LAW OF EVIDENCE 583
(ii) What inference a Judge ought to draw from the facts which he believes to have been proved ?
In every judicial proceedings there are two essential questions—Is this true ? and if it is true, what then ?
Rules of relevancy throw no light on either of them and persons who are absolutely ignorant of these rules may give a better answer.
Answer to the objections.
(i) Men reason and reason well even without the study of Logic. But it does not follow that we should study Logic.
(ii) The rules of relevancy out the flood of irrelevant gossip and collateral questions which are sufficient to comprise the strongest head and distract the most attentive mind.
I. Cardinal rule of relevancy is that you can prove a fact and not opinion.
Facts fall into two classes:
Those can and those which cannot be perceived by the senses. Those which cannot be perceived by the senses are :
(1) Intention, (2) Fraud (3) Good faith and (4) Knowledge.
§ Matter of which Proof is allowed by Law.
Facts in Issue. 3, 5, 12.
Facts relevent to Facts in Issue. 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13-16,
52-58 45-51.
- Facts which are consistent with facts in Issue or with Relevant Facts or which show the probability of a Fact in Issue and Relevant Fact. 34-39-46.
Note— 31-32 will go under direct evidence as exceptions.
- Facts which are inconsistent with 11(1). Facts in Issue or with Relevant Facts. 17-31. or which show the improbability of a Fact in Issue or Relevant Fact. 41 -44,46.