S E L E C T C O M M I T T E E ON F I C T I T I O U S V O T E S , I R E L A N D . 36, ' SLS of perusing it and making out the best case they could for the applicant; I had John Julian, Esq. no opportunity of looking into it, but the man was rejected, it being considered he was guilty of a fraud. 0 uJulyj838. 14826. But the assistant barrister was about to pass that man till you called his attention particularly to that alteration ?— Yes, he was, and no objection was about to be raised to him upon the erasure in the lease. 14827 Then there may have been, in many other cases, similar alterations of a fraudulent character, which, from the practice pursued by the assistant barrister, you had no opportunity of calling his attention tor— There may have been. J 14828. Mr. O'Connell.] There mayor may not?— There may or may not • but in all cases it was a disadvantage, for it would have been an advantage to have had an opportunity of cross- examining the applicant from his lease. 14829. Mr. Hogg.] Can you state, from your own knowledge, or general information upon the subject, the practice of the other barristers, whether it has or has not been the practice to allow the opposing party to see the leases ?— I believe the general practice is to let them see the leases, but I believe, in other instances, that practice is not adhered to. 14830. But the prevailing practice is to let the leases be seen? Yes. 14831. Mr. O'Connell.] Did you ever practise before any other revising bar rister ?— Yes, I did. 14832. In what county?— In King's County and Tipperary. 14833. Who was the revising barrister then?— Mr. Howley. 14834. He was the revising barrister of Tipperary?— Yes. 14835. What was his practice ?— Not to allow them to be seen; but I have understood he has departed from that practice. 14836. You do not know that of your own knowledge ?— Yes, I think I saw him adopt another practice, but I do not pledge myself to it. 14837. But you can pledge yourself to it in the King's County, his practice was what Mr. Gibson's was ?— Yes. 14838. Mr. Gibson succeeded him in that county?— Yes; not immediately succeeded him ; Mr. Lisle was the intermediate. 14839. He is the deputy- remembrancer?— Yes. 14840. Do you know what was his practice ?— No ; I do not think there was any registry during his time ; he was there but one quarter session. 14841: Mr. Lefroy.] Have you any reason for forming an opinion whether, in consequence of this practice, any fictitious votes or fraudulent votes were admitted to registration ?— I think it is a practice calculated to put fraudulent votes upon the register; and several instances have occurred wherein upon reading the rent in the lease, and the term, there were references to covenants, in which instances 011 hearing those references to the covenants, I requested the assistant barrister to refer to them. The references I allude to were in some instances read by the assistant barrister in continuation ; in other cases he might have stopped without going so far; but in those cases I requested him to read the covenants, or the other portions of the instrument to which they referred, and very considerable questions arose as to the right of the party to vote, but still I was only arguing the question from the garbled extracts. 14842. Mr. O'Connell] From the clauses he read to you?— Yes ; those por- tions he chose to read, without having an opportunity of referring to the others. 14843. Mr. Lefroy.] In those cases did the assistant barrister object to read the lease more at length than what he had done in the first instance ?— I can- not say he ever objected to read such portions of the lease or instrument which I requested, but in such cases they were often very long, and I never made any request to him to read a lease, or a deed, from beginning to end. 14844. Mr. Hogg.] If you had not had information derived from some other source, as to the particular covenant or condition which you thought might give rise to a question as to the claim, you could not have applied to the barrister at all; nothing that passed in court would have enabled you to call the atten- tion of the barrister to those particular clauses ?— In some instances it would. In the part of the lease reserving the rent, or the term, there is often a reference to other parts of the lease; and when those parts were read, it induced me to request him to refer to other parts; but very frequently I have received direc- tions to look into the lease or instrument under which the claimants ought to 643. 3 d be