23 8 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE TIIE Mr. Henry Barry. 8 March 1838. ^ 864 Then, generally speaking, that is your idea of the return that a person ino out his money in houses of this character ought to expect ?- I think so. - 865 That is to say, a person laying out 40 I. in building a house, ought to expectto get 4/. or 51 a year?— I think so 5866 Mr Beamish.] Did you visit the house of Charles M'Carty 111 \ ork- street, mentioned in answer 1643 ?— Yes, I have it down as value. 5867. Chairman.] This not one of those you saw since Christmas ?— No, it 1? " ggs. Mr. Beamish.] Did you see his receipt for either rates or rent ?— His receipt for rates was produced to me. 5869. Did you examine his premises?— I cannot say that L did now, after this lapse of time, but the probability is that I did. 5870. Mr. Serjeant Jackson.] Is that a good house?— It must have been of the value of 101, in my estimation. . 5871. You have no recollection of what kind of a house it was ?— None, more than I stated before; York- street is a good street. 5872. Mr. Beamish.] Did you visit the premises of Thomas Regan, of Hughes- lane ?— 1 t| id, and the house\ vas value ; I have set down here that his rent was 10/. 10,9. 5873. What appears upon this book was the result of }^ our inquiry?— It was. The place is rather a poor lane, off the Coal Quay, and in order to satisfy myself as to the value, I set down that the rent was 101. 10 s. ; that must have been the cause of my setting down that. ,5874. Mr. Serjeant Jackson.] How did you ascertain that to have been the rent ?— By inquiries. 5875. 6f whom ?— Perhaps himself. 5876. Do you recollect whether you saw the man himself?— I cannot re- collect. ,5877. Nor whom you saw?— No. 5878. Nor whether you saw any document for it?— The probability is that I did not see a document. 5879. Did you examine the premises?— I must have examined the premises, because I have made a distinction ; I have added N. to S., which means " nice value," which signifies bare value. .5880. Being a case in which, in your estimation it was a very nice question, did you examine the premises very closely?— I must have examined them. 5881. Have you a recollection whether you did ?— I must have entered them when I made that distinction. 5882. Do you mean that you went into the house?— I went into the house. 5883. Are you sure that you did ?— I am almost certain that I must have gone in when I made that distinction. 5884. Does he occupy the premises himself?— I think he does. .5885. Are you able to say whether he does or not?— No, my book does not state. 5886. You have no distinct recollection of the case, except what you derive from looking at the book ?— No. 5887.^ Can you state what kind of house it was ?— I have not any recollection of the kind of house ; I have a very indistinct idea of it. 5888. Can you state how many stories high it might have been ?— I cannot. 5889. Can you state what kind of repair it was in?— It appeared to me to be not m good repair; I believe those houses are set pretty high in consequence of .5890. Are you able to state whether this house was in such a state as part of it to be actually uninhabitable ?— No, I do not think it could be in that state. .5891. You say you went into it ?— I believe I did ; but I do not think it could have been 111 that state when I saw it. ,5892. What do you think of this evidence by Mr. Young: " There are two rooms above let, one at 10 d. and the other at 15. a week ; and one so much out of repair as to be untenantable; the lower part is occupied by the man himself." is that true, do you think ?— I do not know; I have no reason to doubt Mr. i oung s evidence. .5893. That may be a perfectly true description of it ?— It may, for what I know; my knowledge does not go beyond what I have said. 5894. In