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 Kellv Esq case an assignment had been executed." Grady had, in truth, assigned his interest, and having no lease to assign, he had made this lease to this party for June 1838. the mere purpose of shutting out the necessity of assigning what he had. It is consistent with the facts stated by him. That is one of the cases which I think would go to show the ill effect which would result from the non- production of the necessary deeds in evidence; it shows the facility which is given to the parties of transferring interests which they have not, in point of fact. 14570. On the part of the Conservatives, was an objection distinctly made, that the person tendering to register derived that title by lease from a person that had no title to make a lease ?— Yes, who at least consistently with the facts appearing upon the evidence, might have had no title, and the applicant was admitted. But I think there were stronger cases than that; there is the case of Stephen Meagher; he was registered at the sessions of April 1837; he claimed as a 10/. freeholder. This is a case where Mr. Julian attempted to cross- examine as to value, and was refused : " Is six months in possession ; swears that he has a beneficial interest out of the premises. The instrument which he pro- duced was on a 1 I. stamp, dated the 16th of February 183G, for a term of years and a life. The consideration stated in the deed was 90 /. Mr. Julian attempted to cross- examine the applicant as to the power of his grantor to make a convey- ance of this nature, but was stopped by the assistant barrister, who would not allow the title of the landlord to be questioned." This man was objected to in another point of view also, upon the head of admitting assignments as evidence. Veneris, 6° die Julii, 1838. MEMBERS PRESENT. Mr. Curry. Mr. Lefroy. Mr. Litton. Mr. O'Connell. Lord Granville Somerset. LORD GRANVILLE SOMERSET, IN THE CHAIR. Edmund Meares Kelly, Esq. called in ; and further Examined. E. M. Kelly, Esq. 14571- Mr. Litton.'] IN reference to question 14536 and your answer, will —. you be so good as to state what was the judgment of the assistant barrister, as 6 July 1838. far as you recollect, in what language, and at all events, what principles he put forward with reference to that question ?— After the conclusion of the argument, the assistant barrister said, " The Reform Bill recites that it is expedient to extend the elective franchise, and it was passed with that object; I am, there- fore, bound to give it the most liberal interpretation, and wherever I see a man having a fair claim, I will not be prevented from registering him by mere points of form. The claimant has let part of his farm at a considerable profit; I think he may add the profit derived from that to the value of the part he occupies, to make up the required interest." There were then some witnesses examined against the claim; I think it is right to give the whole of the case: John Dwyer, Esq., justice of the peace, was examined against the claim by Mr. Battersby; he said, " He knew Derivan's farm well; that he is himself a good judge of the value of land, and understands the management of it; that he is experienced in matters of that nature ; that it is impossible any man paying the rent the applicant does could have an interest of 10Z. a year, or even a profit to that amount, out of it; it is quite a marshy ground." On cross- examination by Mr. Daly, this witness said, " that he had land of his own; he is sure he had ; did not take it of anybody; happens to have 1,400 acres of land of his own." 14572. Was that fee- simple land?— Yes. " Did not see Derivan's meadow lately, because it is covered with water, and would run the risk of being drowned if he had gone upon it. Heard that the English water their lands, but not to such a degree as to perish the herbage, like Derivan." John Delany, a farmer, was then examined against the claim by Mr. Battersby: " Knows Derivan's