The possession by a person of certain qualities of mind or mor- als, distinguishing him from others. In Evidence. The opinion generally entertained of a person derived from the common report of the people who are ac- quainted with him; his reputation. 3S. & R. 336; 3 Mass. 192; 3 Esp. 236; Tayl. Ev. 328, 329. A clear distinction exists between the strict mean- ing of the words character and reputation. Char- acter is defined to be the assemblage of qualities which distinguish one person from another, while reputation is the opinion of character generally en- tertained; Worcester, Dict. This distinction, how- ever, is not regarded either in the statutes or in the decisions of the courts; thus, a libel is said to be an Injury to character; the character of a witness for veracity is said to be impeached; evidence is offered of a prisoner's good character; Abbott, Law Dict. See 6 Or. 213; 26 Vt. 278. The word character is therefore used in the law, rather to express what is properly signified by reputation. The moral character and conduct of a person in society may be used in proof be fore a jury in three classes of cases; first. to afford a presumption that a particular person has not been guilty of a criminal act; second, to affect the damages in par- ticular cases, where their amount depends on the reputation and conduct of any in- dividual; and, third, to impeach or con- firm the veracity of a witness. Where the guilt of an accused person is doubtful, and the character of the supposed agent is involved in the question, a pre- sumption of innocence arises from his for- mer conduct in society, as evidenced by his general reputation; since it is not prob- able that a person of known probity and humanity would commit a dishonest or outrageous act in the particular instance. But where it is a question of great and atrocious criminality, the commission of the act is so unusual, so out of the ordinary course of things and beyond common ex perience it is so manifest that the offence if perpetrated, must have been influenced by motives not frequently operating upon the human mind-that evidence of reputa tion and of a man's habitual conduct urder common circumstances, must be consid ered far inferior to what it is in the in- stance of accusations of a lower grade. Against facts strongly proved, good char- acter cannot avail. It is therefore in smaller offences, in such as relate to the actions of daily and common life, as when one is charged with pilfering and stealing, that evidence of a high character for honesty will satisfy a jury that the accused is not likely to yield to so slight a tempta- tion. In such case, where the evidence is doubtful, proof of character may be given with good effect. But still, even with regard to the higher crimes, evidence of good character, though of less avail, is competent evidence to the jury, and a species of evidence which the accused has a right to offer. But it behooves one charged with an atrocious crime, like mur- der, to prove a high character, and by strong evidence, to make it counterbalance a strong amount of proof on the part of the prosecution. It is the privilege of the ac- cused to put his character in issue, or not. If he does, and offers evidence of good character, then the prosecution may give evidence to rebut and counteract it. But it is not competent for the prosecution to give in proof the bad character of the de- fendant, unless he first opens that line of inquiry by evidence of good character; Per Shaw, C. J., 5 Cush. 325. See 5 Esp. 13; 1 Campb. 460; 2 St. Tr. 1038: 1 Coxe 424; 5 S. & R. 352; 2 Bibb 286; 5 Day 260; 7 Conn. 116; 14 Ala. 382; 6 Cowen 673; 3 Hawks 105; 30 Tex. App. 675; 17 R. I. 763; 36 Neb. 481. On the trial of an indictment for homi- cide, evidence offered generally to prove that the deceased was well known, and un- derstood to be a quarrelsome, riotous, and savage man, is inadmissible; 1 Whart. Cr. L. § 641; see 94 Ala. 25; 153 Pa. 451; but for the purpose of showing that the homi- cide was justifiable on the ground of self- defence, proof of the character of the de- ceased may be admitted, if it is also shown that the prisoner was influenced by his knowledge thereof in committing the deed; 26 Ohio 162; 28 Fla. 113. The general rep- utation of the deceased as a violent and dangerous person is presumptive proof of knowledge of decedent's character; 17 S.W. Rep. (Ky.) 186. Unless the character of the deceased is attacked, it is clearly not admissible for the prosecution to prove its peaceableness; 1 Whart. Cr. L. § 641; 114 Ill. 86. Good character will not avail one if the crime has been proven beyond a reason- able doubt; 133 N. Y. 609; 88 Ga. 91; 54 Ind. 400; 59 N. W. Rep. (Mich.) 230. In a crim- inal case the defendant has the right to prove his reputation for honesty and truth; 30 Tex. App. 614; though he be indicted for murder by poisoning, he can show his rep- utation for peace and quietude; 132 Ind. 317; 50 Kan. 525. In some instances,