SELECT COMMITTEE ON FICTITIOUS VOTES, IRELAND. 4,> 9 15342. Can you state from recollection that there was any one person, or Richard Daly, Esq how many persons rejected by Mr. Gibson for want of value, where the claimant himself positively swore to his interest, and where the opponent ' 7 J » ly 1838. produced witnesses to show, upon general grounds with reference to his know- ledge of agriculture and the farm, that the claimant could not have a 10/. value ?— I think there were some such cases, but very few. 1.5343- Speaking from recollection, do you think there were so many as three where the parties opposing succeeded, by producing evidence, against the posi- tive swearing of the claimant ?— I think they did not exceed three. 15344. And possibly might be less ?— And might be less; but I must state, in reference to that question, that, except at one or two sessions, there were not witnesses brought forward to oppose the claimant at all; in Mr. Gibson's time, or except, I believe, in three or four sessions ( I speak now generally), there were not witnesses brought forward. 15345- At the first session at which Mr. Gibson presided was there not a greater proportion of evidence brought forward from the opposing party than there was at his concluding session ?— There was. 15346. Do you not believe the reason for that arose from the parties adducing such evidence finding that, in the discharge of his duty, Mr. Gibson did not con- sider himself bound to pay attention to it in opposition to the positive swearing of the claimant?— I always found that Mr. Gibson paid every attention to the evidence which was adduced against the franchise; but I must state that that evidence, taken as a body, was of such a vague and unsatisfactory nature that no judge acting under the conscientious obligation of an oath could entertain it against the franchise. 15347. In one of your answers you spoke of witnesses being brought forward to speak to the value of a farm, who were not even acquainted with the metes and bounds of the farm ?—' There were ; and I will give you the name of one witness, a gentleman of figure and rank, Mr. Garret O'Moore, who was a can- didate for the. King's County at the last election; he was proposed as a candi- date and retired without a contest; he was examined as a witness. 15348. And you think a man would necessarily be wholly incompetent to speak as to a farm, and as to its produce, unless he was able to point out all the metes and bounds of the farm ?— Yes; I will state that the first test of the accuracy of the testimony of any individual ought to be his local knowledge, and the way to arrive at that local knowledge is to know from him does he know the extent of the man's holding which he is about to appraise him; and if he does not know the extent of his holding, 01* if, as in the case of Mr. O'Moore, as far as I recollect, he knew the holding itself without speaking of its metes and bounds, then undoubtedly the evidence must be very unsatis- factory. 15349. Chairman7\ You can form no opinion of the value of the land per acre without knowing how many acres that farm is composed of?— Without a doubt; with regard to land, I believe it is well understood that a farm con- sisting of 20 acres may vary considerably in the quality of the land, and conse- quently, to form an accurate judgment of the value of the entire farm, it would be necessary to go over it. 15350. Supposing a man to be fully acquainted with the whole townland, but not aware of the subdivision of it among different people, might not that man be fully capable of giving an opinion of the value of the land per acre ?— I should consider, with regard to an individual holding, he could not give an accurate opinion of the value, as townland may be composed of 1,000 acres and up- wards. 15351. Supposing him to be fully acquainted with the whole 1,000 acres, though he is not acquainted with the subdivision, might he not be fully justified in, and be fully capable of, giving a sound opinion of its value per acre.-—- Clearly not; because one holding, by cultivation, by improvements, or by buildings, may be enhanced in value beyond another holding, and therefore his evidence cannot be of that clear, definite, and accurate description that would influence a judge acting under the obligation of an oath. 15352. Supposing you to possess property adjacent to another property, you being conversant with the value of your own property, and believing it to be similar to that in the neighbourhood, from having seen it, would you not be able to give a sound and accurate opinion of its acreable value, without know 643. 3 H INS