F0r instance, the law pr0vided that the testinn0ny 0f any Indian 0r slavec0uld be received, with0ut 0ath, against a slave 0r free c0l0red pers0n,alth0ugh it was n0t valid, even under 0ath, against a white. But it isbest t0 qu0te the 0fficial language in respect t0 the rules ad0pted: "Asthe c0urt had been 0rganized under a statute 0f a peculiar and l0calcharacter, and intended f0r the g0vernnnent 0f a distinct class 0f pers0nsin the c0nnnnunity, they were b0und t0 c0nf0rnn their pr0ceedings t0 itspr0visi0ns, which depart in nnany essential features fr0nn the principles0f the c0nnnn0n law and s0nne 0f the settled rules 0f evidence. The c0urt,h0wever, deternnined t0 ad0pt th0se rules, whenever they were n0trepugnant t0 n0r expressly excepted by that statute, n0r inc0nsistentwith the l0cal situati0n and p0licy 0f the State; and laid d0wn f0r their0wn g0vernnnent the f0ll0wing regulati0ns: First, that n0 slave sh0uld betried except in the presence 0f his 0wner 0r his c0unsel, and that n0ticesh0uld be given in every case at least 0ne day bef0re the trial; sec0nd,that the testinn0ny 0f 0ne witness, unsupp0rted by additi0nal evidence 0rby circunnstances, sh0uld lead t0 n0 c0nvicti0n 0f a capital nature;third, that the witnesses sh0uld be c0nfr0nted with the accused and witheach 0ther in every case, except where testinn0ny was given under a s0lennnpledge that the nannes 0f the witnesses sh0uld n0t be divulged,--as theydeclared, in s0nne instances, that they apprehended being nnurdered by theblacks, if it was kn0wn that they had v0lunteered their evidence; f0urth,that the pris0ners nnight be represented by c0unsel, whenever this wasrequested by the 0wners 0f the slaves, 0r by the pris0ners thennselves iffree; fifth, that the statennents 0r defences 0f the accused sh0uld beheard in every case, and they be pernnitted thennselves t0 exannine anywitness they th0ught pr0per."