Judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in sections 40, 41 and 42, are irrelevant, unless the existence of such judgment, order or decree is a fact in issue, or is relevant under some other provision of this Act.

Illustration.

   (a)  A and B separately sue C for a libel which reflects upon each of them. C in each case says that the matter alleged to be libellous is true, and the circumstances are such that it is probably true in each case, or in neither.

   A obtains a decree against C for damages on the ground that C failed to make out his justification.

   The fact is irrelevant as between B and C.

   (b)  A prosecutes B for adultery with C, A’s wife.

   B denies that C is A’s wife, but the Court convicts B of adultery. Afterwards, C is prosecuted for bigamy in marrying B during A’s lifetime. C says that she never was A’s wife.

   The judgment against B is irrelevant as against C.

   (c)  A prosecutes B for stealing a cow from him. B is convicted.

   A afterwards sues C for the cow, which B had sold to him before his conviction. As between A and C, the judgment against B is irrelevant.

   (d)  A has obtained a decree for the possession of land against B. C, B’s son, murders A in consequence.

   The existence of the judgment is relevant, as showing motive for a crime.

   ¹[(e) A is charged with theft and with having been previously convicted of theft. The previous conviction is relevant as a fact in issue.

   (f)  A is tried for the murder of B. The fact that B prosecuted A for libel and that A was convicted and sentenced is relevant under section 8 as showing the motive for the fact in issue.]