V 320 M I N U T E S OF E V I D E N C E T A K E N BEFORE THE G Battersby, Esq. 13923. Chairman.'] If I understood you right the object of your mentioning the burning was by way of illustration of the particular course of husbandry 2C June 1838. the year before the valuation, which particular course might not be a fair specimen of the general course of husbandry previously, or for the five or six years following ?— That was the object, and when I used that observation 1 had in my mind, not bog land, but upland, and of a person coining to register out of or from arable land. 13924. Now, in Baron Richards' view of the case, did you understand him to take into consideration all the outlay, however great it might be, of the pre- ceding year to that upon which the valuation was made, such as laying out an immense sum upon manure ?— No ; as I understood Baron Richards, he allowed the jury, if they thought fit, to take that into their consideration, but he did not desire the jury to do it, nor did he charge them, directing or informing them that they ought to do it, but I am sure that any juryman conversant with the treatment of land, and being an impartial and fair juryman, upon that state of facts would take into his account the outlay which ought to be expended in producing those crops. 13925." Would not a juryman, such as you describe, also take into his con- sideration any circumstances, such as the burning, before he gave his verdict that such and such was the value of the land, in his opinion ?— If the counsel opposed to the claimants had cross- examined to that fact, and called the atten- tion of the jurors to it, he would ; but if his attention was not called to it, in all probability it would never occur to him. 13926. Taking your view of the case, there might be as much injustice happen towards the claimant, from his land being exhausted in a particular year, as there would be an injustice towards the public by admitting him when the land wTas not in particularly good order ?— I do not quite understand the question. 13927. Would not a claimant, supposing him to have had the land he then occupied very much exhausted previous to the period when he made his claim, be in a worse situation to sustain his claim then, than if the average of several years were taken into the account?— In the one year, if it were taken upon that, he would be in a better situation, because he would have a better produce, but upon an average of eight years he would be in a worse situation. 13928. I wish to put the converse of that: supposing a claimant wishes to sustain his claim for a particular year, and he cannot prove his crops for that particular year amounted to such a sum as to sustain his claim, because the land, though good naturally, had been previously exhausted, would he not be deprived of his franchise for that particular year ?— Upon a fair and proper inquiry he certainly would; but the common course is this : when a man comes forward to sustain his claim by that description of evidence, he takes care to put forward a good year, and the largest produce that he has ; if upon a fair average he could make a better case, he undoubtedly would do it, and would have it in his power to prove it. 13929. But if he is estopped from proving anything but the crops upon his land in that particular year would he not be deprived of the franchise ?— The claimant is never estopped from proving anything, he may call any witnesses, and prove any state of facts. 13930. If the law is, that the state of the crops in that particular year is the criterion by which the claim is to stand or fall, must he not be estopped from giving evidence of the state of things in the former year ?— If I conveyed to the Committee that the law was that he must sustain his claim by the state of the crops in one year, and he must not go back to preceding years, I have con- veyed a wrong impression, because although in practice the course is so, I do not say that Baron Richards, or any assistant barrister, restricted the party to that year. 13931. But do you mean to say that any person acting as a judge, or assist- ant barrister, decided that the crops of one year was or was not to be the criterion upon which the party might claim?— I mean to say, the inquiry entered into upon all the cases which happen to come within my knowledge was, as to one year, and they were satisfied with that; but the claimant was not precluded from going into evidence as to the preceding years if he thought 13932. Suppose