I am placing before the members of the bar and the bench a question that has puzzled me all my life & even now continues to do so. S. 14. III. (b), Evidence Act runs thus : “A is accused of fraudulently delivering to another person a Counterfeit com which at the time, he delivered it, he knew to be counterfeit. The fact that at the time of its delivery A was possessed of a number of other pieces of Counterfeit coin is relevant. The fact that A had been previously convicted of delivering to another person as genuine a Counterfeit Coin knowing it to be Counterfeit is relevant”. This last portion of the illustration seems to me to offend against the basic principles of our Criminal Jurisprudence. We have no right to prove that a man committed a crime on one occasion by showing that he had committed similar crimes before. S. 14 of the Act no doubt prescribes that fact showing the existence of any state of mind is relevant b ....