Court case(1744) 1 Atk 21

Witnesses who are not Christians may be sworn in the form binding on their own conscience, and their evidence is admissible; the common law adapts itself to new circumstances by judicial decision rather than waiting for statute.

Omychund, an Indian merchant of Calcutta, sued Barker in Chancery on commercial dealings in Bengal. His case rested on the depositions of Hindu (then called "Gentoo") witnesses taken in India, who had been sworn according to the rites of their own religion rather than upon the Gospels. The defendant objected that only a Christian oath was known to English law and that the depositions could not be read.

Lord Hardwicke LC, with the assistance of the chief justices of the common-law courts, held that the depositions were admissible. An oath is binding according to the religion of the person who takes it, and to refuse all evidence from the inhabitants of India would make the administration of justice in the East India Company's dealings impossible. The decision extended the common law to a situation its earlier rules had not contemplated, by judicial reasoning from the purpose of the oath rather than by legislation.