353 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE T A K E N BEFORE TIIE John Julian, Esq. 11 July 1838. 14770. He was the agent who produced Durrovan?— He was the agent who attended on behalf of the Liberals ; he supported Durrovan. 14771. Did you ever see that before? [ handing a paper to the Witness]— Never. 14772 14773 14774 You never saw one of those circulars ?— Never. You were of course a paid agent ?— Yes. Paid not by individuals, but out of the Conservative fund ?— Out of the Conservative fund. 14775. I hope you were well paid ?— I would have accepted more, but I was satisfied with what I got. 14776. How were you paid; by the day ?— I was paid by the day. 14777. A guinea a* day ?— A great deal more than that. 14778. How much?—£. 5 a day. 14771). Mr. Gibson inquired into what crops the land would produce ; that inquiry was made before him In some cases. 14780. He never prevented your inquiring into the produce of the land?— He never prevented us making almost any inquiry 011 cross- examination, except it was very irrelevant. 14781. He attended patiently ?— Very. 14782. And decided to the best of his judgment, right or wrong ?— I have no reason to think that he did not decide according to the best of his judgment. 14783. Whenever it was deemed necessary he had an inquiry into what the land produced, whether it produced wheat, oats, or potatoes ?— He always lis- tened patiently to such inquiries. 14784. And of course if you inquired the value of the crop, he listened patiently to it ?— Yes, he listened patiently to it. 14785. Do you know who registered before Mr. Gibson ; was it Mr. Cosgrave ? — He registered in 1832. 14786. Were you present at that time?— Very little ; I was not then prac- tising as an attorney. 14787. You were serving your time?— I cannot tell whether I was or not; I had not taken out my licence. 14788. Did you attend at all during Mr. Cosgrave's registration ?— Only going in from curiosity; not to take any part in the proceedings. 14789. Mr . Hogg.] I understood you to say that after the applicant had sworn to the value, you in some instances adduced persons to swear that land of that description could not yearly produce so much as to give a man 10/. after the deduction for labour and seed, and so forth ?— There were cases in which persons swore to their belief from their general agricultural knowledge. 14790. You say you then discontinued that description of evidence, from finding it made no impression ?— Yes, I discontinued it for that reason. 1479 1. The reason was, because you found it made no impression ; that the revising barrister did not consider it was evidence that ought to influence his judgment ?— I discontinued it for that reason. 14792. That was the inference you drew?— Yes, he said he would not from the bench be influenced by evidence of that description. 14793- That if the applicant positively swore he would not be influenced by what anybody else said ?— He did not go that length. 14794. You adduced the evidence of those who possessed competent agri- cultural knowledge, and who drew a contrary deduction, and that did not influence him ?— No, it did not. 14795. Mr. O'Connell.] Do you mean to say he refused to listen to the evidence of a man who swore he knew the land, and that it was not worth so much an acre as the applicant swore it was ?— He never refused to listen to it, but he was not governed by it. 14796. Even in a case in which there was no other witness than the appli- cant ?— Yes, even in a case in which there was no other witness than the applicant, which was latterly universally the case. 14797- If a man entered into the detail of his knowledge of the land, and showed that it would not produce crops sufficient to give a beneficial value to the required amount, did he not listen to that evidence ?— He would ask the person, according to his course, whether he could swear that what the applicant had sworn was untrue, and I never saw an instance in which a person would take \