i 68 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE Mr. G. Gardiner, 7961. Have you seen cases of admission where neither the rent nor the stamp appeared ?— I have. . 30 March 1838. 7962. And with other defects in the documents, and if so, ot what kind ?— I will state several cases of them. Here is one, where, in October 183/, " William Fitzsimons, of Kilsolla, produced a lease; the lease was so old and effaced, that the court cnuld not make out the rent or quantity; says that he holds under his brother; that it was for 20 years that his brother was dead; swears it worth 52 per acre." . , . , AT 7963. Was the tenure discernible upon the face of the instrument t— No. 7964. Nor the rent?— Nor the rent nor the quantity. 7965. In that case he was admitted to register upon his own swearing, simply as to what the contents of the instrument were ?— He was. 7966. Mr. French.] He gave evidence that he was in possession of the land under that lease ?— Yes. 7967. Mr. Lefroy.] Did he give any evidence further than his own swearing to it ?— No. 7968. Mr. French.'] Did he produce any evidence as to the amount of rent he paid, either by receipt or otherwise ?— No. 7969. Did he produce any evidence except his own swearing, as to the length of time which the tenure was ?— No. 7970. Mr. Lefroy.] Were there other instances to the same effect ?— Yes. 7971. Must not the consequence of this course of proceeding be to encourage in course of time all sorts of fictitious claims being brought forward ?— Certainly. 7972. Mr. French.] Did you tender any evidence in that case of Fitzsimons to contradict his testimony ?— No. 71) 73. Mr. Lefroy.] According to the notice he gave, of course you were prepared to expect that he would produce his lease 01* instrument proving his title ?— Certainly. 7974. Can you state any other case?— Here is a person of the name of " Thady M'Loughlin produced an old lease quite defaced, and pasted on paper, from Sir Henry Tute to his father James M'Loughlin, so defaced, that the barrister could not trace the names of the parties or make out the quantity of land, but took parol evidence of its contents. The execution by the parties was entirely gone, stamp could not be ascertained or the term ; claimant says it was to three persons, his father and two Fitzsimonses; he has his father's part, nine acres ; pays 12 J. 15,?. 8 d. rent. Thinks it worth 10 1. more ; his father is dead about a year past; he was the eldest son; there wrere two surviving lessees. Court considered him as his heir at law, and considered value sufficient." 7975. When you say the barrister received parol evidence, was there any other evidence but the man's own oath as to all the circumstances you have stated ?— Not in those cases. 7976. Mr. French.] What was the supposed date of the lease of Sir Henry Tute ?— The date was stated by the parol testimony. 7977. Mr. Lefroy.] Was it discernible upon the face of the instrument?— No.' 7978. Mr. French.] What did the man state to be the date?— He stated it to have been dated in 1802, 35 years ago. 7979. Mr. Lefroy.] Can you state any other case?— In January 1833, " Michael Mulfall produced a document to Mr. French, on which he said he had been before Mr. Fosberry, and his case was appealed to the judge of assize ; the document produced ; not legible ; rejected for want of title." 7980. Had that man been rejected also and appealed to the judge ?— Yes, in the sessions previous, in October 1832. 7981. In that case the claimant had gone to the registering barrister under the Reform registry, and had been rejected, and had appealed to the judge at the assizes ?— Yes; the appeal did not come on to be tried at that time, at the January sessions ; he came on before Mr. French again. 7982. Chairman.] He was first rejected by Mr. Fosberry, he was then rejected by Mr. French, and he then appealed to the judge ?— Yes, to the assizes ; but he did not come then to prosecute the appeal. 7983- Did he ever prosecute the appeal?— I do not know whether he ever prosecuted it or not. 7984- Mr. Lefroy.'] He lodged the appeal to the assizes, but, instead of pro- secuting that, he went before Mr. French ?— Yes. 7985. In