1215 114. [10] 1967 NMLR 145. In Haruna V Police; accused was charged with aiding and abetting the robbing of a bank. His bank manager testified of his financial soundness and troubleless behaviour. [11] As Prof Noakes notes that this episcopal character would appear unmerited in such situation. [12] Chukwueke V State. [13] The fact in issue is discernible from the pleading in civil proceedings or elements of the offence in criminal. Section 258 Defines: “fact in issue” includes any fact from which either by itself or in connection with other facts the existence, non-existence, nature or extent of any right, liability or disability asserted or denied in any suit or proceeding necessarily follows [14] E.g. where the accused claims he has been earning monies lawfully and honestly-R V Powell 1986 1 All ER 193. R V Samuel 1956 40 Cr APPR p 8. Also where the accused claims to be religious-R V Ferguson 1909 2 CR 250… etc. in all these cases, the prosecution can cross-examine him or call evidence in rebuttal while in witness box but where he remains in the dock he cannot be cross examined. [15] Which is in pari material with Section 1(3) English Criminal Evidence Act 1898. [16] R V Roberts 1936 1 All ER 23. R V Hawden 1902 1 KB 882. [17] Tending to show has been interpreted to mean revealing for the first time in Jones V DPP 1962 AC. The accused said: “I am innocent. I know that the only reason you are picking on me is because I have been involved in rape before…” court held that he can be questions further on his previous conviction. [18]It is Conviction rather than acquittal or suspicion-Stirland V DPP 1944 AC 315, Maxwell V DPP 1935 AC 309. R V Cokar (1960) 2 QB 207. [19] In Mohammed V Olawunmi the court noted that conviction here means as a finding of guilt