11 July 1838. 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 15000. He is not bound to produce the title- deed of any landlord, or make E M KM v proof of such title .-— There is a proviso that the payment of the rent shall be ( y' Lsq' prima facie evidence. 15001. Mr. Lefroy.] In those cases Mr. Gibson would not permit you even to examine as to the matter of fact of the possession of the landlord ?— I do not think he ever declined to receive evidence of possession arising from the fact of the perception of rent, but there were cases in which it clearly appeared that no rent ever was paid by the applicant to the person who purported to grant him the lease, yet those persons registered. 15002. Mr. O Connell.] The rent being paid to another person than the person purporting to make the lease ?— Yes. 15003. But it was stated upon oath he received it as head landlord ?— It was sworn it was paid to him as head landlord, but not as to the person who granted the lease. 15004. Except to save him harmless by so much amount of rent ?— There is a case under that head worthy the attention of the Committee ; and if vou have no objection I shall state it to you. 15005. Mr. Lefroy.] Be so good as to state it ?— It was the case of James Mackay ; he was registered at the registry sessions held at Birr, in April 1836 ; he claimed as a 10/. freeholder. He stated he is several years in possession since his fathers death; that he holds eight acres in the lands of Foolah, at the rent of 5 9 s., and he proves a beneficial interest of 10 J. a year above his rent and charges. He was cross- examined by Mr. Battersby on behalf of the Con- servatives, and said he was several years in possession ; did not say it was under the lease he produces. There was an old lease made to the applicant's father and several partners, and the partners still held their shares under it; his father is dead several years, and he, the applicant, is in possession of his father's land since then. The lease he produced was signed this morning, the morning of the register; he said it was made to convenience him to vote; believes it follows the old lease, only it has but his share of the land and the rent, and leaves out the rest of the partners' shares. Cannot tell where the old lease is. Is not to pay his rent to the partners, but to Mr. Henrett, the landlord. Mr. Battersby submitted that this lease was fraudulent and void; that even if it was a good lease, the applicant could not register under it. The first, the original lease, is not produced; the present lease was made to enable the applicant to vote. He has been in possession, it is true, since his father died, but he had no right. The right survived to the other partners, and they hold under the old lease still. 15006. Mr. O'Connell'] Did it appear how many years it was since his father's death ? — Several years, he said ; he did not specify the number. 15007. Mr. Lefroy.'] What was the adjudication upon that lease ?— He was registered. Mr. Gibson said he had already overruled objections of this nature, and the man was registered. Mr. Battersby made some other observations as to the impossibility of the deed being construed as a renewal of the old lease, he stated positively he was not to pay rent to the partners who made the lease to him, but the landlord. 15008. Mr. O'Connell] The lease was made that very day ?— That morning. 15009. Was the landlord a party to it?— No, I understood it to be the partners. 15010. Look over your note again ?— It is dubious. 15011. You cannot say whether the lease was executed by the landlord or not ?— No. 15012. Or by the landlord and the partners r— I believe it was by the part- ners alone, that is my reading of the note ; it very often happened that the names were not mentioned distinctly. 15013. There was no doubt that he had several and separate possession, but the other tenants would have an interest in taking it from him if it was a joint tenancy ?—' There was no doubt he had been in possession several years since his father's death. - 15014. It did not appear he had been disturbed, much less evicted, by the co- lessees of his father ?- It did not appear he had been disturbed. 643. 3 E 2 ' 5015- And