typewriters came into existence and the classical handwriting gave way to the typed material. And the courts had to give way and make room for that innovation. The following passage is very instructive both from the point of view of the new material which was the “dactylographie”, which made its entry in the court and became established, and also the evidential requirement that it refers to. Acte nonsigne: un texte dactylographie peut constituer un commencement de prevue par ecrit, bien que nonsigne, des lors que la partie a laquelle on l”oppose reconnait qu’elle l”a elle meme dactylographie et qu’il est son oeuvre materielle et intellectuelle Civ.ier.jan.1961.Null. Civ.no 41. (reproduced from para 27 of judgment of SCCA in Nathalie v Sarah Louise WAlsh 2012). [21] I presume it would appear foolish to imagine that objections could have been made on the ground that the typed material was different from handwriting. From handwriting to typed material the transition must have been very smooth. [22] Electronic gadgetry has now become part of our daily life and culture. [23] Legislators and policy makers have rightly amended the law and given to the various electronic gadgets devices, information storages system and new electronic tools the evidential role that they have. Section 15 of the Evidence Act and the Electronic Transactions Act go in that direction. New methods of bringing evidence to the court have been recognized in the legal system of Seychelles. It would be lagging behind if the exceptions to article 1347 would not be extended to include these electronic recordings and data. [24] I have no difficulty in holding that the documents referred to by Learned counsel for the Plaintiff is admissible as a beginning of proof in writing in as much as the contents of the CD and the pendrive can be printed and produced in court. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff has rightly remarked that times have changed. Electronic communications and recordings are now admissible as evidence. [25] I have one more point to make. I would like to refer to the following paragraph from COOPOOSAMY V DUBOIL (SLR) 2012. 5