353 M I N U T E S OF E V I D E N C E T A K E N BEFORE T I IE M Kelly Esq. expression is this, that, in order to constitute his right to vote, he should not be ' bound to go into proof of his landlord's title; but I do not think that prevents 6 July 1838. the cross- examination of the applicant, to ascertain whether his landlord has such a title or not. 14625. tl° you think it is legal evidence to show the landlord has 110 title, to take the parol evidence of the applicant upon cross- examination?— It may not be always legal evidence, but it is often the best evidence that can be obtained under the circumstances. 14626. Does that make it legal evidence?— I should say not strictly so. 14627. Is not this the fair and true construction of those words in that section of the Act, that if you seek to impeach the landlord's title you must do it by legal evidence, and do it on the part of the person opposing the claim to regis- ter r— I should think the fair construction of the words in the statute is, that if any evidence of want of title is given it must be legal evidence. 14628. Then I ask you again, do you consider the cross- examination of the applicant, his giving parol evidence in that way, legal evidence of the title or want of title of the landlord?— I think it might be made legal evidence in this way, if the applicant stated his landlord, at the time of executing the lease, told him he had no title whatever to the premises, I think that would be clearly legal evidence. 14629. Clearly legal evidence! the evidence of a man as to the declaration of a third person, which third person was not a party to the cause, or in any way interested in it?— I think it would be very strong evidence. 14630. Do you mean to say it would be legal evidence?— I think it would be legal evidence, as at present advised ; it would be an admission on the part of the landlord that he had 110 title. 14631. Supposing it were an admission on the part of the landlord that he had no title, would that make it legal evidence as against a person who is no party, or not interested in the question, as between the landlord and the applicant, The tenant?— I should be very strongly inclined to resist such a claim. 14632. You stated before, and stated correctly, that the mere recital of a deed or other document is no evidence against third persons ; how do you distinguish the present case from that answer you gave before? — It is because the other is mere secondary evidence of a legal document; but here no legal document is existing at all; 011 the contrary, by the party's admission there is 110 such thing. 14633. No legal document existing at all?— So the party states ; he states his landlord has 110 title. 14634. Does it follow from that there is no legal document evidencing the title or want of title in the landlord?— It is the only evidence that can be had of it. 14635. And being the only evidence that can be had of it, does that, in your opinion, make it legal evidence ?— I should say if the party came forward him- self and said his grantor had told him, when executing the lease, he had no right to make a lease, and he made it for the purpose of enabling him to vote, I should have no hesitation in rejecting that applicant upon the evidence. It is the only evidence that could be had under the circumstances. 14636. Could not the person who made that lease be required to attend and produce the necessary documents showing his title for the purpose of legally proving to the court whether he had a title or not?— If it w^ ere known before- hand who is the lessor such evidence could be produced, but as it is not known it could not be produced. H637-, Then you think the circumstance of the lessor not being known before- hand justifies the reception of that evidence for the purpose of impeaching the title of the applicant ?— I think it does; I should say so, as at present advised. 14638. But at the same time, you do not think it justifies the admission of the evidence of the recital in one deed of another in favour of the applicant ?— Not without resorting to the steps necessary to make it such. 14639. W hat steps should you resort to ?— Showing he had used the necessary exertions to procure the original document, if it were out of the way; if the document were lost, showing it was lost, in point of fact, and that he had taken the usual steps which are taken to let in secondary evidence of any deed. 14640. And that, in your opinion, would make it legal evidence against third persons?— I should say so, certainly; upon those steps being taken for the pur- pose of registry. 14641. You