IS MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN I5EFORE THE ly February 1838. Mr. John .3,3- On looting at this affidavit do you see that he had made his affidavit for T^/ Vo^ u0^ tLf aTothTr w^ d was inserted there, which now appears 1 f Yes 3 that? Because there was an erasure made there at the tune. ] oo7 Mr. Beamish.-] At what time ?- At the registry of 1832 328 Then when this affidavit was produced in .832, was there hat erasure appearing upon the face of it ?- No; the erasure was made at the registry of 1832. 1320 By whom?— By Mr. Gahan. . 1330! Chairman.] Was that the cause of your making that mark at the bottom ? vcs JOQ'I. Mr. Serjeant Jackson.] Did you require Mr. Gahan 111 consequence of you. observing that, to put his initials to it ?- I did, because I would not permit any person, except one of the registering barristers, to make an alteration. 1002 Did YOU know that it was not competent to any person to alter an affi- davit alter the man had sworn it ?— I conceive so; but it was at the first registry, and when he re- registered again I could not refuse Mr. Gahan to do it, tor he got the affidavit and did it. 1333. Did he get the affidavit?— He had the affidavit before him. 1334. A party having made an affidavit in 1830, and being registered upon it, are you not aware that it was not within the power of any person to alter that affi- davit so sworn at a subsequent period ?— Certainly. 1335. Must not the effect of that be to make a man appear to swear what he did not swear ?— It is very like it. 1336. Did you then feel that something had been done with the record in your custody, which you considered yourself responsible for?— Yes; at the time this was done, 1 was going round the different booths, and I afterwards heard of it. 1337. What did you hear?— I heard that Mr. Gahan had made some alteration, or done something with an affidavit, and in consequence I applied to Mr. Gahan, and I made him initial that. 1338. When you heard he had made this alteration, did you go into his booth ? — I am not sure whether it was the next morning or that day on which I spoke to him upon the subject; but I know that in consequence of my application to him I made him initial that on the 2d of November 1832, and that he came to my house to do it. 1339. D'd you ask him whether, in fact, he had made that alteration?—! did; I said, " Mr. Gahan, there is an alteration made by you in one of the affidavits," or words to that effect, and I said, " put your initials there, if you please," and he did so. 1340. Chairman.] Did he state that he had re- sworn the man, after making this alteration ?— No. 1341. Mr. Beamish.] Do you know whether he did or not?— I do not know. 1342. He might have re- sworn the man after making the alteration, for any- thing you know ?— He might. 1343. Mr. Lefroij.] Had he any authority to do so?— I do not conceive he had. 1344- Mr. Beamish.] Did he state any reason for making the alteration ?— No. 1345- Chairman.] What alteration appears to be made upon the 2d of November PX? , d° I? 0t STay that the erasure was UP011 that daY; hut it was uoon the 2d ot November that I made him initial it for my satisfaction. October 1 ^ V- I^ doeT^^ 0^ ° f reg'Stry ° f the Same man bear date tlie 23d of nffirlW? CaSy0T aCCmmt f° r Mr> ° ahan havinS made this iteration in the old 1 account for it; when 4o,. freeholders came to be re- nl to he 1 t et° mi Act' thG1. r affidavitS were P^ ced, and then, accord- ing to he new Act, they were re- registered, and that circumstance the barrister generally marked on the back of the old affidavit barnstei affidatk^ VNokianPCvn'rn ^ V ™ 1? ™ *, for barrister to alter the original see M ' Gahan LZ I ^ dT ^ in that '"^ nee. I did° not 1350- What