426 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE Richard Daly, Esq. 19 July 1838. . I speak as to the King's County; it is transmitted by him usually, perhaps, through the post- office, to the clerk of the peace ; the claimant's name does not appear in the printed lists for registration ; the affidavit is merely handed up by the clerk of the peace to the assistant barrister without the claimant appearing in court, and the certificate of registry is granted upon the production of the affi- davit, which then remains in the hands of the clerk of the peace. 15501. So that, in point of fact, neither at the time the affidavit is sworn, nor when the affidavit is to be produced before the barrister, for the purpose of obtaining the certificate of registration, does any examination take place of the person ?— None whatever ; nor does it appear to the inhabitants of the county that such a claimant is in existence until the annual list of voters is published by the clerk of the peace, which is published every February under the Reform Act; in my humble judgment that affords a very great opening for fictitious votes. 15502. During your attendance at those registry sessions, did you ever know any of the registering barristers refuse legal evidence of the want of title of the landlord of the person who claimed to register the vote ?— I never knew any such thing to have occurred; in fact, according to my humble opinion, 110 legal evidence was ever tendered. If I may explain the phrase, " legal evidence," I mean, that if they wished to impugn the landlord's title, they did not produce the landlord himself or his agent, nor did they produce documents controverting the landlord's title. 15503. By what species of evidence was it generally sought to impeach the landlord's title ?— By putting the question, " Under whom do you hold ? " 15504. Was it by the cross- examination of the claimant?— Yes. 15505. But in 110 case was any endeavour made to show the landlord had not a title, by the production of the necessary deeds or documents, or by what, in your judgment, was legal evidence, tending to establish a want of title in the landlord ?— None whatever ; nor was there a groundwork laid for even parol evidence of a secondary nature, by the service of the necessary notices. 15506. Did the registering barristers generally, according to your knowledge and recollection, refuse to permit such evidence of want of title in the landlord to be gone into ?— They never refused evidence to be gone into, inasmuch as such evidence was never produced, except by the attempt to cross- examine the claimant. 15507. Did the registering barristers generally refuse to permit the claimant to be cross- examined, in order to show that the landlord had no title ?— Not of his own motion, until an objection was made by me or any person who was acting 011 the same side. 15508. And when the counsel or agent for the party seeking to register objected to the admission of such evidence, the registering barrister has refused to receive it?— When his attention was called to the concluding part of the 16th section of the Reform Act. 15509. He refused to receive such evidence?— Not to receive such evidence, but to admit what is called an illegal cross- examination. 15510. Did Mr. Gibson, according to your recollection, assign any reason for not permitting the party opposing the claimant to inspect the lease or other title- deeds of the claimant ?— As far as I recollect, one of his reasons was the precedent that was established by his predecessors in that county upon the subject. 15511- Do you recollect any other reason assigned by him?— I do not; but if I may be allowed to make this additional remark, he was always ready and willing ( not only Mr. Gibson, but his predecessors) to state every covenant, and every clause, which appeared upon the face of the deed; indeed the majority of leases produced were in the common printed form usually supplied by the stamp offices in Ireland; the majority of the leases. 15512. Am I to understand by that, that those leases did not contain any special covenants, or clauses, which affect the title of the tenant?— The majority of them did not; there were some exceptions, some that contained special clauses, and they were, in cases of that kind, laid open to the opponent of the claimant, and questions were put to Mr. Gibson, " Does such a lease contain such and such covenants ?" And when it did contain any special clauses or covenants, they were laid open and read to the person opposing the claimant ?— They were ; indeed I recollect m I ii '- 1 ' i'l