S E L E C T C O M M I T T E E ON F I C T I T I O U S VOTES, IRELAND. ; 537C 13032. Suppose then it was proved that he had crops sufficient in the pre- G. Battersby. ceding year, but m the year antecedent to that he had crops insufficient would — ' or not the claim be admitted under the decisions to which you refer ' That 26 Ju,, e lg38- I cannot say at all. 13933; Mr Serjeant Jackson.-] Now having had this examination and explanation of what occurred on a former day, we will go into a few more individual cases, in order that we may see in what way the registry you attended was conducted. You recollect a person of the name of James Derrivan Yes. 13934. What claim did he make?— James Derrivan stated that he had two leases of five acres each, at 15 s. an acre ; that he had previously let one of those parcels of five acres, and he had five acres on his own hands. 13935- He had underlet five acres ?— He had underlet five acres and retained five, and he stated that the year before he had four acres of tillage and one of meadow; and he swore that those five acres were worth to him 10/. profit, and he would not take 10/. a year for it, and that he had a beneficial interest of 10/. I did not directly go into the items of his produce, as I recollect; but I examined a Mr. John Dwyer, a justice of the peace, and he stated, upon his oath, that he was a person seised of 1,400 acres of his own, well skilled in hus- bandly, and well acquainted with the farm of this James Derrivan, and that he had, previous to the registration, viewed the farm for the purpose of deposing as to the value; I also examined John Delany, who was land steward to Mr. O'More, of Cloghan Castle ; that Mr. O'More, in whose employment Delany was, has the whole or the preater part of this district, and Delany swore he had been employed all his life in the cultivation of land; and they both swore it was impossible that Derrivan could have a profit of 10/. out of that farm, or that any man could pay it, or any landlord obtain it. 13936. Was that person registered ?— He was. 13937. Upon the evidence you have stated him to have given?— Yes. 13938. Encountered as it was by the evidence of Mr. Dwyer and Delany ?— Yes, and upon that claimant being registered I, as I before stated to the Com- mittee, asked Mr. Gibson if there was any description of evidence by which I could induce him to reject any claimant; and then Mr. Gibson stated, that he had known Mr. Dwyer a long time; that he was a very respectable gentleman, but that he would not act upon that evidence, and made the other observations as to the sort of evidence he would require, and which I before detailed to the Committee. 13939. Do you recollect a person of the name of James Gill coming forward to register ?— I do. 13940. Will you be kind enough to inform the Committee what facts appeared upon that case " of James Gill ?— Upon one of the first claimants coming forward, I asked permission of the assistant barrister to inspect the lease under which he claimed to register; the barrister refused to permit me. 13941. Were not the leases produced under which the several claimants to register held ?— The several claimants produced their leases and handed them up to the barrister, and the barrister inspected them; and whenever the bar- rister was able to read them, he stated what the stamp upon them was, and, generally, the granting part of the lease or instrument. 13942. Did he not state the parties' names?— He did; and in stating the name of the lessee in that particular case, he stated it as if the lease had been made to James Gill. By mistake he handed it to me at once, in place of handing it to Mr. Daly, and on inspection of that lease I saw that the lease was not made to James Gill, but made to a person whom he stated to be his mother, and then I objected that James Gill was not the lessee, and was not the personal representative of his mother, inasmuch as he had no letters of admi- nistration and no probate of her will. 13943. Was it a term for years ?— It was a term for years. 13944. Do you remember who the landlord was ?— I do not. 13945. But it was a lease made to a person who was stated by Gill to be his mother?— It was. , 13046. You objected, then, that this person, James Gill, who proposed to register by virtue of that lease, was not the lessee himself, and did not show himself to be the personal representative of the lessee ? I objected that he had no legal title at all. n 643. u u 3 13947. Do