if 4o 8 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE Richard Daly, Esq. ing how many acres your neighbour held ?— You might in England, but I think not jn Ireland. There is a uniformity of cultivation and improvement in 17 July 1838. England which might lead you to form an inference from what you know as to what you do not know, but it is not so in Ireland. 153 53. Then in Ireland there are 110 general principles upon which a valuator can fix the value of land ?— There is this general principle, that before a man values land he ought to see the land, and then he may know the value of it. I should think, and I have been told so with regard to the productive capa- bilities of land, a mere view of the surface is not always an accurate criterion, because land may be more productive when tilled and brought into a state of cultivation, from what you may be led to suppose it is from a mere view of its surface. 15354. Do you mean to say a man who is a judge of land cannot form an opinion of the acreable value of land, without knowing the precise subdivisions of the property ?— With regard to a whole townland, he may not be able to form an accurate opinion; with regard to his own tenancy he may, because, in fact, with regard to his own tenancy, that is a matter reducible to particulars; but with regard to a townland where perhaps very little of that townland is in his own occupation, and his knowledge of it is founded upon his sporting over it during the winter season, I consider that is not an accurate standard of the value of it in a court of justice. 15355. What was the evidence Mr. O'Moore gave on that occasion ?— I must state that I did not take a note of it; I only speak from general recollection. 15356. Did he or not pretend to say that he knew the exact boundaries of Derivan's farm ?— As far as I recollect, upon cross- examination, he admitted that he did not know the boundaries. 15357. Did he not state he had property adjoining that of Derivan in the A-, same townland, and his evidence was founded upon his knowledge of what he got for his own land, and his knowledge, as far as looking at it goes, of Derivan's farm ?— His opinion was founded on his general knowledge of the townland; and upon cross- examination he stated, when asked as to the grounds of his general knowledge, that he sported over the townland, and he had land of his own forming part of that townland. 15358. Did he not state that his land adjoined Derivan's farm?— I do not recollect that; he may have stated so, but I do not recollect that he did. 15359. Mr. Hogg.] Did he not swear that he knew the whole of the town- land ?— Yes, he did, beyond all doubt. 15360. Did he not swear that he held one- half of it in fee himself?— I can- not swear that; he swore he held part of it. 15361. And though he could not mention each separate field held by Derivan, he knew the farm was on the boundary of his own estate, and he knew the land well ?— As far as I recollect, he stated he had no knowledge of the identical farm; consequently, having no knowledge of it, any statement he made with respect to Derivan's farm must have been founded upon hearsay, and in a court { dk of justice hearsay evidence, even when given in opposition to a 10/. claimant, J>; in my humble opinion ought not to be admitted. 15362- You call it hearsay evidence when a gentleman states he knows the j'ifc townland of his own knowledge ; he knows the farm belonging to the individual, Uu: as it bounds his own estate ; he knows the nature of the land, and is competent /:•.-;} to state what it will produce?— As far as I recollect, he did not state that he 1 knew Derivan's farm. 15363- Not field by field, but that he knew its localities, and he spoke of it bounding his own estate ?— As far as the mere description goes, it may be bounded by a thousand acres. 15364- Were you present at his examination?— Yes. 15365. And you state that the examination of Mr. O'Moore was an instance M of absurd or extravagant evidence produced to oppose the claim?— I should iiK not employ that term with reference to him, but I say it was a case of vague rr:, and unsatisfactory evidence, so vague and unsatisfactory that a judge sitting in 1 a court of justice under the obligation of an oath ought not to entertain it. 15366. I used the word extravagant, because in your answer you conveyed fyj- j that idea to my mind ; you said, " Even witnesses were examined who could not n|{ define ME Kil