S E L E C T C O M M I T T E E O N F I C T I T I O U S V O T E S , I R E L A N D . 317 73674. Was the objection to want of value taken in many cases before him ? — In a great many cases; almost in all. 13675. Was the inquiry, then, in those cases that did come before him when the question of value was raised, conducted in the manner you have intimated • ascertaining what the receipts of the tenant were from his farm, and not enter- ing into an investigation as to outgoings of any kind ?— There were two courses which I adopted as counsel: I first examined witnesses, and cross- examined the claimant, to show that if the labour expended 011 the farm and the rent were deducted from the return received from the farm, the man could not have a profit of 10 /. In other cases I called witnesses conversant with such matters to show that in their opinion, and according to the usual way in which lands were let, the lands occupied by the claimant could not produce any profit of 10/. 13676. And that did occur in many instances ?— A great many. 13677. Could you give the Committee any idea of about what number of cases arose before the assistant barrister at the sessions you attended, in which the question of value was raised ; I do not want you to ' be precise to a unit or a ten, but could you make any approximation to it ?— I cannot speak with any accuracy, but probably 100. 13678. And do you mean to say in none of these cases that you successfully resisted the claim of the applicant upon the score of value ?— In none that I recollect. 13679. I collect from what you have already stated that Mr. Gibson, how- ever, did permit you to go into the evidence you have stated, namely, to show what the amount of outgoings was upon the farm ?— He permitted me to cross- examine the claimant as to the amount of the outgoings; but I could not offer him any evidence to contradict the claimant, except the opinion of persons who knew the general nature and value of the produce of the land. Mr. Gibson, when I pressed him upon that subject, told me I might produce the miller or other persons who had bought the produce from him; that was a thing I could not, of course, effect. Where produce is sold in fairs or markets it was impossible to be provided with such evidence, so that I did not in any case pro- duce witnesses likely to contradict the claimant as to the produce of his farm, what was actually produced in one year; but I did produce witnesses to prove it could not in their judgment produce what the man swore it did produce. 13680. That is to say, you produced witnesses to give their opinion, from a knowledge of the quality of the land, and the extent of the farm, that it could not produce produce of the value that the tenant asserted it did produce ?— Exactly; that was the case. 13681. Did Mr. Gibson act upon that evidence ?— No, never in any case. 13682. He required you in each specific case to bring forward the miller or the purchaser Avho had bought the produce from the farmer, in order to con- tradict the specific evidence given by the individual claimant to register ?— I can- with propriety say that he required me so to do in every case, because the course I took was this : I tried, as I said, those two tests I before mentioned, and when I found those fail in every case, and he paid no regard to them, I then respectfully asked him what evidence he would require to satisfy him, and then he made the observations about the persons who bought the produce, and to the best of my recollection he named the miller. 13683. Then, in point of fact, am I to understand from you that a number of persons were put upon the registry in the King's County at the sessions you attended, who did not, in fact, possess a 10/. beneficial interest in their farms ? *— Certainly, to the best of my judgment and belief, and contrary to the positive testimony of persons who ought, from their situation and employment, to have known whether they had a beneficial interest or not. 13684. Do you recollect any particular instances you could state to the Com- mittee of persons who came forward to register, as upon a 10/. beneficial interest, whose cases were investigated ?— I remember a person of the name of Hugh Carroll to have come forward. 13685. What quantity of land did he hold ?— He held eight acres of land, for which he paid 51. 13 s. 13686. Chairman^ Were they Irish acres ?— Yes, they are all Irish acres in that county. , , C43. s s 3 13687, And v • j - V/ Mr. G. Battersby. 19 June 1838.