"There is no merit in the remaining ground of the amended motion, which complains of the exclusion of testimony as to where the plaintiff spent the night, when it appeared that the testimony of the witness must of necessity be merely a conjecture." Gunnin v. Bankers, c. Ins. Co., 66 Ga. App. 574, 575 ( 18 S.E.2d 563). The right of broad cross examination does not include the admissibility of otherwise inadmissible or irrelevant evidence.

Where a party's general good character is not involved in a case, and there is no effort to impeach him as a witness, it is error to allow in evidence over objection the testimony of witnesses to the general good character of one of the parties to the suit. Code § 38-202; Travelers Ins. Co. v. Sheppard, 85 Ga. 751 (8, 33) ( 12 S.E. 18); Anderson v. Southern R. Co., 107 Ga. 500 (1) ( 33 S.E. 644); Cannon v. Hunt, 116 Ga. 452 (4) ( 42 S.E. 734); Smith v. State, 147 Ga. 689 (3) ( 95 S.E. 281); Allen v. State, 150 Ga. 706 (1) ( 105 S.E. 369); Gunnin v. Bankers Shippers Ins. Co., 66 Ga. App. 574, 575 ( 18 S.E.2d 563). In this case the trial court allowed defendant to introduce testimony as to his good reputation, and that he could be believed under oath.

The question of the plaintiff's general good character was not involved in the case and there was no effort to impeach him; therefore, the court erred in admitting in evidence over proper objection the testimony of witnesses concerning the plaintiff's general good character. Code § 38-202; Travelers Ins. Co. v. Sheppard, 85 Ga. 751, 752 (5) ( 12 S.E. 18); Gunnin v. Bankers Shippers Ins. Co. of N. Y., 66 Ga. App. 574 (4) ( 18 S.E.2d 563). 3. It is not necessary to pass on the assignment of error in ground 6 of the amended motion for a new trial as the alleged error is not likely to occur on another trial.

The witness had no knowledge and was merely guessing and invaded the province of the jury. Cole v. Uhlmann Grain Co., 340 Mo. 277, 100 S.W.2d 311; Gunnin v. Bankers Shippers Ins., 66 Ga. App. 574, 18 S.E.2d 563; Pedigo v. Roseberry, 340 Mo. 724, 102 S.W.2d 600. (6) The court erred in requiring appellant on cross-examination to bolster the testimony of Witness Gentry, which had not been attacked, by negativing any motive of Witness Gentry in his testimony adverse to appellant, and in effect attempting to rehabilitate such witness. In effect the appellant was being compelled to give his conclusion of another's testimony and to characterize it as being worthy of belief.