212 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE TIIE Mr. E. Rcotiey. 11662. Some of the witnesses, I believe, in support of the voters were not be- lieved by the Committee.?— Upon my word I should suppose not; I have not seen 25 May 1838. any evic[ er, ce that would enable me to say they did not believe them on our side. 11663. Did you hear it ?— If breaking a man's vote on one man's evidence, and not breaking it " upon another; if that would enable one to come to the conclusion, that they did not believe his evidence, I should suppose they did not believe parties on either side. 11664. Did you not hear, and do you not believe, that the Committee ordered that some of the witnesses produced on your side should not be reproduced, in consequence of their having discredited themselves by their testimony ?— I did not know that. 11665. Did you not hear it ?— I heard it. i 1666. I did not ask you if you knew it, but if you heard it ?— Yes. 11667. Then when the Committee had an opportunity of having witnesses examined on oath, and cross- examined, and contrasting their evidence reciprocally one with the other, do you not think they had the best means of forming a correct iudgment as to the value of these lands?— I should not like to answer that ques- tion ; for I should not like to give an opinion upon the acts of any honourable Committee. 11668. I am not asking you as to their acts; I ask, had they not a fair oppor- tunity of judging as to the fact of value ?— I do not think they had a fair opportunity of judging of the fact. 11669. That is your answer ?— Yes. 11670. Mr. Curry.'] Do you know a person of the name of Christopher Cahill, who came forward, claiming to be registered as a voter ?— Yes. 11671. Were you present when he came forward to be registered?— I was present when an appeal was tried for him before the judge. 11672. Then you understood he had been rejected by the assistant barrister, and he appealed to the judge at the assizes?— Yes. 11673. What was the question tried upon the appeal; was it the value of his qualification ?— Yes. 11674. What was the result of that appeal; was it decided?— The jury did not agree upon it. 11675. When was that appeal tried?— I cannot exactly say; I dare say it was the assizes before. He was registered in March 1837, and I dare say it was at the assizes before. I could not exactly say, but I was present when the appeal was tried. 11676. And it was not decided, because the jury could not agree as to the ques- tion of value ?— Yes. 11677. was re- registered, you say, in March 1837?— Yes; before Mr. Tighe, I believe it was. 11678. Has any witness who was examined before that Committee stated that Cahill's appeal was rejected ?— Yes ; I understood there was evidence before the Committee that Cahill's claim was rejected on the appeal, and he was afterwards registered by Mr. Tighe. 11679. What is the name of the witness who stated so ; do you remember?— I think it was Mr. Courtenay. 11680. Then it is not the fact that Cahill's claim was rejected on appeal?— It was appealed, but the jury did not agree. 11681. It was not rejected upon the appeal ?— No. 11682. And he was afterwards re- registered by Mr. Tighe, in March 1837? — Yes. 11683. Did you value Cahill's farm ?— I did not. 11684. Chairman.'] If I understand the difference between the statement made by Mr. Courtenay and yours, it is this: you say he was not rejected, and he says he was?— I say the jury did not agree, and consequently he was not rejected. 11685. In short, the difference is, that Mr. Courtenay says he was rejected, and you say he did not succeed ?— I say he did not succeed to be placed upon the register, nor was he rejected, but the jury did not agree one way or the other. 11686. The difference between Mr. Courtenay and you, as to this individual is, that he^ states his appeal was rejected, and you state that he did not succeed in his appeal r— Yes ; he did not succeed in this appeal to be put upon the register. & i 1687. He