State v. . Pridgen

Pee Cueiam. There was no error in tbe refusal of tbe court to dismiss tbe action, upon defendant’s motion, at tbe close of tbe evidence. O. S., 4643. Tbe evidence was properly submitted to tbe jury; it is sufficient as a matter of law to support tbe verdict. Two of tbe State’s witnesses, after defendant bad testified as a witness in bis own behalf, as shown by tbe record, in response to questions as to bis general character, testified tbat they beard tbat defendant is a notorious blind tiger. Defendant objected to these statements of tbe witnesses. No motion, however, was made to strike them from tbe record. A reasonable interpretation of tbe record shows tbat each of tbe witnesses bad qualified as a character witness before be testified tbat be *796 bad beard that defendant is a notorious blind tiger. S. v. Mills, 184 N. C., 694, is therefore not applicable. In S. v. Butler, 177 N. C., 585, it is said: “It was open to tbe witness, having stated that be knew tbe defendant’s general character, to qualify and explain bis answer as to what it was by saying that it was bad for selling liquor.” Tbe record in this case does not present tbe questions decided in S. v. Mills, supra. Upon tbe record we find No error.