¶1 As the defendant is entitled to a new trial of this action for error in the admission of evidence tending to show specific acts of misconduct by Luther Mesimer, a witness for the defendant, as evidence of his bad character, to be considered by the jury as affecting the credibility of his testimony, we shall not discuss serious assignments of error also urged by counsel for defendant on his appeal to this Court.
¶2 In State v. Holly, 155 N. C., 485, 71 S. E., 450, it is said that the authorities in this State are numerous and uniform that it is error to allow questions on the cross-examination of a witness as to the character of the defendant, or as to the character of a material witness for the defendant, as to specific acts of misconduct of the witness, as tending to affect the credibility of his testimony. In the instant case it was competent to show the general reputation of the witness for the defendant, for the purpose of impeaching him. However, evidence tending to show specific acts of misconduct by him was not admissible as evidence tending to show that his general reputation was bad.
¶3 In accordance with this principle, we must sustain the defendant’s assignment of error based on his exceptions to the rulings of the court on his objections to questions addressed to the witness Critz as to specific acts of misconduct by the witness Luther Mesimer. Eor this reason the defendant is entitled to a
¶4 New trial.