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, ' SLS 14562. Mr. Serjeant Jackson.] The only way in which the applicant made out a case to entitle him to register as being a person holding a freehold of 10/ a year was by adding to the value of that portion of which he was in occupation himself, a portion of the value of the return he got for the mill which lie had let off • t hat was the only means by which he established it 14563. And if the barrister had not given credit to him for a profit arising from the part he had let off, he would not have been entitled to register at all >— I should say not; he would not appear to have to the value of 10/ 14564. He occupied only a portion, and that portion not of sufficient value, unless he got credit tor what he had let off ?— Precisely so. 14565. There was no contest before the barrister that what he was in the actual occupation of would not of itself, without the aid of the other part, be worth 10/. a year?— There was no contest as to that; the applicant himself, in forming his estimate of the value, evidently took that into his consideration, and it was clear from his testimony that he did not consider himself to have the value without the mill. 14566. But the barrister seems to have adopted this principle: that provided the claimant was in possession of any portion of the tenement out of which he sought to register, though it was only to the amount of 1 l, it was of no conse- quence ; that provided he had 10 I. a year arising to him in any way out of the whole, that was sufficient?— The case of Denis Summers seemed to go the whole length, so far as the principle is concerned, but, in point of fact, that was 7 I. 14567. If a man may register as a 10/. freeholder or leaseholder, being in occupation of anything short of 10 /., you cannot draw any line afterwards; but you must admit, any man that is in the occupation of ever so small a fraction, provided he has a profit out of the whole to the amount of 1 o I ?— That is my reason for carrying the principle to the extent I have; there is no line to be drawn ; that is precisely the reason. 14568. Mr. Litton.] Did the barrister in any case refuse evidence that went to show that the person that made the lease to the persons claiming to register had no title ?— Yes, there was the case of Timothy Delany. 14569. At what sessions was that ?— This was in October 1836: he claimed as a 10/. freeholder. He stated that he held 8 acres, 2 roods, 33 perches of the lands of Ballyphillip, at a rent of 185. an acre, under a lease from one Grady. That he is in possession 11 years; and then he states that he has a beneficial interest of 10/. a year out of the premises. Upon cross- examination by Mr. Julian, he stated that he pays his rent to Mr. White. This is another of the cases which I would allude to, as affording an opportunity, if the document were not produced, and inspection of it afforded to the adverse party, of registering fictitious voters : " Grady, who made the lease to him, the applicant, had a profit rent out of the premises. He, applicant, held under him, Grady, till two years ago, when he, the applicant, bought Grady out, and he, Grady has now no call to the lands," having previously made the lease to him from which he sought to register. Mr. Julian objected " That this was a conveyance of Grady's entire interest in the lands ; that applicant had not given the usual prima facie evidence of title in his landlord by proving payment of rent to him." I think that is alluded to in the 16th sect, of the Reform Act; " in fact, Grady could not recover his rent from this man, because he has passed all his interest in the premises." Mr. Patrick Costello, who was concerned at this sessions for the Liberal interest, said, " This is a point about which the judges of the superior courts are knocking their heads together, and we are not going to settle it upon a little case in a registry court." Mr. Gibson said, " There is nothing on the face of the lease to show that it is an assignment, and we cannot travel out of the deed; though the applicant, it is true, pays his rent to the head landlord, he is liable to Grady by his covenant," although he stated that - he had bought Grady out of the premises. This is a note I made to the case, " It appeared distinctly, on the admission of the applicant in this case, that he had never paid any rent to the person by whom the lease which he produced was signed; and in fact it seemed as if Grady had made a lease to the applicant without having any legal title to the premises at all; it is at least consistent with the facts proved, that Uradj, might have been a mere tenant from year to year, and that he had made a iea> e to obviate the necessity of the applicant producing an original lease, ^ men, according to the recognised principles of evidence he would be obliged to do m r _ ,-, case 643 3 » E,