353 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 I IE E. M. Kelly, Esq. 2y June 1838. 14495. Was that man registered ?— He was registered. 14406. In that case, with reference to the Act of 1823, accuracy as to the date was of great importance r— It certainly was. 14497. according to your statement it appears, that though the man in his parol evidence stated the time to be such that it must have been executed in 1824, nevertheless Mr. Gibson did register him upon that imperfect docu- ment?— The man did not state positively the date, he said about 12 or 13 years ago. . 14498. But if his evidence, as to the date, was of any value, it negatived the propriety of his claim ?— Certainly; the tenant did not purport to state accurately any date. 14499. Was any application made on behalf of Mr. Julian to adjourn the consideration of this case ?— There was no application made to adjourn the case i 4500. Nor any suggestion thrown out of that sort ?— No. 14501. But Mr. Gibson positively registered the man upon that evidence?— He did. 14502. Did Mr. Gibson, in that case, permit the lease to be looked at by the opposing party ?— He never did, in any instance. 14503. Then he it was, in this instance, who acquainted the opponents of the claim with the deficiencies of the lease ?— Yes; he stated that lie could not read it himself, and he threw it down to the agent of that party. 14504. Supposing the revising barrister were actuated by improper motives in his conduct, would it be possible to detect the impropriety of his conduct if he takes a document of that sort into his possession, and allows no inspection of it?— In many instances it would be extremely difficult; the only way in which it could be detected would be by the production of the counterpart, if the landlord was adverse to the party seeking to register ; but if the landlord were not adverse, I see 110 possibility of discovering the fraud. 14505. But whether the landlord was adverse to the claimant or not, sup- posing he was not previously aware of what was taking place, and therefore the counterpart was not produced, would not the claimant, being once put upon the register, remain there till he was removed by the process of an Election Com- mittee?— Certainly, till he was removed by some means or other. 14506. Mr. F. French. If the barrister were party to the fraud could he not put a man not having 1 o d. instead of 10/. upon the register, and he must remain there till taken off?— I should say not. 14507. Chairman.] In the case of a revising barrister taking into his own hands a deed, and deciding upon the validity of the deed, without permitting its general inspection, there is no check upon any fraudulent or improper determi- nation, at the time?— No check whatever, at the time ; except it might happen that the landlord had his document there; but it is most improbable that such a check would exist. 14508. And if the landlord, and the claimant, and the barrister, have all the same view of the case, and do not wish it to be investigated, you never have any means of detection?— Never. 14509. With regard to wrong decisions in respect of value, or with regard to wrong decisions where the general facts of the case must be apparent to the public, you have the means of animadverting in public upon them ; but in this case you have 110 opportunity of public animadversion, because you do not know the facts of the case ?— Generally there is no check whatever ; but I think it extremely improbable that any fraudulent intention would exist on the part of the persons who are generally appointed to those situations. 14510. Mr. French.] Might not great inconvenience result to a party claiming to register, not at all connected with the claim he had before the court, from handing his lease into the hands of the opposing party ?— I do not apprehend that any inconvenience could result. 1451 1. Do not you think that the lease being looked at by the opposing party, there might be flaws of some kind discovered, or penalties in the lease; and where he should be registering for the adverse party, and frequently registering against the inclination of his landlord, do not you think the legal eagle eyes of gentlemen looking out for things of that kind might involve him in vexatious lawsuits?— It might; but nothing more than the laying of the document, by the landlord, before counsel might produce. The same inconvenience would result from