V 320 M I N U T E S OF E V I D E N C E T A K E N B E F O R E T HE G Batters!)}/ Esq oath: I hare stated what my sources of knowledge were, and when I say that o. M^ sq. the gtate of facts upon the face of the instrument, I take what Mr. Gibson 26 June 1838. stated to be true, and Mr. Gibson stated that was the fact, and therefore I believe it to be true. . ^ + . .. 1 , i4i 16 There was no investigation, therefore, m that case as to the valuer- No ; and when I found I was unable to satisfy Mr. Gibson as to the value, I did 110141V7. Chairman.'] I understood you had not an opportunity of seeing this lease with your own eyes ?— No, I did not see any lease or instrument with my own eyes, which was produced by the adverse party, except that of Gill, which was shown to me by mistake. 14118. And therefore the terms of all these leases you must give upon Mr. Gibson's authority, and not your own ?— Yes. 14119. Your responsibility only extends to your representing fairly what Mr. Gibson stated ?— Certainly. 14120. Mr. O'Connell ] Are you able to say you did not investigate the value in Mackin's case ?— I am pretty sure I did not. 14121. Did you not in general investigate the value as to the crops, and so on ?— Down to a certain period of the registry I did investigate carefully and particularly every case which arose, and after that I objected to every case as being insufficient in value, in order, as I stated at the time, to enable my clients to satisfy the general rule which was adopted by Committees of the House of Commons ; that is, it was supposed by us that some at least of the Committees would not allow the registry to be opened, except as to objections that were made before the assistant barrister; and therefore, in consequence of that, I stated to Mr. Gibson I would not any further trouble him, or go into the inquiry of the produce of the farm, but I would simply object to the different claimants as not having the value ; and I did make that general objection throughout to every case, but the particular inquiry I did not make after I thought it was useless. 14122. Then your object was to reserve the point in such a way, that accord- ing to the decision of Committees of the House of Commons it might be gone into ?— It was in order to enable them if there was a petition to take advantage of it. 14123. I believe it was so decided in the Carlow case?'— I believe it was. 14124. Mr. Serjeant Jackson.] But I understand you to say, though you made the objection in certain cases, you abstained from going into the cases after you found there was no evidence that would satisfy the barrister ?— Just so. 14125. Mr. O'Connell.] But you did produce all the evidence that you had in your power ?— Yes. 14126. Mr. Serjeant Jackson.] It would be a waste of time to produce it after that ?— So I understood. 14127. Mr. O'Connell.] Have you no recollection how many applicants ap- peared upon this registry ?— I was asked that the former day ; I have no recol- lection, I believe there were 150 or 180, but I could not pretend to say with any accuracy. 14128. How many of them appeared?— I cannot say. 14129. Do you recollect how many of them were registered ?— I do not; but that can be all accurately detailed to the Committee by the other witnesses ; I am unable to do it. 14130. Mr. Serjeant Jackson.] Did any of the persons who were partners under the lease under which Mackin claimed come forward and offer them- selves to be registered ?— Yes, according to my recollection, several did ; I mean those who held the farms which had been held by the original partners. 14131- Among whom the farm had been partitioned ?— Yes. 14132- Did they produce leases ?— Yes ; my recollection is that each man who came forward had a new lease, but there was one man remaining behind who did not come forward with any lease. 14133- Have you any idea how many of them did come forward ?— No, I cannot take upon myself to say; I think there were three or four. 14134- Were they all registered?— Yes. 14135- Did they all produce leases, which appeared to be recently executed, of their respective shares ?— That is my recollection. 14136. For