SELECT COMMITTEE ON FICTITIOUS VOTES, IRELAND. rt> / R 159 Mr. D. Meagher. 3635. Are you aware whether anv appeals were madp tn th* 1 • account of the value after the supplemen^ y Xln in the° p If SU H£ . merely put a root upon their house, or put some additional repairs, and thev con- ceivecthat they ought not to come under the supplementarv valuation 7 . J^ tn r ™ ^ In th0secases of appeals which you yourself supported as an appel ant you in no instance impugned the valuation of the houses ?_ In no instance that I recollect. 3637. In no instance did you state to the grand jury on behalf of the appellant that his house being valued at .5 L, and as such brought within the limits of ratina was not in fact of the value of 5 L ?- Upon the statement of the parties I misfi have done so, but I do not think I did. There might have been some instances where parties found a deterioration in their property, and that they could alter the value 111 the books. 3638. Then the Committee are to understand that the point of value was never the matter of appeal before the grand jury ?— Never to my knowledge. There might have been such cases, but not within my knowledge. I never appealed except upon the ground of the poverty of the parties, seeing that their neighbours at a higher rate had got their taxes off. 3639. Mr. Serjeant Jackson?] Did you attend throughout before the grand jury that assembled after the supplementary valuation of 1833 ?— Not generally. I appealed to the grand jury upon my own account. They valued me at 100/. a year, which I thought much too high. 3640. Have you any doubt, with reference to that particular grand jury, that they had many appeals before them on the ground of value?— I think they had a good many. 3641. Of course those appeals would have been before that grand jury, because it immediately followed after the valuation ?— Exactly so. 3642. Therefore everybody who felt himself aggrieved by the valuation would appeal to that grand jury ?— There was an intimation given to that effect, and many did appeal upon that. 3643. Do you recollect having been present at any investigations of that class of 7— No; for there was no one admitted but the immediate party applying. cases Every party that had a claim came and stated his claim to the grand jury, and they disposed of it as they thought proper. 3644. Of course you mean, that, as grand jurors, they would dispose of it as they saw was just and right, acting upon their oaths?— Certainly. 3645. You would consider it a dereliction of duty upon the part of any gentle- man serving as a grand juror, if he were to let the party off without being satis- lied that the case was made out; that is to say, in the case of an appeal upon the ground of poverty, without being satisfied that the case is true ?— Yes. 3646. And on the other hand, when the appeal is upon the ground of the value being too high, gentlemen serving upon their oaths would be bound to satisfy them- selves that the value was too high before they excused the party ?— Certainly. 3647. You have no doubt, therefore, that, in every case where the party was excused upon the ground of over- value, the grand jury were satisfied upon the evidence that the value was too high?— I think they were. 3648. Chairman.] Have vou seen the list that has been delivered in by Mr. James Lane, of persons registered as 10 /. householders in the city of Cork, who were valued in the supplementary valuation of 1833, and upon appeal struck out and not charged ?— I have. , , . . , 3649. Does not it state that the total of persons valued in the supplementary valuation, but on appeal struck off', is 55 ?— I believe it does. . 3650. What observation have you to make upon this statement, with reference to the statement which you have just made to the Committee ?- Any name that I have in this book may have been struck off tor rates, although they may pay a rent of 10/. There are many such. 3651. With reference to your statement, that the instances are M very rare of persons appealing against the valuation and being struck oft on account of their valuation not being supported to the satisfaction of the grand jury. how do^ you reconcile that statement with this statement of Mr. Unc ?- Because Mr : Lane had access to the grand jury ; there were numbers of people that appealed, numbers of decisions, that I knew nothing of. 3652. Then you do not mean to say that there weie no appeals agams^ tne x 4 til J • i ! I M I EH !