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, IRELAND, j f i y 393 7/ U July 1838. 14964. It was in fact in the nature of an assignment of so much, subject to John Julian, Esq the portion of the rent which that part ought to bear ?— Yes; I merely giye the reply in answer to the Right Honourable Member's question. & 14965. Mr. Lefroy.\ I meant to inquire as to Mr. Gibson's practice, in per- mitting a cross- examination into the lessor's title ?— He has declined to oblige the applicant to answer questions relative to the title of his lessor. Where those questions had a tendency to impeach his title, and to show that the lessor making the lease had not a right to make it, he has declined to oblige the applicant to answer it. 14966. And that in cases in which the title of the lessor was only made out by that secondary sort of evidence which the Act of Parliament allows'!— Yes. 14967. He has in those cases prevented a cross- examination as to any mat- ters tending to impeach the lessor's title ?— Not declined to admit the cross- examination, but declined to compeL the applicant to answer, and admitted the claimant, who did not make an answer. 14968. Mr. O'Connell] Who protected himself?— Yes, who protected him- self. 14969. Do you conceive that that is in the performance of the duty which the Act of Parliament imposes upon a chairman, when it directs that he shall investigate the claims made under every deed, lease, or instrument produced to liim, and shall determine upon the validity or invalidity of such claim, and shall examine and inquire by the oath of the claimant, as well as any other evidence tendered, in support of or in opposition to such claim, whether the claimant is or not entitled to register ?— I conceived I was entitled, on cross- examination, to answers from the applicants to such questions as I have referred to, and discussed the question as fully, as clearly, and as forcibly as I could, but Mr. Gibson decided against me; he however did not make a case against me, or prevent my adopting that course of cross- examination, if the applicant chose to answer my questions. w Edmund Meares Kelly, Esq., called in; and further Examined. 14970. Mr. Lefroy.] I WISH to call back your attention to that part of your E. M. Kelly, Esq. evidence which related to the practice of Mr. Gibson refusing a cross- examina- tion into the title of the landlord; under the Reform Act there is 110 possibility of compelling the attendance of witnesses ?— There is not. 14971. Persons in court may be compelled to answer questions, but you have .110 process for bringing a witness into court?— I have frequently heard an assistant- barrister even decline to compel a person in court to give testimony. 14972. And by the Reform Act the claimant need not produce the title- deeds assessor?— He is not obliged to do it, as I apprehend, to constitute a prima facie case; he may establish his right to register without the production of the title- deeds of the landlord. 14973. And by parol evidence ?— Yes, to a certain extent. 14974. Under those circumstances, if the cross- examination of the claimant, as to his lessor's title, is shut out, is there any way in which a fraudulent claim, arising under a defective title in the landlord, or derived under a person who has no title to make the lease under which the claimant claims to be registered and be investigated ?— As at present advised, I should say there was considerable difficulty in the way of producing evidence of fraud, except through the cross- examination of the applicant himself. _ 14975. Then the permission to cross- examine, with a view to affect the landlord's title by parol evidence, is only to meet that primd facie case which the Act allows to be made by parol evidence ?— It is only in order to meet the case ; I should think it is the best evidence that can be given, in fact the only evidence in many cases. . 14976: As in this case the Act of Parliament allows the title to be proved by parol evidence, it must be competent to the party to meet that parol evidence by parol evidence disproving the title ?— I think it will be depriving the person opposing the claim of an advantage to which I think he is fairly entitled, it that evidence be refused; and in fact I think it will be in many cases preventing the discovery of fraud if evidence of that nature were refused; for example, 111 the _ •> . - . „ - case of a rentcliarger, if a party comes 1 fe* 3 forward seeking to register as a rent- E charger,