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. of April, so that it was clear that the six months had not elapsed in his case ' either, and his lease bore a date different from the period at which he stated it 13 July 1838. was executed ; it is material to mention that, because that alone might be con- sidered evidence of fraud, the antedating of the lease. 1 5032. How long had Moran been in possession ?— He said he was eight years in possession, and also stated he paid the same rent before the lease was executed and since. 15033. Did he state whether it was under the promise of a lease ?— He stated there was an understanding between him and his father that he should have a lease when he asked for it, without specifying the term. 15034. How long had Peter Claffy been in possession?— He said he was more than a year and a half in possession. 15035. Did he state whether it was under the promise of a lease he had gone into the possession ?— He had the promise of a lease about a year and a half ago, he said; in this instance his lease bore date the 2d of November, and he stated it was executed upon the morning of the preceding registry sessions, so that it bore a different date from the date it was executed. 15036. The 2d of November 1836 would be about the time at which he said the promise was made to him?— Yes, it would be about that time. 15037. Now, with respect to John Madden, how long had he been in posses- sion ?— He said he was 14 or 15 years in possession. 15038. Did he say whether it was under the promise of a lease he got into possession ?— He said his landlord promised him a lease long ago. 15039. With respect to William M'Keown, how long had he been in pos- session?— William M'Keown exactly corresponded with James M'Keown; they were partners, and he stated he was two years in possession. 15040. Was it under the promise of a lease ?— He also stated that Mr. Arm- strong, his landlord, had told him that he might have a lease 12 months ago; " that they might be bound to each other," was his expression; but on his cross- examination, he said that his landlord mentioned no term, whether for life or years. There were several others admitted, notwithstanding the objection on the part of the Conservatives. 15041. Were there any of those persons admitted who had not been more than six months in possession ?— No ; not without being in actual possession more than that time. 15042. Were there any in whose cases it appeared there had been no pro- mise of a lease?— Yes; there were several, in which there was no promise whatever. 15043. Will you mention any case of that kind?— I have mentioned it before: but with regard to the principle, Mr. Gibson laid it down that it was not at all necessary they should have had a promise, provided they were in pos- session, and had a lease at the time of the registry. 15044. But as I collected from you before, Mr. Gibson's declaration in Mur- ray's case was, that the possession, and the rent being received, was evidence of a lease so as to give an equitable title to the parties ?— Yes ; that was his answer to the argument used. I believe that the proposition will not be dis- puted ; I am quite sure it will not; that he admitted the principle to the extent I have mentioned. 15045. Mr. Litton.'] I am now about to ask you to give instances of the admission of applicants not possessed of the requisite qualification in point of value?— There were several instances of that kind with reference to the mode of estimating the value of the freehold which had been recognised by 10 of the 12 judges. 15046. What was Mr. Gibson's decision upon that subject ?— With regard to that, he laid it down distinctly that the mode of estimating the value of the freehold was not by what could be got in the market, or what could be got from a solvent tenant, but what the applicant would swear he could make by it. The case of Hugh Carroll I referred to upon another point ; I shall merely men- tion the case now so far as it is connected with the point of value. He was registered at the sessions of April 1836; he stated he held eight acres of the lands of Garbally, at the rent of 51. 13s. 10 c?. ; that he had a beneficial interest of 10/. a year and more out of it. On cross- examination by Mr. Battersby, on behalf of the Conservative party, he stated he would not say a solvent tenant could afford to give him 10/. a year profit for his holding ; never offered to let it,