“Q. Do you know the reputation of Mrs. Worlitz for chastity, on August 25, 1920, in Tuttle? A. Yes.
“Q. What was that reputation? A. Bad.”
On cross-examination she stated that she did not know what the word “chastity” meant and “had never heard the word before.” ‘The court thereupon directed that her testimony to the effect that Mary Worlitz’s reputation for chastity was bad be stricken. Defendant’s counsel in effect conceded the correctness of this ruling, because when another question relating to this matter was put and objection thereto sustained defendant’s counsel stated:
“We don’t want to insist upon this, your honor; we understand that the witness cannot be asked in regard to this word ‘chastity’ again, as she has already made the statement she does not know what it means.”
Immediately following this statement defendant’s counsel made the following request:
“The defendant would ask a few minutes’ recess at this time, as there are some new witnesses that have just come in and we would like to interview them.”
The court thereupon directed that a five-minute recess be had. Immediately following the recess the witness Amelia Hoher was recalled, and she was again asked if she knew the reputation of Mrs. Worlitz for chastity on August 25, 1920. Plaintiff’s counsel objected to the question on the ground that the witness had already admitted that she did not know what the word meant. Thereupon, in answer to questions pro- pounded by defendant’s counsel, she testified that during the recess she had consulted a dictionary and ascertained the meaning of the word “chastity.” Plaintiff’s counsel asked for permission to cross-examine before the question was put, and upon asking her what the word “reputation” meant she refused to testify, and from answers given to questions tormerly propounded it appeared that she did not know the meaning of the word “reputation.” The court sustained an objection to the question on the ground that the witness had not shown herself qualified to answer. No request was made that the witness be given an opportunity to consult a dictionary or otherwise inform herself as to the meaning of the word “reputation.” And as already stated, it also appears that one other witness did testify that the reputation of the plaintiff for chastity was bad. The plaintiff offered no testimony tending to contradict the testimony offered by the defendant on this point, so that so far as the record is con-
