S E L E C T C O M M I T T E E O N F I C T I T I O U S V O T E S , I R E L A N D , 363 4 . V V / 29 June 1838. 14484. He was not asked if he had paid any lease money ?— He was not. It • E. M. Kelly, Esq appeared that there was only one lease executed for the convenience of the —- tenant himself. 14485. Mr. Serjeant Jackson.] Generally speaking-, the course of business in Ireland is, that the tenant pays the expense of the lease ; and if he chooses he has a right to employ his own agent to prepare the lease and counterpart ?— Certainly. 14486. Then if the tenant chooses to relieve himself from the expense of the two parts, as he employs his own attorney, of course lie would not give the attorney 111 that case more than the price of one stamp, and the price of engross- ing one part ?— I should think not. 14487. Mr. F. French.] If he paid generally under the head of lease money, do you think he would make a distinction of that kind ?— If he paid generally under the head of lease money, I should think not; but I do not think any such practice prevails of paying generally a sum of money for lease money. 14488. Mr. Serjeant Jackson| What do you mean by lease money?— Money for the expense of leases. 14489. Have yon not heard that in some instances the agents do require a bonus for themselves ?— I have stated before that I have no doubt a practice prevails of that description ; but I do not think it is ever mixed up with what is called lease money. 14490. You would condemn the practice of taking a bonus, as not being a thing quite consistent with fair dealing on the part of the agent towards his employer ?— I should. 14491. Because the tenant must get some consideration for that bonus; and that must either consist in an undue preference to the particular tenant that pays the bonus, or else it must involve some sacrifice of the landlord's interest by giving the lease at an under value ?— Precisely. 14492. So that it must necessarily be a violation of duty to the landlord, and that would not be honest dealing in your judgment ?— I should think not. 14493. Mr. Litton.] Have you any other instance of this description?— There is one more, it is the case of Kiran Egan; he was registered at the sessions of October 1837. This applicant also produced an instrument which was illegible; neither stamp nor date was discernible; and so little information could be obtained from the instrument itself, that it was absolutely necessary to resort to the applicant's own evidence as to its contents. His lease, upon his own state- ment, was for one life, 01* 21 years, demising 10 acres 8 J perches of the lands of Straduff, at 23 s. an acre. He stated that he was 18 years in possession. Upon his cross- examination by Mr. Julian, he stated that he had the 10 acres in his own possession ; that he and his partner ( it only then turned out upon his cross- examination that he had a partner at all) held under Mr. Horne formerly, and now under a Mr. Adams; that he has a partner; cannot tell the date of their lease ; thinks it was about 12 or 13 years ago. ( This is material, because it was before the statute of 1823 the evidence appeared to have been drawn from him with regard to the joint tenantcy.) Mr. Julian, on behalf of the Conservatives, urged that it was important in this case that an uneffaced instrument should be produced, as it was highly probable, that if produced, the applicant coulcl not be registered, being a joint tenant since the year 1823. This, I think, is the most material case of them all, as showing the prejudicial effect of the principle upon which Mr. Gibson acted. Mr. Gibson said to Mr. Julian, " Do you want me to assume that his lease is not of prior date ? it having been urged that he was a joint tenant since 1823, and his lease having been made 12 or 13 years ago." Mr. Julian, in answer, said, " No ; the applicant has sworn that it was made about 12 or 13 years ago." Mr. Gibson then said, " The applicant cannot swear to the exact date ; the fair presumption, under the circumstances, is, that it was executed before the Joint Tenants Act; and the objection was overruled. 14494. Mr. Serjeant Jackson.] Would not the lease speak for itself when it was produced ?— It was illegible as far as its date, and its stamp, and most of its material parts. This was one of the instances to which I would have pointed as showing that a fraudulent case in all probability existed ; that the man might have actually damaged the instrument, to shut out the possibility of reading the lease for the verv purpose. . fT 643. 3A 2 14495- Was