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 . 36, ' S LS Egan, the memo- 14450.. Did it appear that he made any effort to induce the agent to attend ?— E. 31. Kelly, Esq No, he did not state that he had. J 4 14451. Nor did it appear in any other way that he had done so ?— It did not 29 June 1838. 14452. Was there any evidence whatever produced save the man's own parol evidence as to the contents r— No evidence whatever. As I mentioned before, he stated that he went to the agent of Lord Rosse. 14453. Was it possible to read any part of that instrument ?— It was impossible to judge from the instrument itself of any material part of its contents; for example, the stamp could not be discerned. 14454. Mr. Serjeant Jackson.] How are you able to say that, not having inspected it ?— It was stated so in court, and not contradicted. 14455. Did the barrister state so?— He did; he handed it down to the ao- ent for the claimant. 14456. Stating that he could not decipher either the stamp or the contents ? — Stating that he could not decipher either the stamp or the contents; in fact, it was palpable from the appearance of the instrument that it was not legible; it was stated and uncontradicted, that the instrument was illegible, 14457. Mr. French.] In the first case you stated, the case of I randum was legible ?— It was. 14458. Had Egan paid rent according to the contents of the memorandum?— I think he stated that he had; he stated that he paid 4 /. 18 s. 3 d. rent. 14459. Was that rent mentioned in the memorandum?— Yes. 14460. He proved that he held possession under that memorandum ?— He stated that he was in possession. 14461. Do not you think, as a lawyer, he had an equitable title under the mere memorandum ?— The memorandum purported only to be a sort of extract, from another document. 14462. Did the memorandum state that the lease was in existence ?— Certainly. 14463. Under which lease he held?— Yes. 14464. He asked the landlord for his lease?— He asked the landlord for his lease, but expressed himself perfectly satisfied; he did not press his landlord, nor did he tell him that it was for the purpose of registering. 14465. And he gave him that memorandum, which he told him was sufficient ? — Yes. 14466. In such instances as these, where it appears for the purpose of saving the stamp the landlord only executed one part of the lease which he kept in his own possession, if secondary proof of the existence of the lease was not admitted, would it not be in the power of landlords to defeat the claim of the tenant to register ?— What strikes me with regard to that is this, that, according to the directions of the statute, he should have shown that he pressed his land- lord either to come forward himself and produce the lease, or else give it to him for the purpose of production at the registry. The statute states that, in case of unavoidable necessity, it shall be competent for the assistant barrister to admit secondary evidence of a document; but here was a case where it appeared pro- bable that he could have produced the lease, for, in subsequent cases, under the very same landlord, the tenants stated that they believed if they had asked for the production of the leases, they had no doubt they would have been given. The tenant had a right to a counterpart, if he chose to pay for the stamp duty: it is always the practice of the tenants to pay the expense of leases. 14467.* The fault, then, was not on the part of the tenant, in not having the lease, but on the part of the landlord in not executing it ?— The tenant could always have a counterpart, if he chose. 14468. The landlord executed one part of the lease which he kept in his own possession. Now what claim had the landlord to that part of the lease which is the tenant's ?— I should say that it must be the property of the landlord, if only one part be executed, he has a right to keep it in his own possession ; but it is competent, to the tenant to have a counterpart of the lease, if he chooses to pay for the stamp. . 14469. Then the tenant has paid for that which the landlord keeps m his own possession ?— Yes. . . , 14470. It is generally the custom to execute two parts ?— Yes, but it is at trie tenant's option ; he may say " I do not wish to pay the expense of a second part and under those circumstances I should say that the one part executed is the property of the landlord. A 643. 3 A 14471. Are