Mr. O'CoNstem again made his appearance before the Dublin Elec-
tion _Commissioners, on Thursday ; when the performance of the two previous days was repeated, with little variation. Mr. O'CONNELL again pressed the Court to hear the evidence he proffered, or to hear him argue the point. This was re fused, and the Court was again ad- journed; not, however, until Mr. Commissioner ARDILL had declared that the Commissioners disagreed among .themselves respecting the admissibility of the evidence. As regards the absolute illegality of the conduct of the Commissioners in this matter, there can be no doubt. The Act under which theCoin- mission was appointed provides expressly for the case which has oc- curred,—namely, the bringing forward of evidence which the Cornelis- sioners think ought not to be received. The words of the Act are these- " It shall and may be lawful to and for the party tendering or offering to pro- duce such evidence or witness, to require of time said Commissioners that the said witness or evidence shall be examined, heard, and received by and before them ; and the testimony of such witness, or the purport of such evidence, shall accordingly be taken down in writing by the clerk to the said Conunissionera, separately and apart from all other evidence before the said Commissioners; and a copy thereof, with a statement of the purpose to or for which the said witness or evidence was produced, and by whom tte same was produced, shall be.signed and sealed by the and Commissionets, in the nature of a bill of exceptions to evidence; and the same shall be transmitted by the said Commissioners, together
with all the other proceedings before them, in manner herein mentioned."
All that O'CONNELL asks is to have the evidence placed on the re- jected sheet ; and this is what the Commissioners refuse to do, in defiance of the law.
Previous page
