John F. Fosbcry, Esq. V 280 not S June 1838. M I N U T E S O F E V I D E N C E T A K E N B E F O R E T H E but I investigated them with more particularity in consequence of that assertion, and in consequence of his state of mind. , ,; p i . 12961. Then that statement I read to you is utterly unfounded .'— Certainly,. I remember it perfectly and distinctly. 1206' Chairman! Are we to understand that you rejected any of Mr. M'Evoy's tenants ?— I find, upon referring to the book containing the names and numbers of the freeholders, it does not give the names of the landlords ; it - ives the names of the particular claimants, the names of the townland, parish, Snd barony the denomination and the value of the freeholds, but not the name of the landlord, so that I cannot state whether any individual was Mr. M'Evoy's tenant or not, unless the name of the particular claimant is brought to my notice ; then I can ascertain by the book whether he was admitted or rejected. 10963. Did you send Mr. M'Evoy's tenants into the other court or not; that is to say, did you register them yourself or did you send them into the other court to Mr. Doherty ?— I do not think I did; I can explain that exactly : When Mr. Doherty came down to assist me, some persons were sent into Mr. Doherty's court and some remained in mine. At the close of the sessions, when we had gone through the list three times, we then told them to bring up any claimants they could, and from the new names that were called in my court ( that is, merely the names of the individuals, not alluding to their tenancy, or anything else) six were sent to Mr. Doherty's court and six remained in mine, and as soon as they were disposed of we^ had twelve more brought in. I have 110 recollection of sending Mr. M'Evoy's tenants into the other court, none whatever. 12964. This has been stated by Mr. Patrick Flood, in answer to question 8349 : " Did the registering barrister say that those men had a 10/. interest, but that M'Evoy, in having given them a 10/. interest, must be a madman, and that he would not register them"?— I certainly never said that. 1296.5. This is the answer : " He declared that before the men came up at all; i said his prejudging the case was a great hardship, and he let them go into the other court where their claims would be maintained; he rejected one, and he let the other four go into the other court." In reply to that, what is your statement ?— I have not the slightest recollection of anything of the kind, nor do I believe that there was anything of the kind: I certainly entertained every case of Mr. M'Evoy's tenants that came before me ; but, as I said before, I treated them with a great deal of caution, because they were new leases, and in consequence of the assertion that Mr. M'Evoy had granted new leases at reduced rents for the purpose of giving the elective franchise to the claimants. 12966. Am I to understand that in all cases of recently made leases you looked at them with considerable suspicion ?— Certainly. 12967. And you deemed it your duty to investigate the circumstances of the granting of those leases with more severity than with regard to old leases ?— Yes, with greater particularity. 12968. But you further state that, so far as Mr. M'Evoy was concerned, you treated them in the game way so soon as you same to the conclusion that Mr. M'Evoy was in a proper state of mind to grant those leases ?— Certainly. I think perhaps it would be as well to say here, that I made a decision respect- ing new leases; at that time it was necessary that a person who came to register should have been six months in possession, and there was a doubt as to the legality of that; I had a doubt upon it; I thought if the party had been m possession before the new lease was granted, that was sufficient. Some held it was necessary he should have had six months' possession under the new lease; I held the contrary; I held it was only for the purpose of showing whether the persons were occasional claimants or not. The judges have decided differently, and that made me more particular. That accounts for my particularity 011 the subject. 12969. Mr. Lefroy.~] Objections were made on both sides to the claimants as they came up ?— Yes. 12970. From the sides of the court which were occupied by the different parties, you could of course distinguish between the two parties Yes There- was one counsel employed for the Conservative side and another for the Liberal side; there were counsel the whole way through, except two days, I think. 12971. is it a correct statement of the case that there were very few objections on the Liberal side?- No, I think there were quite as many objec- tions