V ocm MINUTES O F E V I D E N C E T A K E N B E F O R E T HE G. Battersby, Esq. 13947. Do you mean to say the barrister laid down that rule and acted upon ' it, that he did not allow persons opposing the claimant to see leases or mstru- 26 June 1838. m'ents under which they claimed ?— I mean to say the barrister did not, in any instance except this one, and this one appeared to me to be a mistake, allow me to see a lease of the claimant whose claim I opposed, and he refused to do it 13948. Do you mean to say that you applied to him to inspect it, and he refused you the inspection ?— I applied to him, and I argued upon the iinpro- propriety of witholding it in the strongest terms I could decently do. 13949. Nevertheless he held by his rule that you should not inspect them ?— Yes he did. i' 3950. Was that James Gill admitted to register by Mr. Gibson ?— He was. 13951. Was any reason given in answer to your objection?— None that I remember, there was a reason given with respect to the witholding of the lease, and the reason Mr. Gibson gave was this : Mr. Gibson said he had no right to give me the lease ; the lease was the tenant's own; he said, " I will give it to Mr. Daly because Mr. Daly is in favour of the claim, and the claimant wishes me to give it to Mr. Daly, but he does not wish me to give it to you, and therefore I give it to Mr. Daly, and not to you." That was, as well as 1 recollect, the answer of Mr. Gibson; perhaps not in those words, but in substance. 13952. But no reason was given when you objected that this party was not entitled to register, because he was neither the lessee nor the the representative of the lessee, and therefore had no legal interest ?— None that I remember. 13953. Did this arise in several cases, the question as to the inspection of the lease or instrument?— No; when Mr. Gibson once positively refused to permit it I thought it useless to ask him again. 13954. Was it argued when it first arose?— Yes, and very much pressed; as far as I could press it I did, the principle. 13955. You argued the principle, and it being once overruled you no more pressed it?— Yes, I considered it useless and improper to press a judge when he once came to a conclusion upon a point; it is not usual to waste time or his patience by pressing him further upon it. 13256. Have you anything to add with respect to James Gill's case?— No, nothing. 13957- Mr. O'Connell.] Did he make one rule for those you opposed, and another for those you sustained, at that registry; or did the same rule apply to both ?— To both, certainly ; I do not think Mr. Daly ever asked to see the leases of my claimants; according to my recollection he applied it to both: I am sure he did. I may give this one answer to all questions of that description: that Mr. Gibson never applied one rule to my claimants and another to Mr. Daly's ; he acted in every instance by the same rule. 13958. Whether he was right or wrong, he distributed the same measure of law if not of justice, to both parties ?— Undoubtedly; he never made the slightest difference in that respect or any other. 13959. Between the popular voters or the Conservative voters?— Never; perhaps it is right to add this 1 think, however, it is better merely to answer the questions. 13960. Do you attend the Westmeath registry ?— Yes, I do, regularly. 13961. Who is the assistant barrister there?— Mr. Ellis. 13962. The gentleman who was assistant barrister in Mayo?— Yes. 13963. Does he allow the opposite party to the claimant to see the leases? — Always. 13964. Have you ever known any other assistant barrister adopt Mr. Gibson's rule ?— Never ; I heard a barrister say that he had adopted it, but I should not mention his name, because it was in private conversation, I did hear him say he adopted it: he said he took the lease and read it at length in open court. 13965. Read it aloud ?— Yes, he was speaking of the same principle. 13966. He did not wish to give it for more minute investigation ?— He did not wish to do so, in which I expressed to him that I thought lie was wrong. 13967. Do you remember whether Mr. Dwyer, in his examination in Derrivan's case, upon the cross- examination, or upon the direct, admitted that he was not acquainted with the boundaries of Derrivan's farm ?— I think Mr. Dwyer stated that the exact boundary he could not inspect, inasmuch as it was so deeply covered