4o 8 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE Richard Daly, Esq. but my view is this, that with regard to circumstances within his own knowledge, founded upon the deed, lease, or instrument which he produces, he cannot pro- ay Ju'y 1838. tect himself from developing all the circumstances connected with the execution of that deed, lease, or instrument; but with regard to the title of a third person, viz. the title of his landlord, there undoubtedly, if lie proves he has paid rent to that landlord, he is not under an obligation ( by virtue of the 16th section of the Reform Act), in my humble opinion, to give evidence of a parol nature that will invalidate that title. 15531. Do you attach any weight to the words " prima facie evidence" at the end of the clause to which you allude ?— The meaning of that, I take it, is the mere perception of rent; I believe there are authorities in the courts in England and in Ireland which go to show that perception of rent will dispense with the proof of an assignment. 15532. Supposing the clause were drawn with the omission of the words " prima facie," do you conceive it would have the same effect which the clause now has with those words introduced into it?— I think it would make a material alteration. 15533. What alteration do you think it would make?— It would make an alteration thus, that prima facie evidence may be rebutted; it is what we call presumptive evidence, which, in every case of presumption is susceptible of being rebutted; whereas, if the omission of the phrase prima facie took place, then it would, perhaps, amount to this construction, that no evidence would be admissible to invalidate it; that is as it occurs to me. 15534. If that be the case, is it not competent to disprove the inference to be drawn from possession and perception of rent by the cross- examination of the claimant, as well as by any other means ?— The claimant may be examined as to his own title, as I have mentioned before, and all the circumstances under which that title was created; but as to the title of the landlord, I take it that the intention of the Legislature was, that the claimant should go 110 further than to state he paid rent, and by introducing the phrase prima facie, the Legislature a orded the opposite party every opportunity even to show the claimant's title had no foundation, inasmuch as his landlord had no power, or had 110 legal authority to confer that title. 15535- Supposing this case should arise, that the claimant swears to the possession of the property, and he further swears he has paid his rent to A. B. and then he stops ; and if upon cross- examination he confesses, that though he paid his rent for any number of years to A. B., the receipts were signed by C. D., he claiming under A. B. as his lessor; would you not consider in such a case as that, the title of A. B. would be invalidated by the actual confession of the claimant ?— I would, beyond a doubt. 15536. Do you think it would be an unfair thing on the part of the person opposing the claim of an individual so confessing, to negative A. B.' s property, or power of giving a lease?— I consider, if the claimant goes into what I would term illegal evidence, admits or gives answers to illegal questions, he is bound by those answers, and if he admits ( be his means of knowledge what they may) that his landlord has no title, or a defective title, then undoubtedly, in my humble opinion, the registering barrister ought to reject him. 15537- Now, referring to your statement about the 50/. freeholders, you say you have witnessed their swearing in court, that they made their affidavits in a manner which negatived the presumption of any investigation into the accuracy of those affidavits ?— Yes, under the circumstances I have already stated. 15538. That 110 investigation whatever could take place in the way in which the affidavit was administered to that class of freeholders?— I said that it did not take place in those cases which I witnessed. 7 5539- Do you know of any cases in which investigation has taken place ?— Indeed I do not. 15540. Do you believe that any investigation does take place ?— I should suppose not. 15541. Do you not suppose it is left entirely to the responsibility of the party, and the fear either of taking a false oath on the one hand, or the punishment attachable to perjury on the other hand, rather than to investigation ?— I do. 15542. Then