| Explanation 1.—A fact relevant as showing the existence of a relevant state of mind must show that the state of mind exists not generally but in reference to the particular matter in question. |
|
| Explanation 2.—But where upon the trial of a person accused of an offence the previous commission by the accused of an offence is relevant within the meaning of this section, the previous conviction of such person is also a relevant fact. |
|
|
| (a) A is accused of receiving stolen goods, knowing them to be stolen. It is proved that A was in possession of a particular stolen article. |
|
| The fact that at the same time A was in possession of many other stolen articles is relevant as tending to show that A knew each and all of the articles of which A was in possession to be stolen. |
|
| (b) A is accused of fraudulently delivering to another person a counterfeit coin, which at the time when A delivered it A knew to be counterfeit. |
|
| The fact that at the time of its delivery A was in possession of a number of other pieces of counterfeit coin is relevant. |
|
| The fact that A had been previously convicted of delivering to another person as genuine a counterfeit coin, knowing it to be counterfeit, is relevant. |
|
| (c) A sues B for damage done by a dog of B’s, which B knew to be ferocious. |
|
| The facts that the dog had previously bitten X, Y and Z and that they had made complaints to B are relevant. |
|
| (d) The question is whether A, the acceptor of a bill of exchange, knew that the name of the payee was fictitious. |
|
| The fact that A had accepted other bills drawn in the same manner before they could have been transmitted to A by the payee, if the payee had been a real person, is relevant, as showing that A knew that the payee was a fictitious person. |
|
| (e) A is accused of defaming B by publishing an imputation intended to harm the reputation of B. |
|
| The fact of previous publications by A respecting B showing ill will on the part of A towards B is relevant, as proving A’s intention to harm B’s reputation by the particular publication in question. |
|
| The facts that there was no previous quarrel between A and B and that A repeated the matter complained of as A heard it, are relevant as showing that A did not intend to harm the reputation of B. |
|
| (f) A is sued by B for fraudulently representing to B that C was solvent, whereby B being induced to trust C, who was insolvent, suffered loss. |
|
| The fact that at the time when A represented C to be solvent C was supposed to be solvent by his or her neighbours, and by persons dealing with him or her, is relevant, as showing that A made the representation in good faith. |
|
| (g) A is sued by B for the price of work done by B upon a house of which A is owner by the order of C, a contractor. |
|
| A’s defence is that B’s contract was with C. |
|
| The fact that A paid C for the work in question is relevant as providing that A did in good faith make over to C the management of the work in question, so that C was in a position to contract with B on C’s own account and not as agent for A. |
|
| (h) A is accused of the dishonest misappropriation of property which A had found, and the question is whether, when A appropriated it A believed in good faith that the real owner could not be found. |
|
| The fact that public notice of the loss of the property had been given in the place where A was, is relevant as showing that A did not in good faith believe that the real owner of the property could not be found. |
|
| The fact that A knew or had reason to believe that the notice was given fraudulently by C who had heard of the loss of the property and wished to set up a false claim to it, is relevant as showing that the fact that A knew of the notice did not disprove A’s good faith. |
|
| (i) A is charged with shooting at B with intent to kill B. |
|
| In order to show A’s intent, the fact of A’s having previously shot at B may be proved. |
|
| (j) A is charged with sending threatening letters to B. |
|
| Threatening letters previously sent by A to B may be proved as showing the intention of the letters. |
|
| (k) The question is whether A has been guilty of cruelty towards B his wife. |
|
| Expression of their feelings towards each other shortly before or after the alleged cruelty are relevant facts. |
|
| (l) The question is whether A’s death was caused by poison. |
|
| Statements made by A during A’s illness as to A’s symptoms are relevant facts. |
|
| (m) The question is, what was the state of A’s health at the time when an assurance on A’s life was effected? Statements made by A as to the state of A’s health at or near the time in question are relevant facts. |
|
| (n) A sues B for negligence in providing A with a motor car for hire not reasonably fit for use whereby A was injured. |
|
| The fact that B’s attention was drawn on other occasions to the defect of that particular motor car is relevant. |
|
| The fact that B was habitually negligent about the motor cars which B let to hire is irrelevant. |
|
| (o) A is tried for the murder of B by intentionally shooting B dead. |
|
| The fact that A on other occasions shot at B is relevant as showing A’s intention to shoot B. |
|
| The fact that A was in the habit of shooting at people with intent to murder them is irrelevant. |
|
| (p) A is tried for a crime. |
|
| The fact that A said something indicating an intention to commit that particular crime is relevant. |
|
| The fact that A said something indicating a general disposition to commit crimes of that class is irrelevant. |
|