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 T I IE E M Kelly Esq lease or not; you have nothing to guide you here. Mr. Gibson said, " Have I ' ' not the covenant that the grantor has a good title." 6 July 1838. 14591- Mr. Lefroy.'] Did that covenant specify the nature of the grantor's title ?— Not at all. . i , 14592. Mr. Litton.) Then in this particular case no title whatever was recited? — No title whatever. 14503. Neither the title of the lessor to create the original lease, nor the in- strument by which the grantor who proposed to assign derived title ? — Neither. 14594. Neither a recital of the title of the lessor to create the interest assigned, nor a recital of the instrument by which the grantor's title had been created ?— Of neither ; of the former, almost as a matter of course, it contained no recital; of the latter it contained none ; and that excepted it from the ordinary cases where the assistant barrister had previously received assign- ments in evidence. He stated the ground of his so receiving them to be, that the recitals contained evidence, but in this case there was 110 recital of how the person purporting to grant held the land. 14595. And in this case there was nothing whatever upon the face of the in- strument received by the barrister to show that the grantee claiming under the assignment had any title whatever?— No, nor of how he held. 14596. And yet that man, upon this instrument, was admitted to register?— He was. 14597. What were the terms of Mr. Gibson's judgment in that case?— He said, " Have I not the covenant that the grantor has a good title ? This deed would operate as an estoppel between the parties. The question is, whether I should go further back. Suppose the assignor were himself possessed by assign- ment, would you contend I should go beyond that too, and ask for the original lease, or where would you draw the line of demarcation" ? Mr. Julian said, " Nothing is more easy ; all mesne assignments should pass with the original lease to the last assignee, and should be all produced. It is said, that as the Act sets forth that applicants should be entitled to be registered, upon produc- tion of the deed, lease, or instrument, ( in the singular number) duly stamped, by which he claims to register, he is therefore only bound to produce one instru- ment ; but the lease, & c. referred to by the Act is the original lease creating the freehold; it is that the applicant purchases, and when asked how he got that he then produces the assignment. Suppose he produced a will devising to him all the freehold property of the testator, and that it was stated in that will that his testator held under a lease, therein fully recited, all the property which the will purports to bequeath ; a devisee is as much an assignee in law as an assignee by deed is, and certainly a will may be comprehended under the term " instrument" which is used in the Act; and would your worship think a party applying under such circumstances is entitled to register without producing the original lease" ? 14598. What did Mr. Gibson rejoin to that?— Mr. Gibson said, " The case of a will is quite different from that where there is a deed, because there you have 110 covenant from the devisor that he has a good title." Then Mr. Daly said, " Suppose Patrick Meagher, the grantor, brought an ejectment against the applicant, would he not be put out of court on production of this deed ? And surely the applicant would not be held to the same strictness of proof here as in that case." Mr. Julian said, " I admit that; it constitutes a good title as between the parties to the deed, but not as against the rest of the world." The objection was overruled and the applicant admitted. ' 4599- Does your opinion coincide with that expressed by Mr. Julian?— Certainly. 14600. Are you clearly of opinion that it was against the principles of law to admit that as evidence of title ?— I am clearly of opinion it could not be received without taking some previous steps to make it evidence. 14601. And its receipt, in the case in question, under the circumstances of that case, was a violation of the rules of law; have vou any doubt of that?— I have no doubt whatever it was. 14602. As you attended the registration, will you be so good as to explain to the Committee how you conceive the receipt of such evidence as that would open a door to fraud and the admission of fictitious voters. First, do you con- ceive the admission of evidence of this description would open a wide door to fraud ?— I think it would, certainly. 14603. And