Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
When there is a question whether an act was accidental or intentional, the fact that such act fornled, part of a series of similar occurrences, in each of which the person doing the act was concerned, is relevant. Ith6tJtrat~on~. ' 20 . 'i . ;It . .~~ .."~.... , . .I ,) .. I. ,..r I ~. .. . . r. --- - ---------- - 1872, J Evidence. ~ Illustrations, (a.) A is accused of burning down his house in' order to obtain money for,which it is insured. The facts that A lived in several houses successively,' each of which he insured, in each of which a fire occurred, and after each of which fires A received payment from a different iJ?surance office, are relevant, as tending to show that the fires \"V"erenot accidental.: (0). A is employed to receive money from the debtors of B. } T It is A's duty to make entries in a book showing the amounts l'eceived by him. He makes an entry showing that on a parti- cular occasion he received less than he really diel receive. The question is, whether this false entry was accidental or intentional. The facts that 'other entries made by A in the saIlle book are false, and that the false entry is in each case in favour of A, are relevant. (c.) A is accused of fraudulently delivering to B. R. counter~ feit rupee. . The question is, whether the delivery of the rup,ee was acci- dental. . The facts that, soon before or soon after the delivery to B, A delivered counterfeit rupees to C, D and E are l'elevant, as showing that the delivery to B was not accidental. .