8a ; ! J Mr. John Young. 30 February 1838. MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE 1661 ( To Mr. Young.) Could that tenement you saw have been worth 10 I. hl l^ Z^ t^ Vo youknow what tenement that man oeeupied " ItH Mr. Serjeant Jackson,] Do you know the man at all ?- I saw him in the house. . , . 7 v„ 1664. When you went for the purpose of valuing 665 Does he traffic in coals?- Yes, he sells coals; it is a coal- store; and he lives in the back part of it; and I asked him whether he had any other apartments, and he said he had not. 1666. Did you know that man before that visit r— Never. 1667. Mr. Beamish.] You do not know what premises he registered out of — I presume it was those that I saw. 1668. But you do not know?— No. 1669. He might have registered out of other premises held under the same landlord ?— Yes. 1670 You do not know what rent he pays for those i— JNo. 1671. Mr. Serjeant Jackson, to Mr. Lane.] Do you find that person valued ?— No; that man is in the same situation as the last man, he is valued over 10/. 1672. Mr. Beamish, to Mr. Young.] You said that that house never had been worth 10/. ?—' This man registered only out of a shop, and the house might be worth a good deal more ; but I do not think that the shop, or what he holds, is worth more than 5 /.—( Mr. Lane.) The house he is registered out of is valued at 20/.; the dwelling- house 1 71., and the store 3/. 1673- 4. Mr. Serjeant Jackson.] Then you do not mean to say that the tene- ment which lie registers out of, namely, the shop, is valued above 3 /. ?— No.— ( Mr. Young.) Daniel Manly really lives in Church- street; but the register is very defective; it does not properly describe the streets at all; there is no such person in Shandon- street. 1675- 6. Mr. Beamish.] Then, in fact, the premises he registered out of, although imperfectly described, so far as you know, might have been the full value ?— He might have occupied a shop elsewhere. 1677. Mr. Serjeant Jackson. ] You mean to say, that the premises which you saw in the occupation of Daniel Manly were merely the coal- store, opening into the street, and an apartment at the back, which he inhabited ?— Yes. 1678. And you consider those not worth, at the most, more than 5/. a year t — Yes. 1679. Mr. Lefroy.] Did not you state that you asked him whether lie had any other apartments ?— I did ask him that, and he tolcl me not. 1680. Did you confine it to apartments, or did you ask him whether he had any other premises ?— I confined it to his habitation. 1681. Then he could not have had in his possession a house over that store ? — No ; he told me that all he had was the store, and the room behind it. 1682. Mr. Serjeant Jackson, to Mr. Lane.] Does not it often happen, that the entire of a house is valued for the purpose of local taxation, and yet that a portion of it may be in the possession of a single individual ?— If any parties occupied, it ought to be returned rateable. 1683. Although a single portion of it, such as the shop behind, is in the tenancy of a single individual ?— Yes. 1684. Which individual might register out of the portion rated, if it was of the value ot 10/.?— If he occupies any portion of the house, and no other person occupies the remainder, his is the occupation of the whole 108.5. Suppose the entire house was valued at 15/., and that A. B. occupied the shop and one apartment, and he thought fit to register at 10/., he might register for that?- He might, but he would be returned rateable for' the whole of an^ theT^ on/ 01? 116 ° f thefh° USe' * was in the occupation a shop7and EX^^ ™ ^ 1 ^ ^ the ^ or, consisting of « . ^ z t^ i^ s^ x^ z:^ EST 1688. ( To