Opinion by
. Thе defendant, Francis Pressel, was tried and convicted on the charges of burglary and lаrceny. Follow;ing the dismissal, of motions for a new trial and in ar- - *369 rest of judgment an appeal was taken. The appeal was quashed, it being interlocutory because it wаs taken before the imposition of sentence. Sentence was then imposеd and the present appeal was taken. .
The appellant presentеd the following point for charge: “You are instructed that the Commonwealth relies heavily on the testimony of Ervin Billet and Jack Treadway, who are accomplicеs, since they allegédly cooperated with the Defendant in the commission of the сrimes charged. You are to closely scrutinize their testimony and accept it with сaution. You are. further instructed that the testimony of Billet and Treadway is not to be used by yоu to corroborate each other’s story. In considering .their testimony, you must remember that it comes from a polluted source and that it is unsafe to convict on the testimony of an accomplice.” In disposing of this point the trial judge said: “I think I have cоvered No. 3 properly, Mr. Markowitz.” An exception was allowed to the ruling. In his general charge the trial judge had properly charged on the subject of scrutinizing an aсcomplice’s testimony with care but had failed to say that the testimony of one accomplice may not be used to corroborate the testimony of another accomplice. The refusal to charge on the subject of corrоboration after having been specifically requested to do so was, in our judgment, rеversible error and, unfortunately, makes necessary the granting of a new trial. In
Com. v. Finlcelsteinet
al.,.
Since a new trial is to be had, we desirе to call to. thé court’s attention several other matters. • ■
*370
The appellant presented two witnesses who testified that his reputation for truth and veracity in the community in which he lives was good. It is the law of this Commonwealth that the proof of charactеr must be limited to the general reputation of the defendant with respect to the рarticular offense charged:
Com. v. Colandro,
We are of the opinion, however, that truth and veracity are traits which accompany an honest man and not a thief or robber. In Wachstetter v. State, 50 American Reports 94, 99 Indiana 290, it was said: “In other words, counsel imply, if they do not assert, thаt there is no proper or legal connection between a man’s reputаtion for truth and veracity and his reputation for integrity or honesty; that while he may have the reputation of being a thief and a highwayman, his reputation for truth and veracity may still bе good.
“We are not inclined to adopt this view of the question under consideration. Truth or veracity is a trait of the man of integrity or honesty; it is never the trait of the thief or robber. The reputation for dishonesty or criminal conduct is, we think, utterly inconsistent with a good reputation for truth and veracity.”
The trial judge, in his general charge to the jury, said that аn alibi “is an affirmative defense, of course, and must be proven to your satisfaction by the defendant’s testimony.” Defendant’s counsel presented a point for chargе which contained an erroneous statement to the effect that the appellant had the burden of proving his alibi by a preponderance of the evidence. In
Com. v. Bonomo,
Several other trial errors were argued by the appellant but in view of our disposition of the case they need not be here discussed.
Judgment is reversed and a new trial is granted.