3 6 6 MINUTES O F E V I D E N C E T A K E N B E F O R E T HE E. M. Kelly, Esq. 14531. Then his entire holding consisted of four houses ?— Yes, except gardens attached to them. . 29 June 1838. 14532. The garden that was next to the house he occupied was included in the value he put upon it ?— Yes. _ _ _ 14533. Chairman.'] The point taken m opposition to him was this, that he had let the whole three houses and gardens off, that he was only occupying tenant of one house and one garden, and that was not worth 10/.?— Yes; the assistant barrister was only acting in that case consistently with the principles which he had established in preceding cases. 14534. Mr. French.] There was no question as to the amount of value in that case? None as to the amount upon the whole; he had more than 10/., taking profit rent, which he derived from other houses, combined with the value put upon his own house by himself; but the objection was that he did not occupy 10Z. worth. 14535. Chairman.] What other cases had the barrister previously ruled of a similar character ?— The defect which I think applies to this case is in admit- ting 101, freeholders who are not in the occupation of premises of the value of 101, above the apportioned rent of the same. There was a man registered at the sessions April 1836, named James Derivan. 14536. Will you state the circumstances which came out upon that person's claiming to vote ?— He claimed as a 1 o I. freeholder; he produced two leases; he stated that he held five acres under each lease at 155. an acre ; that he held five acres only in his own hands; lie stated generally that he had a beneficial interest of 10Z.; that he had got 355. an acre for the part he had let. He was cross- examined by Mr. Battersby; he stated on cross- examination that the part he has let is not the best part of his land ; that he has as good land in his own possession ; that he had eight acres of tillage and one of meadow last year, and believes that lie would get 35 s. an acre or more for the other part, if he wished to let it. Mr. Battersby submitted that this man was not entitled to register, " he claims as a 10 I. freeholder, and therefore must be in occupation of so much of his land as is of the value of 10 /. a year over the rent of the entire, or ( taking the most liberal view of the statute) over the apportioned rent; he relied upon Mr. Hudson's Election Law, and stating that he could not be called an illiberal authority, or one likely to limit the franchise too narrowly ; that he laid it down so in his treatise on Election Laws. Now the applicant has sworn that he holds in his own hands only five acres, and the highest value, according to his own estimation, is 35s. an acre, so that if you deduct 15s. an acre rent, he does not occupy land of more value than 5 Z." Mr. Daly, for the opposite party, argued, " that the applicant was entitled to avail himself of the doctrine of distributive value, and if by setting part of his land at an advanced rent, while he held part in his own possession, he was able to say that he had a beneficial interest of 10/. out of the whole, he was entitled to register." 14537. Mr. Serjeant Jackson.] What do you understand by the term " dis- tributive value" ?— What I understand by it is this: that if a party has under a lease 10 acres of land, and he holds five acres himself, which he considers worth a certain sum, and that he has let the other five acres at a considerably advanced rent, and that, taking the two together, the value of the land which he himself occupies, and the advanced rent which he derives from the portion lie has let, if both added together would give him, upon the whole, a 10 I. beneficial interest, he is entitled to register. M538- That is, he is not bound to be in the occupation of that which consti- tutes his qualification ?— I think that Mr. Gibson's decision went the length of determining that if a man occupied only a single rood of land it was sufficient; for, in Summers's case, he decided that it was not necessary to occupy land of the value of 10/.; so that, if a man only occupies a single rood, having let a considerable portion of his land at an advanced rent, but if, taking the whole together, he had a 10 I. profit upon the whole, that man is entitled to be registered. J4539- Did he act upon that rule all through?— He acted upon that rule. 14540. Chairman.] That is separating occupation from value ?— His principle went this length, that it is not necessary that the man should occupy premises of the value of 10 /. a year. . 14541 • Mr. Serjeant Jackson.] The oath to be taken by a freeholder register- ing a freehold of the annual value of 10 /. under the Act of 10 Geo. 4, c. 8, con- tains this clause in it, " And that I am in the actual occupation thereof by resid- >' lr ing V