353 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 TIIE E. M. Kelly, Esq. freehold, at the annual sum within the meaning of this Act at which he shall claim to register the same, such assistant barrister shall and may so adjudge; Hij June 1838. and jn such Case the person so adjudged entitled shall, instead of the oath or oaths, affirmation or affirmations now by law required in that behalf, take and subscribe before such assistant barrister the oath mentioned in the fourth schedule to this Act annexed, where the freehold of such person shall be of the annual value of 20 I. not arising from a rent- charge; and where the same shall arise from a rent- charge then the oath prescribed in the fifth schedule to this Act annexed, and where the same shall be of the value of JO/., then the oath pre- scribed in the sixth schedule to this Act annexed" ?— That is so. 14552. Then in section six there runs this oath: " Oath of freeholder regis- tering a freehold of the annual value of 10/. : I, E. F., of such a place, in such a county, do swear that I am a freeholder of the county of , and that I have a freehold therein arising from a house ( or houses, land, or both, or other hereditaments, as the case may be,) of the clear yearly value of 10/., above all charges payable out of the same, except only public or Parliamentary taxes, county, church, or parish cesses," and so forth; and then it proceeds, in a subse- quent" part, to say, " And that I am in the actual occupation thereof by residing thereon, or by tilling, or by grazing, or by both tilling and grazing, as the case may be." That is the form of oath prescribed there by that Act ?— As also by the schedule to the Reform Act. 14553. And therefore the united effect of those Acts is to render it necessary that a freeholder of 10 I. shall be in actual occupation of the freehold out of which he registers ?— Yes; as I mentioned before, there are three classes of opinion; one class holds that he must occupy such a portion of his freehold as will be of the value of 10 I. above the rent affecting the entire. Now that I think is an extreme opinion, although there may be arguments to sustain it. But the opinion generally entertained, I think, by barristers is, that if a party occupies premises of the value of 10 /., and if having let another portion at an advanced rent, he is able to say, occupying to the value of 10 L, that the whole is worth to him 10 I. a year, that that would entitle him to register. 14554. Provided he be in the actual occupation of premises of the value of \ ol. ?— Yes, that is generally held to be necessary; I think it is the opinion generally entertained. 14555. Have you many other cases coming under the description of severance of occupation?— I think there is only one other case. 14556. Does that case entirely resemble the former?— I think the facts are somewhat different; it is the case of Francis Feighery, who was registered in October. In June 1837 he claimed as a io I. freeholder; his lease was dated in 1803; it was made to his father, demising 26 acres at the rent of 71 /. a year. Upon his examination by Mr. Julian, it appeared that he was his father's only son ; that he has a mill on the holding, but the mill is let, and two acres of land with it, and 10 aci'es besides ; some of the land is worth 3 I. 10 s. an acre; his- rent for the entire is 71 I. a year ; he has in his own occupation 14 acres liable to 28 I. a year ; the whole was liable to the entire rent of course, but he said that he considered it liable to only 28 /. a year. The holding, he says, is worth- more than 10 I. over his rent; of course he takes into his consideration the profit derived from the mill, & c. 14.557- What objection was taken?— That he did not occupy a holding of sufficient value. 14558. And it was ruled that he did occupy a holding of sufficient value?— It was. _ ' 4559-. Ho you know from the decision given by the barrister, that the value of this mill that was let off was taken into consideration by the barrister, as making up the value ?— There can be no doubt of it; for the applicant stated that in the estimate of the value of course he took the mill into consideration, and he would not have sworn that it was worth 10/. a year, without taking into consideration the mill. 14560. Did Mr. Gibson take into his consideration, bv any decision or any declaration of his, the value of the mill in estimating the amount of the claimant's interest?— In this particular case he did nothing but admit the applicant, he made no observation whatever. 14561. No other point was raised against the claim?— Nothing was raised against it, except his not occupying premises worth 10/. a year. 14563. Mr.