Opinion
4 Div. 814.
February 20, 1936. Rehearing Denied April 23, 1936.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dale County; J. S. Williams, Judge.
Sollie Sollie, of Ozark, for appellant.
Appellant should have been permitted to show for what purpose Beatty purchased the car of defendant. It would have corroborated testimony that the reverse gears would not work and thus contradict deceased's declaration that the car was backed over him. The questions asked on cross-examination of witness Walker were improper. 16 C.J. 580.
A. A. Carmichael, Atty. Gen., and Jas. L. Screws, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
It was proper to allow solicitor to cross-examine defendant's character witnesses as to derogatory reports of the good character of defendant, as shedding light on the weight and credibility of the testimony of the witnesses. Pierce v. State, 228 Ala. 545, 154 So. 526. The character of defendant's family was immaterial to any issue in the case. Character and reputation of third persons is irrelevant and immaterial. 16 C.J. 586; Rollings v. State, 160 Ala. 82, 49 So. 329; Brown v. State, 9 Ala. App. 15, 64 So. 170. The question asking for what purpose Beatty bought defendant's car called for a conclusion. Moreover, the car was bought subsequent to the transaction, and its condition as to reverse gear may not have been the same as at the time of the assault.
The case of this appellant was tried, by consent of the parties, along with the case of Fred Gulledge v. State, ante, p. 209, 167 So. 252, this day decided, and before the same jury.
The questions presented by this appeal are the same as those treated in Gulledge's Case, except the questions now considered.
To quote from the brief filed in behalf of the appellant: "At several places in the record, while appellant, George Bryan, was interrogating his witnesses on the subject of character, the court declined to permit said appellant to ask said witnesses did they know the character of the family to which he belonged. It would occur to appellant that such testimony was legitimate. Of course, it is well known that class is not known to the law in this state. However, it might, in connection with the other evidence, shed light upon the character of the said George Bryan."
We are of the opinion that counsel here has fully answered his contention and demonstrated that it is wholly without merit.
The court ruled correctly in refusing to allow the witness Beatty to testify "for what purpose the said Beatty purchased the car."
The rulings of the court in respect to the cross-examination of defendant's witness Otis Walker were free from error. Pierce v. State, 228 Ala. 545, 154 So. 526.
This record and the proceedings of the trial court are free from error.
Affirmed.
ANDERSON, C. J., and THOMAS and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.