Facts bearing on question whether act was accidental or intentional
The series rule: when the question is “accident or design?”, the fact that the act was one of a series of similar occurrences — with the same person concerned in each — is relevant.
How to read Section 13
Two ingredients, one inference.
Answering “accident or intention?” (or “with what knowledge?”) through a series of similar occurrences.
Similarity of the events — and the same person concerned in each. Both must be present.
Once may be chance; a pattern with the same hand makes accident highly unlikely — a specialised cousin of § 12.
The bare Act
The section in its own words — colour-keyed by what each phrase does.
When there is a question whether an act was accidental or intentional, or done with a particular knowledge or intention, the fact that such act formed part of a series of similar occurrences, in each of which the person doing the act was concerned, is relevant.
(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 insurance company, are relevant, as tending to show that the fires were not accidental.
(b) A is employed to receive money from the debtors of B. It is A’s duty to make entries in a book showing the amounts received by him. He makes an entry showing that on a particular occasion he received less than he really did receive. The question is, whether this false entry was accidental or intentional. The facts that other entries made by A in the same 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 a counterfeit currency. The question is, whether the delivery of the currency was accidental. The facts that, soon before or soon after the delivery to B, A delivered counterfeit currency to C, D and E are relevant, as showing that the delivery to B was not accidental.
In short: when “accident” is the defence, the law lets the pattern speak: the same kind of event, again and again, with the same person in each — burning houses, convenient ledger errors, repeated counterfeits — makes design the natural reading.
→ § 12 proves the mind by outside facts; § 13 proves it by repetition — the narrowest and sharpest of the mind-proving tools.
Glossary
Without intention — the “oops” defence this section exists to test.
The same kind of event, repeated — fires, false entries, counterfeit deliveries.
Involved in — the person must figure in each event of the series.
The section serves knowledge questions too — did he know the note was fake?
The inference the series supports: repetition with the same hand points away from chance.
The picture
One event asks a question; a series answers it.
The section, part by part
Tap a part — the picture-story tells it first; the word-by-word text and example follow.
the ruleOnce is chance — a series is design
IllustrationsThe three pictures the Act itself gives
Connected provisions
State of mind
The parent rule — § 13 is its sharpest specialised tool, and Exp. 1’s red line still applies.
Residuary doors
A series also makes accident highly improbable — the two sections often walk together.
Course of business
The next section: the ordinary course of business as a basis of inference.
IEA 1872, § 15
This provision carries forward section 15 of the repealed Evidence Act.