The acts of others, as in the case of con spirators, may be given in evidence against the prisoner, when referable to. the issue ; but confessions made by one of several con spirators after the offence has been complet ed, and when the conspirators no longer act in concert, cannot be received. See Liver more v. Herschell, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 33; Mack ahoy v. Com., 2 Va. 'Cas. 269 ; Reitenbach. v: Reitenbach, 1 Rawle (Pa.) 362, 18 Am. Dec. 638; Wilbur v. Strickland, 1 Rawle (Pa.) 458; Martin v. Com., 2 Leigh (Va.) 745 ; Gardner v. Preston, 2 Day (Conn.) 205, 2 Am. Dee. 91; 2 B. & Aid. 573, 574; Perigo v. State, 25 Tex. App. 533, 8 S. W. 660; CON SPIRACY; CONFESSION.
In criminal cases, when the offence is a cumulative one, consisting itself in the coin= nission of a number of acts, evidence of those acts is not only admissible, but essen tial to support the charge. On an indictment against a defendant for a conspiracy to cause himself to be believed a man of large property, for the purpose of defrauding tradesmen after proof of a. representation to one tradesman, evidence may thereupon be given of a representation to another trades man at a. different time ; 1 Campb. 399 ; Gardner v. Preston, 2 Day (Conn.) 205, 2 Am. Dec. 91; Snell v. Moses, 1 Johns. (N. Y.) 99.
Evidence of similar occurrences is admis sible, to show the quality of the. act,. in many as the value of land,' the character of a drug, or the reasonableness of the act ; 17 Harv. L. Rev. 349, where the principles regulating the subject are discuss ed, and the decisions are said to be chaotic and arbitrary, as a result of the rule that the admissibility is made to depend on the opinion of the judge as to whether it raises a multiplicity of issues or occasions undue surprise. In civil cases stch evidence seems to be admitted in very few instances. It is inadmissible to prove negligence; Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. v. Johnson, 92 Tex. 380, 48 S. W. 568; but, to prove due care, evidence of a general custom of switchmen to ride on the side of a freight car was admitted; Boyce v. Lumber Co., 119 Wis. 642, 97 N. W. 563. So it has been admitted to prove similarity of conditions, as the effect of the passing of trains over a certain curve; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Sandlin, 125 Ala. 585, 28 South. 40; or the supply of gas to other houses, where the appliances were such as to furnish as much or more gas than those in dispute ; Indiana Natural & Illuminating Gas Co. v.
Anthony, 26 Ind. App. 307, 58 N. E. 868; or the relative quantity of water obtained un der similar conditions in other pastures, where the action was for an insufficient sup ply in the case of a contract to pasture cat tle; Tuttle v. Robert Moody & Son (Tex.) 94 S. W. 134. In criminal cases such evi dence is admissible to show mental condi tion; [1899] 1 Q. B. D. 77 ; 12 Cox, C. C. 612 ; Com. v. Coe, 115 Mass. 481, 501. In prosecu tions for crime, evidence of similar offences is not admissible except for the purpose of showing the intent ; Topolewski v. State, 130 Wis. 244, 109 N. W. 1037, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 756, 118 Am. St. Rep. 1019, 10 Ann. Cas. 627; Lightfoot v. People, 16 Mich. 507; Olson v. U. S., 133 Fed. 849, 67 C. C. A. 21; U. S. v. Flemming, 18 Fed. 907 ; Dillard v. U. S., 141 Fed. 303, 72 C. C. A. 451; Com. v. Russell, 156 Mass. 196, 30 N. E. 763 ; Packer v. U. S., 106 Fed. 906, 46 C. C. A. 35 ; Brown v. U. S., 142 Fed. 1, 73 C. C. A. 187; or some element of the present charge ; Paulson v. State, 118 Wis. 89, 94 N. W. 771; but evidence of previ ous offences is not admissible to raise the presumption of present guilt; Lightfoot v. People, 16 Mich. 507 ; 2 Can. L. Rev. 689 ; 20 Harv. L. Rev. 151; but evidence otherwise admissible is not rendered inadmissible mere ly because likely to raise a prejudice; [1894} A. C. 57; and when a guilty knowledge or intent Is an essential part of the offenee, commission of similar acts may be proved to raise an inference of such knowledge or intent; 2 Can. L. Rev. 690; where a prisoner had passed a counterfeit dollar, evidence that he had other counterfeit dollars in his possession is evidence to prove the guilty knowledge ; State v. Odel, 2 Const. (S. C.) 758; State v. Antonio, id. 776 ; State v. Hous ton, 1 Bail. (S. C.) 300; Martin v. Com., 2 Leigh (Va.) 745; People v. Lagrille, 1 Wheel. Cr. Cas. (N. Y.) 415; Russ. & R. 132; Finn v. Com., 5 Rand. (Va.) 701; and when a Wife was tried for poisoning her husband by arsenic, evidence was admitted of the death of lend similar illness of the third from same • cause, to show that the husband died of arsenical poisoning, and not acci dentally; 18 L. J. M. C. 215 ; 15 Cox, Cr. C. 403 ; and see People v. Molineaux, 168 N. Y. 264, 61 N. E. 286, 62 L. R. A. 193, where both in the opinions and in an extended note the subject is discussed from every point of view, and the cases are collected.