Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
A final judgment, order or decree of a com- Rele~ancyof petent Court, in the exercise of probate, matrimonial, ~el d'~m t I . 1 . 1 .. d' t ' 1 . h .{.' 1U bmen S ac mIra ty or lnso vency JurIs IC lon, w lIC coniers 'inprobate, upon or takes away from -any person any legal ~c,' jmisdic- character, or .which declares any person to be entitled tlOn. to any such character, or to be entitled to any specific thing, not as against any specified person but abso- lutely, is relevant when the existence of any such legal character, or the title of any such person to any such thing, is relevant. Such judgnlent, order or decree is conclusive proof that any legal character which it confers accrued at the tinle when such judgment, order or decree came into operation; that any legal character, to which it declares any such person to be entitled, accrued to that person at the time when such judgment declares it to have' accrued to that person; . that any legal character which it takes away from: any such person ceased at the time from which s:uch ->- judgm~nt declared that it had ceased or should cease; and that any thing to which it declares any person to be so entitled was the property of that person at the tinle froIll which such judgment. declares that it had been or should be his property, 42, Judgments, orders or decrees other than those Relevancy - mentioned in section forty-one, are relevant if they ~ndeffectof relate to matters of a public nature relevant to the ~~~~~l~~tS , /"enquiry; but such judgments, orders or decrees are not decrees, other conclusive l)roof of that 1vhich thev state. thall,those, ol wcntlOued III . , Itlilst/'at-ioll. ;,ection41. :11 . -A;- ,,", ,- - ~ ,,-I - :J. '- p -" J uc"4;l11ents, &c" litller tlmH those moil tiolled in section::; 40-42, wheu relevant. c)' Fraud 01'col- lusil)JI ill lib. hlining jnclg. ment, 01' incompetency of Court., may be ])1'o\'ed. " tI £",1' I } n i " t:,'( .~,,('r- J , -t ~ < ~ " ,'-,," J- L ACT' ; Iltltst1'ation, . A sues 13for trespass 011his land. B alleges the existence "Of a public right of way over the land,wliich A denies, ' . 1'1"heexistence of a decree in favour of the defendant, in a ::il1itby A against 0 for a trespass on the same land, 1n which C alleged the existence of the same right of way, is relevant, but it is not conclusive proof that the right of way exists.