V 320 M I N U T E S OF E V I D E N C E T A K E N B E F O R E THE G Battersby Esq 14069. Did it appear he had not been six months in possession under the " ' instrument upon which he claimed ?— It did. c6 June 1838. 14070. Was any reason given for admitting him to register ?— Not that I remember. ..... . . . 14071. Are there any other facts connected with this case which you desire to state ?— None, that I remember. 14072. Mr. O'Connell The case, if I understand it right, is just this : the lease had been executed within six months before the registry ; that was so ?— That was so. 14073. And was it dated within the six months, do you recollect, or ante- dated r— I think it was in his case that the lease had been antedated ; but the witness upon the table stated that although antedated, the lease had been executed but a few days before the sessions. 14074. Did he not swear that he was in possession under an agreement which was carried into effect legally by that lease ?— Not to my recollection ; I am pretty sure he did not. 14075. You do not mean to pledge yourself that he did so state and swear? — I do not mean to pledge myself positively ; but as far as I can trust to my recollection I am sure of it; neither he nor the next succeeding man held under any lease executed six months before his possession, or any agreement for a lease, or any equitable agreement, in pursuance of which he was entitled to have that lease. 14076. Have you any doubt he was in possession more than six months?— I believe he was. 14077. Under some contract ?— Not a written contract. 14078. A verbal contract?— No; I am pretty sure he was in possession as a tenant from year to year, and without any other agreement. 14079. That would be a contract ?— Yes, as a tenant from year to year ; but when I speak of contracts I mean a contract under or for a lease. 14080. Do you recollect who was Murray's landlord?— I do not; I have got upon my note- book two names, this Thomas Murray, and a man named Mackins; and, I think, Mackins was tenant to Mr. Fitzsimon, the Member for King's County, and possibly Murray was ; but I do not recollect it. 14081. Do you recollect what part of the county it was ; in what barony ?— No, I have no recollection in what part of the country these persons live, be- cause there was no inquiry as to their land. 14082. Have you no note as to the parish or barony, or the name of the land that Murray occupied ?— None whatever. 14083. And your recollection does not enable you to supply me with any of these particulars ?— It does not. 14084. The only two facts to which you pledge yourself beyond a doubt are, that the man was in possession more than six months, and that his lease was not six months executed ?— I do not pledge myself positively to his having been in possession more than six months ; but I do to his lease not being executed six months before he came forward. 14085. Could this have happened, that Murray declared that he had suc- seeded his father in the possession of that land ?— It might have happened. 14086. Of course, at that time you had not the least idea you would ever be examined as a witness ?— Not the smallest. 14087. And therefore did not turn your mind to it with that accuracy which you would do if you thought thereafter you would have to give testimony ?— Certainly not. There were some facts which struck me as " being out of the common, and those I did attend to ; but as to those minute matters I am wholly unable to speak ; but I believe you can have all that ascertained from another witness. 14088. Mr. Serjeant Jackson.'] You mentioned the name of another person called Mackins; was it James Mackins ?— Yes. 14089. You mentioned him as a tenant of Mr. Fitzsimon?— That is my recollection. 14090. What quantity of land did he appear to have held?— Eight acres, at 0/. 9 s.; this man was in possession from the death of his father. 14091. What other facts appeared in relation to Mackins ?— He stated that his father and other persons had held under one lease (" as partners," I think was the term he used), and he stated that that lease was still in the possession of