it - I cannot S E L E C T C O M M I T T E E ON F I C T I T I O U S VOTES, IRELAND. ; 537C *> f one of those partners, uncancelled and unsurrendered; and he stated that he had got a lease that morning for the convenience of registering 14092. From whom did he say he had got that lease ?— From the landlord 14093. Under whom the lease to his father and partners had been executed3 — Yes; or the lease of one or the other. 14094. Do you mean to say, the lease under which he came forward to register had been executed that morning ?— Yes ; I do not mean to sav it was dated that morning, but he stated it had been executed that morning? for the convenience of registering. 14095. Mr. O'Connell] He told the truth?— Yes; I did not question at all. 1 14096. Mr. Serjeant Jackson.] How many partners were there? say; there were a good many, but I cannot say. 14097. And the old lease remains in force?— It did, according to my under- standing of the law. 14098. But no fact appeared that led you to'conclude there had been any surrender ?— On the contrary, it appeared there had not. 14099. Did it appear from his evidence that the parties still continued in possession ?— It appeared in his evidence that one of them at least then held under the original lease, and was then in possession. 14100. When you say " then held," you mean at the time he was giving that evidence ?— I do. 14101. And did he state distinctly that the lease was executed that morning for the purpose of enabling him to register ?—" For the convenience of regis- tering" were the words he used, according to the best of my recollection. 14102. The lease that he produced then, he said had been executed that morning, and was only of a portion of the land ?— It was of a portion of the land, and upon the rent and for the time that his father held his portion of the original grant. 14103. Did it appear then that the original lessees had divided among them- selves the farm, so many acres to each ?— They had; his father held this par- ticular farm. 14104. They had made a partition among themselves, each retaining a certain portion of it, subject to a certain portion of the rent ?— Yes. 14105. And that was the lease of the portion his father had under the par- tition which was made ?— Yes. 14106. Mr. O'Connell.] The father was one of the joint lessees?— He was either joint or in common. 14107. And then an actual severance, though not by deed, took place as far as the father was concerned, and he got his eight acres in severalty ?— He had a several holding. 14108. And a several payment of rent?— I do not think that appeared, but they agreed among themselves, and did ascertain what the proportion of the rent was, and whatever the father's proportion was that man took a new lease at. 14109. Then in point of fact the son had continued to hold the land his father liad in severalty, from the death of the father to the time of the registry ? — He had. 14110. And that was more than a year, probably three or four?— It is very probable it was. 14111. It was certainly more than six months ?— I have not the least doubt it was. 14112. And then, to clothe that several possession with a particular title, a lease was made to him the morning of the registry ?— Yes; but I do not think it did clothe him with a title. 14113. Do you recollect whether the other tenants were not parties to the lease ? No, certainly not. 14114. Mr. Serjeant Jackson.] When you say they were not, do you mean to confine it to your recollection, or do you state the fact?— I mean to state it as a fact, the lease was a simple demise from the landlord to the tenant, without the third party being a party to the deed. 14115. Mr. O'Connell.] I know you are incapable of wilfully misrepresenting any fact; not having seen the lease, are you able to pledge yourself that the tenants were not parties to it ?— I answer each question as if I were upon my 643. xx 3 G. Battersby, Esq. 76 June 1838. oath