The old code contains a list of persons who are not to be allowed to give evidence. So many people must have been excluded from the witness-box by the old regulations, that one wonders how they ever could have obtained any evidence at all had they obeyed the regulations completely. For instance, none of the following persons could be called to give evidence:--Drunkards, opium-smokers, gamblers, notorious vagabonds, goldsmiths, braziers, blacksmiths, shoe-makers, executioners, beggars, potters, dancing women, women who had been married three times, adulterers, clerks, orphans, players, jugglers, acrobats, undutiful children, atheists, slaves, friends of either party, enemies of either party, quacks, liars, and sorcerers. Physical defects excluded unmarried or pregnant women, the blind, halt, deaf, people above seventy years old and children under seven, dying people, and persons suffering from any loathsome disease. Intellectual defects prohibited the giving of evidence by those who could not read, could not count up to ten, and who did not know the names of the eight cardinal sins. On the other hand, this curious old code directed that special attention should be given to the testimony of men of good learning and of known good character. It was sometimes considered necessary to make a supposed criminal confess. To that end, provided he could not be persuaded by gentler means, the prisoner received ninety lashes on his bare back, with a rattan rod. Time was given for the cuts to heal, and then the experiment was repeated. A time for healing again intervened and then a third flogging settled the matter, for if the man did not confess under the third application of the rod, he was considered innocent. The fear of the punishment that awaited those who did not confess, must often have caused many innocent persons to declare themselves guilty. Flogging was not the only aid to confession. A modification of the thumb-screw in the form of a split bamboo, was held to possess a strong persuasive influence. One or two very ancient customs still linger. Thus both plaintiff and defendant are expected to provide bail when bail is demanded. And in serious cases where bail is not given, the plaintiff has to go to prison with the defendant until the case is tried. This regulation doubtless often prevents false accusations being made, but it has its severe side, as shown by the fact that a woman who had been plaintiff in a case, was recently released from prison by the new judges, after lying in confinement for over three years. The defendant, moreover, had been allowed to go scot-free many months before.