353 M I N U T E S OF E V I D E N C E T A K E N B E F O R E T I IE John Julian, Esq. 14876. He granted whatever interest he had for a life and years ?— Yes. 14877. Mr. Lefroy.'] Does not the Reform Bill require that the instrument 11 July 1838. under which the party claims shall have been duly stamped ?— Yes. 148- 8. Would not it have made a difference, whether the instrument was a lease or an assignment, as to the stamp ?— It might make a very serious differ- ence there. 14879. Mr. O'Connell.] How could it make a difference; only according to the sum of money paid ?— Only according to the sum of money paid. 14880. There was no consideration for the grant in question, but the rent reserved in the lease?— In this case there was a consideration. 14881. Flow much ?— I do not know. 14882. Whatever it was it was specified?— Yes. 14883. That specification being made the barrister had an opportunity of seeing whether the stamp was sufficient to cover the consideration ?— Yes, but the stamp on the lease might have been insufficient. 14884. Mr. Lefroy.] Was the question dealt with as a question whether it was a good or bad assignment; did the tenant set it up as an original grant or a subsequent title, or did he claim as assignee of the lease ?— The case was dealt with thus: Mr. Gibson assigned as his reason for not requiring the assignee to produce the lease recited in the assignment because he took the recital as sufficient evidence of the lease. It was urged here there was no such recital as to be evidence of the lease, and that the lease ought to be produced. 14885. Did the claimant himself claim as an assignee ?— Yes. 14886. Mr. O'Connell.] Do you mean he claimed to register under the clauses allowing the assignee to register, or as a 10/. freeholder ?— He claimed as a freeholder. 14887. As a 10/. freeholder?— Yes. 14888. And being bound to be in possession ?— Yes. 14889. Mr. Lefroy.] Did Mr. Gibson state in answer to your objection, that he ought to have produced the original lease; that that instrument did not purport to be an assignment, but purported to be an original grant ?— Not at all; he stated in reply that the grantor covenanted for a good title in the instrument produced by the applicant. 14890. Did the applicant state in his evidence that the grantor had the title he purported to convey by that instrument ?— He did. 14891. Mr. O'Connell.) What were his express words upon that?— I urged that if it were a will that was produced, devising certain of the testators free- hold property, that it would not be a sufficient instrument for the applicant to produce in court to entitle him to be registered; and Mr. Gibson says, the case of a will is quite different from where you have a deed, there you have no covenant by the devisor that he has a good title. 14892. Mr. Lefroy.] The practice we have already referred to of refusing to let the opposite party see the instrument, would in this instance effectually pre- vent you forming any competent judgment of the nature of the instrument ?—- It would tend to prevent it. 14893. Mr. O'Connell.) The material parts of the deed were read by Mr. Gibson aloud?— Yes. 14894. He read the recital and the granting part ?— I believe he did. 14895. And the habendum ?— Yes. 14896. And the consideration ?— Yes ; I am sure he would not withhold a material part knowing it to be material. 14897. Do you remember how long this man was in actual possession under this instrument ?— He only stated he was six months in possession. 14898. He did not state how much longer ?— No. 14899. He was not asked ?— No, it does not appear that he was asked. 149°°- Mr. Lefroy.] Do you recollect any cases in which Mr. Gibson regis- tered claimants where they had parted with a portion of the land out of which they claimed to register ?— There were cases in which he registered persons who were not in the occupation of the entire of the land out of which they applied to register. 14901. Did he in those cases allow them to take credit as part of the pro- duce for the rent reserved upon the part not in their own possession ?— He did in some cases; the principle under which I understood Mr. Gibson to register in such cases was this : if a person had in his occupation so much land as was worth,