History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c63.283

v4.c63.283

⁴⁹⁴ In *Omichand v. Barker* (Willes 1737-1860 p. 538) where Willes (Lord Chief Justice) says (at p. 551) that in Popish times and for some little time afterwards till the Reformation was fully established there was a notion that 'even an alien friend especially if he were an infidel could not sue in a court of justice here'. That shows how non-Christians found it difficult to sue in England for their just rights a few centuries back. In the case cited above Lord Chief Justice Willes had to deliver an elaborate judgment in 1745 for holding that evidence taken in India according to the oaths administered to non-Christian witnesses could be read in a trial held in England. So one need not laugh at Nār. who flourished at least about 1200 years before that date if he held an atheist or an apostate to be an incompetent witness. It should be noted that 'By the canon Law a Jew is not admitted to give evidence against a Christian, especially if he be a clergyman;' vide Taylor on Evidence (ed. of 1848, p. 655 note C.)