S E L E C T C O M M I T T E E ON F I C T I T I O U S V O T E S , I R E L A N D . 36, ' SLS Derivan's farm well; himself Has land; has been all his life and is still in the f nr n v habit of managing land ; thinks Derivan's farm would be a dear take at 30s an q' acre; does not think it is worth above 25s. an acre." Cross- examined by Mr 6 July 1838 Daly: " Upon his oath, he would not give 30s. an acre for this farm; and would take more land than he ( witness) has, if he could get it at a fair value: thinks the fair value oi Derivan's land would be about a guinea an acre" The objection as to want of value was overruled, and the applicant was admitted 14573- Have you any other instance in which the barrister acted upon the same principle which has been mentioned by the Chairman, of registering men who admitted they had not 10/. value out of the land which they occupied?— I think I have given all the cases upon that head; the head of value, connected with occupation. 14574- Have you any other case besides that of Patrick Delany with respect to what I call the third head; that is, the barrister refusing to receive or act upon evidence which went to show that the person who made the lease had no title to do so?— Stephen Meagher claimed as a 10/. freeholder; he was registered at the sessions of 1837. 14575. He was tendered on the side of the Liberals ?— He was. 14576. Was he objected to?— He was. 14577. By the Conservatives?— Certainly. 14578. Now, will you mention the particulars of that case?— He proved a beneficial interest of 10/. a year; the instrument produced by him was on a 1 /. stamp, dated the 16th February 1836, for a term of years and a life; the con- sideration for the deed was 10/. Mr. Julian attempted to cross- examine this applicant as to the power of his grantor to make a conveyance, but was prevented by the assistant barrister, who said that he would not allow the landlord's title to be inquired into. Mr. Julian then objected that the stamp was not sufficient. 14579. On what other ground was he objected to?— Upon the ground of the stamp upon his lease, or the instrument he produced, which was not in fact a lease, being insufficient. 14580. Was it insufficient?— It should be double when the sum demised exceeds three lives or 31 years ; that was the objection. 14581. Was that objection well founded?— Mr. Daly, on behalf of the appli- cant, said it happened that the document, which until then was thought to be a lease, was an assignment; not seeing the documents, it was impossible to know what they were; he said it was an assignment, and he here read the deed, which recited, " that Patrick Meagher, the grantor, was seised as of freehold, or other- wise. of the premises therein mentioned," without setting forth any particulars; and he also added that there was a receipt for the consideration on the back, and Mr. Gibson said he should consider the document as an assignment. 14582. And did that get rid of the objection to the stamp?— That got rid of the objection to the stamp, the deed being an assignment. Then came the objection to the assignment being received in evidence at all without the original lease. 14583. Chairman.'] Was it or not a legal assignment, to the best of your belief?— It was. 14584. It was an assignment, and not a lease?— Yes. 14585. Then the objection to the stamp being insufficient was not made out r — It was overruled. 14586. But it was not made out?— It was not made out. 14587. Mr. Litton.] It was a sufficient stamp for an assignment ?— It was. 14588. Chairman.] You believe the document to have been an assignment, and being an assignment, the stamp was sufficient ?— Yes. 14589. Mr. Litton.] Then what was the next objection made?— The next ob- jection is contained under another head, which is as to receiving assignments m evidence without the production of the leases which they purport to convey. Ihe next objection was that the assignment was not evidence of the lease creating the title. __ T .. , . 14590. Was that overruled?— That too was overruled ; Mr. Julian said thatm former instances he had argued that the assignment being merely a transfer of the interest, the deed which created that interest should be produced ; You have ruled against me upon those occasions, saying you would take the recital as evidence both of the existence of the lease and of its contents, but here we are left completely in the dark. This is a case different even from the ordinary cases of assignments. The grantor does not recite how lie holds, whether by 643. ^ 3 b 2 lease