Chief Judge, SHANNON, J., and HEWITT, ROBERT S., Associate Judge, concur.

It is within the reasonable discretion of the court to determine to what length it will go in permitting cross-examination of a witness for the purpose of showing interest, bias or prejudice of the witness. Pandula v. Fonseca, 145 Fla. 395, 199 So. 358. It was admitted that the witness was employed and being paid by the petitioner. More important than the amount of pay would have been the manner or method of pay or whether or not the witness was a full time employee.

The matter of cross-examining a witness to show bias rests largely in the trial court's discretion, and its rulings will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of abuse of this discretion. Pandula v. Fonseca, 1940, 145 Fla. 395, 199 So. 358. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and no substantial harm resulted from its ruling on this point.

As the government correctly states in its brief, the taxpayers could not offer evidence of good character at this civil trial to prove or disprove the doing of an act. 1 Wigmore, Evidence § 64 (3d ed. 1940), Pandula v. Fonseca, 1940, 145 Fla. 395, 400, 199 So. 358, 360. However the testimony was offered by the taxpayers not to prove their personal reputation but to rebut the assertion, one of the allegations in the affidavit for search warrant, that Mike's News Sundries had a reputation as a gambling establishment. The proffered testimony would have been material and proper in support of a motion to suppress the evidence obtained under the search warrant. It would tend to show lack of probable cause.

"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.)

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."