The character or reputation of the female alleged to have been ravished, for chastity, may be impeached, but this must be done by general, reputation in that respect, and not by particular acts.192

185 People vs. Baldwin, 117 Cal., 244; State vs. Sargent, 32 Or., 110. 186 Com. vs. Cleary, 172 Mass., 175;

Hughes Cr. Law, Sec. 328. 187 Sutton vs. People, 145 Ill., 288;

Poison vs. State, 137 Ind., 519. 88 People vs. O'sullivan, 104 N. Y., 481.

189 People vs. Duncan, 104 Mich., 460; Barney vs. People, 22

Ill., 160. 190 Parkinson vs. People, 135 Ill., 404; Janzen vs. People, 159

111., 441. 191 Hamilton vs. State, 36 Tex. Cr., 721; People vs. Grauer, 42

N. Y., 721.

Therefore evidence that the female was in the habit of receiving men at her room for sexual intercourse is incompetent.193

If the prosecuting witness on cross-examination denies that she voluntarily had sexual intercourse with the accused at different times before the act charged in the indictment, she may be contradicted by showing that she had;194 and the same rule governs as to the cross-examination of the female regarding her relations with others than the accused.195