The Sun.
London, England, 1838-02-28 00:00:00

YOUGH AL.

The Committee met at eleven o'clock, when Mr. David Pollock
(Counsel) called Mr. John Pollock, sen., of Youghal, agent for the pe-
titioner, to prove that William Flanagan, the sth voter objected to,
had removed before the election, from the tenement for which he was
registered. In the cross-examination by Mr. Austin, Mr. Pol-
lock said there was a Conservative Committee in Youghal,
which met at Dr. Green's occasionally, and sometimes at the Con-
s,rvative Rooms ; did not know whether or not they sat during
the election ; knew they ought—(A laugh)—witness did not subscribe to
the election fund ; but having acted as Mr. Niehol's agent he was entitled
to a fee of 100/. under the Act of Parliament,and as he refused to accept any
thing for his services, that sum was put down as his subscription to the
election fund. A witness named Roche, cleik and process-server to
Mr. Pollock, corroborated the statement as to the removal of Flanagan.
The resolute indirectness of this witness's answers in cross-examination
as to his own activity in the canvass excited much laughter. He said
that he took part in the canvas for Mr. Nichol, through his attach-
ment to " Church and State:" upon which Mr. Austin remarked
that his Church and State was very like Jesuistry.—(A laugh.)
Mr. D. PoLLocx—That is a very improper speech.
Mr. AueTtN—lt is a very proper speech and very correct. Mr. A.
then reviewed the evidence of the witness as to Flanagan's removal,
and contended that it was not such as the Committee ought to take
as sufficient to disqualify the voter, In such eases, the best evidence
had not been adduced. The landlord of Flanagan, or his agent,
might have been produced; instead of which, the evidence offered
was only that of the petitioner's agent (for the Committee weald
attach little weight to the evidence of Roche the', process-server)
and in every court of law, the evidence of the Solicitor to one
of the parties was always received with great caution, when better could
be had. The evidence, however, of Mr. Pollock, the solicitor in this
case, went no further than an admission of the voter to him during the
canvass ; and surely such an admission under such eircumstantes could
not be allowed to disqualify any man.

The ♦ote was struek off.- -
The next vote objected to was that of Francis 31. Cury, on the sane
ground of removal.

The vote was struck off without opposition.

George Evans, formerly a publican, was next objected to.
A witness, called to prove the voter's removal, said that he was obli-
gated to go into the house every Sunday night in the weck.—(Laughter.)
Strange as the blunder is, the witness, a well-informed person, did
not seem conscious of it, or attempt to correct himself.
Mr. HARRISON—You visit the house every Sunday in the week ?
Witness—Yes.—(Great laughter.) Would not swear that he had been
in the house for four weeks before the election.

Mr. Harrison—And that you call being in it every Sunday in the
week ?—(A laugh.)

The Committee, after a short deliberation, struck off the vote.
The votes of John Kinaher, John Coughlan, and James Culbert were
then struck off—all on the same ground as the fernier votes, namely,
loss if qualification by removal. Nine votes is all having been no.v
struck off the sitting Member's (Howard, Liberal) poll, the original
majority being S—the petitioner (Niehol, Tory) is in a majority of one.

After some discussion between the Counsel on both sides as to the
future mode of proceeding, it was agreed that to-morrow morning the
sitting Member's Counsel will commence to impugn a number of
votes on the petitioner's poll, on the same ground of disqualification
by removal.
The Committee then adjourned at two o'clock.