The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-18 00:00:00

(YESTERDAY.)

Sub-Committee No. 1.
The Committee met to-day at twelve o'clock ; Mr. Strutt, chairman.
The Committee called the parties in the
EXETER, YEOVIL, AND DORCHESTER.
The CHAIRMAN said that the ease hail been postponed to enable
the Committee to consider whether the petitions against this ltill
sh (mid or sho hl not be heard, they not having bren
gist up in c,,il
funnily with the standing order 111 A, which
directs that all petitions shall contain the name of such Bill,
or Bills as they are concerned in. The Committee were of opinlon
that, notwithstanding the standing order had not been complied
with, the petition should be received, inasmuch as several other
petitions which had been referred by the House to Committees were
also heard.
Mr. BURKE then proceeded with the allegations in the petitions
against the Bill.
The first allegation was that the notices served on the owners of
property on the line proposed to go as far as Exmouth, whereas the
petition for the Bill only asks power to go as tar as Bear.
Mr. Hallett, a landowner at Exmouth, was called. Ile said that
the notices stated the terminus of the railway was to Le at the port
of Exmouth, and it was to go on part of his property. The petition
for the Bill, however, made the termini at quite a different point.
Mr. Enracostae, for the promoters, contended that the standing
rdcrs did not require the exact termini of railways to be stated in
the notices.
The CHAIRMAN, after consulting with the other Ilon. Members,
said that the Committee wet e of opinion the standing order In this
case was so very general that the allegation could not be maintained.
It was the opinion of the Committee that the standing orders with
respect to the exact point of termini teing stated In the notices
should be made more stringent. The allegation, under the circum-
stances, could not he sustained.
The next allegation was that no notice had been served on Mrs.
Mary Peed, the owner of some property on the proposed lino. The
notice was served on Mr. Thomas Peed, who had no interest what-
ever in the property, and Mr. Burke submitted that the Omitting
orders had not been complied with. •
Mr. ELLICOMBE called a witness to prove that, upon calling on the
property, he was informed that it belonged to Mr. Thomas Peed. It
was also found that that person's name appeared on the poor's-rate
l'ook for the years 1844 and 1845, and that being the c;tse, he trusted
the Committee would consider the notice a Frmer service.
The CHAIRMAN said the Committee were of opinion that the stand-
ing orders had not been complied with ; but that it appeared to the
Committee the name of Thomas Peed appeared on the poor's-rate
book as rateable for the preperty.
ilia mat allegation was that the name of a Mr. Pickering was re-
turned as assenting to the construction of the line wi:hout his au-
thority.
Mr Pickering was called, and he said that he had never signed
assent, nor had he given his authority to any one else to sign for him.
Witness was told by his wife that during his absence from home a
gentleman had called, and asked her to sign his name to a paper, but
site, not being a good writer, asked her son, who was only tell years
of age, to sign it. Ills wife said that site did not know what the
paper was about.
The boy was then called, an 1 he said that the gentleman :sited
him, in the presence of his mother, to sign his father's name on the
paper, which he did. The gentleman did not say what the paper
contained, nor did his mother tell him.
Mr. ELLICUMBE called a Mr. Buffet—Witness said that he had
been employed by the local agent, and having called at Pickering's,
he explained to the wife that the paper was to be filled up with her
qame• and she immediately consented to have it signed
The CHAIRMAN—Did you post that letter to the agent in London?
Witness—l did.
Mr. BURKE submitted that the assent was improperly obtained.
The CHAIRMAN said the Committee were of opinion that the stand-
ing orders had not been complied with, inasmuch as the name of
William Pickering was signed on a paper without his consent, by
his son, a boy of ten years of age, acting under the instructions of
his mother.
Several other allegations of the same character were sustained, and
the case was gone through.
NORFOLK EXTENSION (STOWMAR MET
AND WitIVIONDHAIII).
The adjourned case wits resumed, Mr. Burke appearing for the pro-
moters, and Mr. Webster for several opponents.
A few of the allegations were allowed, but the most importatat
were overru'ed. The case then concluded.
The CHAIRMAN said the Committee would adjourn till Thursday,
but he had to inform parties that Mr. Greene would sit to-morrow
(Wednesday) to hear unopposed cases.

Sub-Committee No. 2. Cloister G,

This Committee met to-day shortly later twelve o'clock.
There were present Sir J. Y. Buller (Chairman), Messrs. Kemblo,
lirainston, and G. Craig.

RUGBY, LEAMINGTON, AND WARWICK.
The petition stated that the line, which proposed to join the Bir•
inlngham Railway at the parish of St. Mary, in the county of War.
wick, would be of great public utility. There was a petition again'
the till from the directors of the Worcester and Warwick Railway.
The formal evidence was proceeded with.

•
From the evidence, it appeared that the length of the line waslG 1y
miles, and the estimate 450,000/. It also appeared that this line
would have the effect of shortening and rendering complete the
communication front the eastern side of the kingdom to the western,
bringing the ports of Yarmouth and Lynn Regis into direct commu-
nication with Bristol, the West of England, and South Wales.
The allegation of the petition was, that the tunnelling of the
mile and 6th furlong was not marked on the section with a dotted
line, which the Committee considered to be sustained.
The CuAtastAx then announced that the Committee were of opi-
nion that the standing orders had not been complied with.
Engineer, P. Stephenson, Esq.; Solicitors, Messrs. Harris and
Son, Rugby.
AIILDRIE AND 13 ATIIGATE JUNCTION.
There were three petitions against the Bill, namely, from Mr. J.
Graham, the Ballochney Company, and Mr. J. Ady, complaining, cf
non compliance with standing orders.
Na one appeared for the two latter.
The object of the 11111 was to construct a railway from the town of
Airdrie to join a branch of the Edinburgh and Glasgow Railway.
The length of the line was fourteen miles, the amount of estimate
')13,0001., the sum subscribed 320,0001., and the amount deposited
23,000/.
Mr. Lm au appeared in support of the first petition, which alleged
that the amount paid up was omitted throughout the contract deed.
This be.n; apparent on the face of the deed,
Mr. Dr.ANs (in support of the Bill) adduced evidence in extenua-
tion, to show that the error was the result of a mistake, a wrong deed
having been put before the parties for their signature.
The Committee were of opinion that the standing orders had not
been complied with.
Solicitors, Dean, Dunlop, and Hope, London; Engineer, Mr.
George Martin.
I.EXCESTER. &Z D TADIWORTH JUNCTION