ing out the electric lights in her place of business and on attempting to pass out through the door leading into the store as usual, the plaintiff was confronted by the defendant who had placed himself in the door and who solicited her to have sexual intercourse with him; that upon her refusal to accede to his demands he seized her violently and forcibly by the arms, leaving black and blue marks thereon; that he placed his hands on her breasts and lifted her dress, and placed his hand on her private parts; that after a struggle of some duration, during which the plaintiff slapped the defendant and kicked his shins, the defendant released the plaintiff, and she thereupon left the place and went to her home. The defendant denied the whole transaction as testified to by the plaintiff, except that he admitted that he was in the cream station with the plaintiff on the evening in question. He claimed, however, that she called him into the cream station for the ostensible purpose of having him help her prepare the report of the day’s business, and that after he came in there, she placed her arms around his neck and kissed him, and told him that she wanted some loving and kisses, and that he repelled her advances. It is apparent therefore that there was a square conflict in the evidence, and that it was for the jury to say whether the version of the plaintiff or that of the defendant was the true one. The sufficiency of the evidence is not questioned. On the contrary, on the oral argument, appellant’s counsel expressly stated that he did not question the sufficiency of the evidence; but contended that the evidence was of such unsatisfactory nature that the errors, which he asserted occurred during the trial of the cause, required the granting of a new trial.
Three assignments of error are specified and argued on this appeal.
(1) It is contended that the court erred in refusing to permit one Amelia Hoher to testify regarding plaintiff's reputation for chastity. An examination of the record bearing upon this feature of the case leads us to the conclusion that no error was committed. The record shows that shortly before the witness Amelia Hoher was called another witness, Lenofred Elliott, was permitted to testify, and did testify, that the reputation of the plaintiff, Mary Worlitz, for chastity was bad. The witness Amelia Hoher was asked the following questions, and gave the following answers thereto:
“Q. When I ask you this question, answer yes or no; do you know the reputation of Mrs. Worlitz for chastity? A. Yes.
“The Court: Where, and when?
