inference  can  bie  drawn  from  the  fact  that  Mattocks  v.  Lyman,  16  Vt.  113;  Vail  v.
they  are  received  in  silence.  Of  this  nature  Strong,  10  Vt.  457;  Gale  v,  Lincoln,  11  Vt^
ie  an  offer  by  a  third  person  to  pay  a  debt  152."

55


BetoTftney.                                   EVIDENCE.  Faeto  in  Iitna,  Sto.
the  time  or  place  at  which  any  such  fact  happened,  or  which  show

that  any  document  produced  is  genuine  or  otherwise,  or  which
^how  the  relation  of  the  parties  by  whom  any  such  fact  was
transacted,  or  which  afforded  an  opportunity  for  it$  occurrence  or
transaction,  or  which  are  necessary  to  be  known  in  order  to  show
the  relevancy  of  other  facts,  are  deemed  to  be  relevant  in  so  far
as  they  are  necessary  for  those  purposes  respectively.^

1.  niastrationi  to  Art.  9.  —  {a)  The  ques-  What  ia  Admiaaibla  to  oxplaia  or  intro-

tion  is,  whether  a  writing  published  by  A.  dnce  Btlevant  Faota.  —  Upon  the  issue

of  B.  is  libellous,  or  not.  whether  goods  were  sold  to  the  defendants

The  position  and  relations  of  the  parties  or  to  a  third  party,  it  is  competent  for  the

at  the  time  when  the  libel  was  published  plaintiff  to  prove,  that  immediately  prior

may  be  deemed  to  be  relevant  facts,  as  in-  to  the  sale  he  had  been  directed  not  to

troductory  to  the  facts  in  issue.  trust  such  third  party,  because  he  was  not

The  particulars  of  a  dispute  between  A.-  responsible ;  and  he  may  prove  it  by  the
and  B.  about  a  matter  unconnected  with  party  giving  him  the  information.  Bronner
the  alleged  libel  are  not  deemed  to  be  rele-  v.  Frauenthal,  37  N.  Y.  166.
