him or not, but the objection is taken that it is not binding on him, and that he in incompetent to take an oath, therefore I feel I am thrown on to the Canada Evidence Act, and must make him affirm. MK. TAYLOR: I beg to call your Honor's attention to the fact that the Canada Evidence Act does not apply to this case at all. It had in contemplation a different circumstance entirely. One case was that of a Christian who was called up and he would take the ordinary form of oath, and then there was a provision made for a certain class of Christians who did not believe In the Bible oath but believed In a future state of punishment, and it was held that that class of people it was unfair that the testimony of those people should be excluded from Court of Justice, because they certainly would have an obligation on their conscience which would induce them to tell the truth as much so as the case of a person who took the oath,and therefore he could affirm, but that does not cover the case of the heathen who has some form of obligation which is binding on his conscience and the Affirmation is not. Therefore, I submit that the Court has a duty imposed upon it now to find out what form of belief he has and what particular form of ceremony is necessary to have the obligation imposed upon him to induce him to tell the truth under all circumstances. COURT: We have been trying to find that out Mr Taylor, and you know he says any one of the forms are equally binding on him. MR. TAYLOR: I must say that I have argued the legal effect of that answer before. COURT: And you argued that I was bound by BC Archives GR-0419 BRITISH COLUMBIA. ATTORNEY GENERAL. Box 100 File 1904/10 Attorney General documents.