4o 8 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE E. M. Kelly, Esq. 15049. Was the principle formerly established by Mr. Gibson, viz. the principle that the value of the land was what a man could make of it, without 13 July 1838. | je( juctino. the labour of himself and his family, established by that decision?— He distinctly recognized it; he would not deduct the poor man's labour when expended upon the land, from the value of the produce of the land; and in this case he would not deduct the proved expense of cultivation. 15050. Will you mention as many instances as you can of this nature, in which that principle was adopted, and the admission of the men to register took place, although opposed by the Conservatives ?— In the case of Patrick Deehan, at the sessions of April 1836 ; James Durrovan, at the same sessions ; Thomas Clere, at the same sessions; Patrick Donnolly, at the same sessions; James Gill, at the same sessions; Thomas Murray, James Machins, John Savage, John Tracy, Patrick Burgan, John Burgan, and Rody Callaghan. The follow- ing are at the sessions of October 1836 : Heren Conway, John Claffy, Patrick Coghlan, John Carroll, Patrick Dwyer, Timothy Delany, Daniel Daly, Patrick Durrovan, Patrick Egan, Owen Egan, James Egan, John Egan, senior, and John Egan, Michael Garrahy, John Hogan, Michael Hickey, John Kerney, Patrick Kenny, Michael M'Daniell, John Mooney, Michael Morris, John Power, William Whelan, and Thomas Whelan. The following were registered at the sessions of April 1837: Michael Cusack: I think this case is worth detailing. 15051. Mr. Curry.'] Do you say that in all those cases Mr. Gibson registered those persons on their swearing they had a beneficial interest of 10/. merely above the rent they paid?— Merely above the rent they paid. 15052. Without making any deduction for seed or anything they paid in raising their crops ?— Without making any deduction whatever. 15053. Mr. Litton.'] In all those cases were the objections made to the reception of the vote by the Conservatives?— Yes. 15054. And to the adoption of that principle?— Yes. 15055. Mr. Curry.] Was any evidence offered on the opposite side to show that the applicant could not have a beneficial interest to the extent of 10 L a year?— In some instances it was, and not attended to by the assistant barrister, so that it was conceived it would be a waste of the public time to offer it in other cases. 15056. It was not then offered in all those cases ?— No, certainly not. 15057. And there was nothing to contradict the swearing of the claimant, that he had that beneficial interest ?— Nothing beyond his own cross- exami- nation, but, generally speaking, it appeared, if the deductions I have alluded to were made, the party would not have that beneficial interest. 15058. But even that did not appear in every case on the cross- exami- nation ?— No ; but there were very few cases in which it did not appear. Michael Cusack claims as a 10/. freeholder; the lease was for three lives, or 31 years; he stated he was not able to produce his lease in consequence of his landlord having it in his possession ; that he holds 6 A., 2 11. and 27 p. of the lands of Knogus at 11, an acre. On cross- examination by Mr. Julian, the applicant said: all the land is in his own occupation ; never let any of it; it is between Cloghan and Ferbane; believes it is worth I I. 5 s. an acre; it would not be got for that if it was out of lease; never proposed it for sale, but was offered 10/. over his rent for it by a solvent tenant; James Ryan was the man that offered it to him ; it was since his notice to register that the offer was made ; Ryan knew that he, the applicant, had given a notice for registering; cannot tell why Ryan hit upon offering him 10/. instead of 9/. or 11/., unless it was because he, Ryan, thought it was worth it; believes Ryan knew he, the applicant, had 110 intention of leaving his farm; thinks Ryan would have given him what he offered, but the applicant had no notion of leaving the land when the offer was made. Thomas Tracey was examined in support of this claim by Mr. Daly, that was to account for the non- produc- tion of the lease ; he did not produce. This witness stated, on cross- examination, he heard the conversation between the applicant and Ryan; it was yesterday it took place ; the three of us were together before the applicant went to Mr. Judge, his landlord, for his lease, and Ryan then offered the applicant 10 /. profit for his farm; cannot tell what made Ryan make that offer; did not hear the applicant ask Ryan what he would give him for -