353 MINUTES O F E V I D E N C E T A K E N B E F O R E T I IE E. M. Kelly, Esq. 15015. And certainly not evicted ?— Certainly not. 1^ 016 Your idea is that the lease was executed by the co- lessees of his llJulyl838' father ?- Yes. 15017. So that, instead of the co- lessees disputing, they actually confirmed to him the interest that his father had in the land ?—- So I should say. i 5018. There was certainly this question in the case, whether his possession could be so connected with the lease as to entitle him to register ?— There was that objection also raised to him, that he had not had his title six months. Veneris, 13° die Julii, 1838. MEMBERS PRESENT. Mr. Curry. Sir Robert Ferguson. Mr. Lefroy. Mr. Litton. Lord Granville Somerset. LORD GRANVILLE SOMERSET, IN THE CHAIR. Edmund Meares Kelly, Esq., called in ; and further Examined. E. M. Kelly, Esq. 15019. Mr. Litton.'] DO you know of any cases in which Mr. Gibson admitted — persons where they had not been in possession for six months before the day of 13 July 1838. registry, legal or equitable, in connexion with the instrument produced by them as their title to be registered?— There are several such cases: there is the case of Thomas Murray, who was registered at the Birr April session 1836; he claimed as a 10/. freeholder, and stated he was six years in possession ; that he holds 11 acres of the lands of Gurtahurka, at a rent of 5 I. 10 s. 9 d., under a lease from his father; he proves a beneficial interest. On cross- examination by Mr. Bat- tersby, on behalf of the Conservatives, he stated his lease is dated the 1st January 1835; it was not executed the day it is dated, but a few months back : it is not six months executed. Had no previous agreement for a lease, but knows he had nothing to do but to ask it from his father and get it. Mr. Battersby submitted that this claim must be rejected, 011 the authority of the Galway Case, decided by a committee of the House of Commons, reported in Perry and Knapp, page 513, where it was held that voters were disqualified who had been registered by virtue of leases executed within six months of the time of registry, though they held the same lands for two or three years before with promise of leases. Mr. Gibson said, " Mr. Battersby knows as well as any one, I am not bound by that decision; we all know the notions which are entertained with regard to the decisions of Committees of the House of Commons ; mind, I do not give you as my opinion, but it is generally believed that those decisions are made according to the political feelings of the majority of each Committee." The applicant was then re- examined by Mr. Daly: he stated he knew he could get a lease whenever he asked for it, and he improved the lands under those impressions. Mr. Bat- tersby cited a case from Perry and Knapp, 516, which was to this effect: the applicant had been 50 years in possession under a lease which expired on the death of George the 4th ; he afterwards held as tenant from year to year until he got a new lease, which was within six months preceding the registry; the question was reserved for the decision of the 12 Judges, by Burton, Justice, from the Louth Spring Assizes of 1833, and they held in that case that the applicant was not qualified to register under the Reform Act. Mr. Gibson then said, " It may be so, I do not impeach that decision, but this case is quite different; here the man says he knew he could get a lease at any time, and, acting under that impression, which the event proved a just one, lie improved the land; I must consider him to have had an equitable title." The objection was overruled, and the applicant admitted ; he was an applicant in the Liberal interest. 15020. Can you mention any other case by name, without going into the parti- culars ?— Here is one case I may give at length ; it is not very long; it is the case of John Carroll; he was registered at the Birr sessions of October 1836 ; lie claimed »