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 VOTES, I R E L A N D . 36, ' SLS — There have been many decisions of competent tribunals to that effect and I know of none purporting to set aside that principle ; I am not aware of anv 14861. But Mr. Gibsons practice has been to regard possession, no matter whether under the instrument or not, as sufficient to entitle the party to regis- tcr • aCS. 14862 Mr. O'Connell.] Do you mean to say that without a parol agree- ment r— W ithout a parol agreement; when I say without a parol agreement the applicant has said, generally speaking, there was an understanding he could get a lease, but he never mentioned anything which could amount to an agree- ment ; I do not say he never mentioned it loosely. 14863. That there was an understanding between him and the landlord that he could get a lease whenever he called for it ?— Yes, such was usually stated to be the agreement; but Mr. Gibson acted upon the principle that possession such as I have mentioned, was sufficient without any agreement by parol or otherwise. 14864. Mr. Lefroy.'] Have you been present at instances of persons coming to register as assignees of leases ?-— Frequently. 14865. In those cases has Mr. Gibson required the production of the original lease ?— No, he holds the assignment to be sufficient in all cases. 14866. Mr. O'Connell.] The assignment reciting the original lease ?— A case occurred in which the recital in the assignment was so very indistinct that you could not ascertain accurately from it what the thing granted by the original lease was, and that case I endeavoured to argue at considerable length. 14867. What was the name of it ?— The case of Stephen Maher; claims as a 10 I. freeholder, is six months in possession. 14868. You objected to almost every voter voting upon the Liberal side ?— Almost every voter. 14869. Were there many you did not object tor— Yes, several; but the reason I objected to so many was, that when I wTas employed to oppose what is called the Liberal portion of the applicants, I found the same practice existing with those opposing the side I was employed by, but I should have been glad to have entered into an understanding to let bond fide applicants pass without opposition. That case of Stephen Maher I have before me; this was a case in which an assignment was produced without any original lease; the deed was read which recited that Patrick Maher, the grantor, was seised of, 01* otherwise entitled to the premises therein mentioned, without setting forth whether in fee as of freehold, or for years. The report of that case is this : " Julian : I have tried in former instances to argue that an assignment being merely a transfer of the deed which created that interest, the deed granting it, as well as the instru- ment granted, should be produced. You have ruled against me, saying you would take the recitals in the assignment as evidence both of the existence of the lease and of its contents ; but here we are more completely in the dark ; the grantor does not recite how he holds, whether by deed or not; you have nothing to guide you." 14870. The recital stated the seisin in the grantor of the deed which pro- ceeded to grant the premises, for what term, do you remember :— It was a most vague instrument 14871. What was the grant in the deed?— I do not know; the grant, as I recollect, was for a term of lives, but my objection was that the recital was in- sufficient. 14872. But the lives, whatever they were, were named in the granting part of the habendum ?— Yes, I think they were ; the term I know was mentioned in the habendum of the lease, but what I urged was, there being no recital of the original lease or other instrument by which the assignor became seised, it was necessary to produce it. „ 14873. That was your objection ; but there is no doubt of these things, tirst, that there was a seisin stated to be in the grantor; next, that the grantor of that deed did actually grant by that deed a term of years and a life, there was no doubt that that life was in being ?— No doubt of it. . 14874. And there was no doubt that the grantee was in possession under tne instrument ?— That I believe was not in controversy ; the more controversy in the case was the recital and the non- production of the title of the assignor. 14875. He was the grantor of that instrument ?— He assigned the instrument he purported to assign. Q R u 643. 3D2 148/ b. He