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 .36, ' SLS 14641. You say " for the purpose of registry," do you think a more lax rule E of evidence should be applied or admitted in cases of registry than in other cases ?— I should say that the parties ought not to be held to exactly the same strict evidence ; but I was just going to mention, that even as between party and party in a court of justice, if any document be lost, and it is proved, secondary evidence of that document is admitted after proof of the usual search. 14642. You have referred to the case of Stephen Meagher; do you produce that as a case upon which the registering barrister refused to receive evidence impeaching the title of Meagher's landlord ?— Certainly ; he stopped the cross- examination of the applicant. 14643. And you consider his stopping the cross- examination of the applicant as a proof of his refusing to receive evidence impeaching the title of the land- lord of that applicant ?— Certainly ; I think it was open to the opposino- party to avail himself of the evidence of the applicant upon cross- examination as much as the evidence which lie himself might think proper to produce for that purpose. 14644. Have you ever known, in the course of vour experience, where the applicant produces an original lease as evidence of his title, have you ever known it necessary for him to produce the subscribing witness as evidence of the execution of that lease ?— Never in the registry courts. 14645. Is not that a departure from the strict rule of legal evidence? Precisely ; and that is the reason I said a more lax rule ought to be adopted. That is one of the instances in which it is. 14646. In point of fact, the deed under which Meagher claimed was an assignment ?— The deed he produced was an assignment. 14647. Did that assignment say nothing of the interest which the deed pur ported to assign ?— It stated it was for a term of years and a life. 14648. Did it recite the original instrument of which it purported to be an assignment?— It did not; that was the objection to it. 14649. But it assigned all the interest of the grantor in the lands mentioned in the deed for a life and a term of years, which the assignment specified ?— The defect in it, as stated upon the face of the case, was that it did not state whether it was by lease, or how otherwise the grantor held the land, simply stating he had such an interest for 21 years and a life. 14650. How long had Meagher been in possession of the lands under which he sought to register ?— In the first part of his evidence he stated he was six months in possession; the only question put to him to support the claim with respect to the period of his possession was, " You are six months in possession of the premises?" " I am." No further question was put. I did not say he was not more. 14651. It does not follow from that answer that he was not more?— It does not; he may have been 20 years in possession, or 50 years; that did not come out upon the evidence. 14652. Did it appear that Meagher had paid rent to any person for the farm for which he sought to register ?— No, it did not. 14653. Did the deed of assignment state the lands so assigned were to be subject to any rent ?— That does not appear. 14654. Chairman.'] Was any proof of the perception of rent given?— No proof whatever. 14655. That is part of the provision of that clause in the Act?— Yes, that it shall be considered prima facie evidence of title, but there was no evidence of that nature in his case. 14656. Mr. Curry.] Are your notes so accurate, according to your recollection, that you could not have omitted the fact if it had appeared in the evidence ?— I certainly should not have omitted the fact of the proof of payment of rent if it had been given in evidence. . 14657. Now, with respect to those decisions which you have mentioned as objectionable on the part of Mr. Gibson, viz. that class of cases m which he decided it was not necessary the applicant should be in the actual occupation ot the premises to the extent of 10 a year, does either the Reform Act or the affidavit mentioned in the schedule require that the applicant should swear he is in possession of premises to that extent ?— It requires he should swear he is 111 the actual occupation thereof." r 0 ^ 643. 3 b 4 ^ 58. That