The defendants were indicted under two counts — one for rape, under Section 1101 of The Code, and the other for the lesser offence of abusing and carnally knowing one Nellie Harris, a female child over ten years of age and under fourteen, under Chapter '295 of the Acts of 1895. The evidence of the State tended to prove that the defendant Hairston, and the defendant Lee acting in concert, procured whiskey, got the prosecuting witness into a room., gave her whiskey until she was drunk, and that the defendant Lee helped to hold the prosecutrix while the defendant Hairston had sexual intercouse with her; that the prosecutrix was over ten and under fourteen years of age, that she was twelve years old. The defendants were convicted of the lesser offence, provided for in Chapter 295 of the Acts of 1895, and appealed, assigning the following errors:
The defendants introduced one Estelle Thomas who testified that she knew the general character of the prosecutrix *582and that it was bad. The defendants then asked the witness what was the character of the prosecutrix for virtue. Objected to by the State and excluded, and the defendants excepted. This exception cannot be sustained for two reasons: A party introducing a witness as to character can only prove the general character of the person asked about. The witness, of his own motion, may say in what respect it is good or bad. He may have to do this in justice to himself — in other words, to tell the truth. As for instance, the party spoken of had a general good character for some things, and a general bad character for other things; the witness could not truthfully say it was bad, nor that it was good, without qualification; or the opposite party may, on cross examination, test the witness by asking him as to what it is bad for, what it is good for, etc. State v. Laxton, 76 N. C., 216; State v. Daniel, 87 N. C., 507. Neither is it stated that the defendant expected to prove. It may be supposed what they expected to prove it bad. But this Court should not be left to doubt and speculate as to what the defendants expected to prove.
Second exception: — The defendants introduced a witness, Scott, and asked him if the prosecuting witness had not proposed to have sexual intercourse with him. This evidence was objected to by the State, and the Court asked the counsel for the defendants if he expected to follow this question by showing that Scott had intercouse with the prosecutrix, to which he answered that he did not, and the Court excluded this evidence. We see no error in this ruling.
Third exception: The defendants’ counsel without permission of the Court had ordered the jailor to bring one Emma Bass, a prisoner then in the jail, to the Court House to be used as a witness; that after Emma had been examined by the defendants, the Court ordered the jailor to take her back to jail. While we cannot approve of the course taken *583by defendants’ counsel to get this witness out of jail, we do approve the order of the Judge in sending her back to jail. This exception cannot be sustained.
Fourth exception — as to Dr. Schenck’s evidence cannot be sustained. Nor can the fifth exception, as to the evidence of William Harper, as to her age, nor as to the Bible entries, as he swore that he knew the handwriting of Nellie’s mother —that they were in her handwriting and the mother had been dead seven years. This exception is overruled.
The sixth exception cannot be sustained. This has been so often decided by this Court that it would seem to need no citations to sustain the action of the Court. State v. Rowe, 98 N. C., 629; Grubbs v. Insurance Co., 108 N. C., 472.
The seventh exception cannot be sustained, for the reason that it was a correct enunciation of the law, and for the further reason that the defendants have not been convicted of rape, to which this charge of the Judge was applicable.
The eighth exception is that the Judge told the jury that the punishment for rape was death, and that for the lesser offence charged in the indictment it was fine or imprisonment in the penitentiary. We have at this term approved the ruling of Judge Starbuck in refusing, at the request of the jury, to give this instruction, and we do not wish to be understood as approving it in this case. But what grounds the defendants have to object to it, we are unable to see. In all probability it saved them from the gallows. The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.