The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-19 00:00:00

Sub-Committee No. 4

The Committee met at twelve precisely. Mi tubers present -Sir
W. Ileatlicote (chairman), Mr. Shirley, Mr. Hope Johnstoue, and
Mr. Acland.
The Conunittee proceeded with the petition. agmizist the

BIRICENBEAD, ZAIVCASHIILE, AND
ZITATCTICOIC.
two houses, r
not inserted in the book of reference, although
and their names were
f
It would be taken In making the line.
The petitioni
nor fsGpeecotr g, ando.e
otilhwarhliecshlit
ergyets.si
received
ved that
no theynolitieeled,
corner of a
'houses at the
r:the next. 'the .two houses
esfttoiir.tele,t)ltilieae
ripisdehtoitotnieotniwie,
communicated; but had two doors, one in each street. A-notice had
been served with respect to one house only.
The CHAIRMAN observed. that this was equivalent to an objection
that the petitioners had a house with, a dour in each of two streets,
strl3etierat.,P(Ol'PerP(eb)(celiktnig;lapitirietahorfiedp
and had rectived nu notice with resped to each door.
The Committee rejected the allegation.
The petition of Richard Yates, -of Mercer-street, Warrington, was
again brought before the Committee.
Mr. Pam, the agent for the Bill, argued that this petition did not
state with sufficient clearneis where the properly was situated; a
notice had been served often Richard Yates for a house in Mercer.
street, and he was not *wale that there were two persons of the
name of Yates in that street, or that Richard Yates had two houses.
The promoters, el the Bill had no means of ascertaining what house
the petition alluded to, but by going to every house in Mercer-street,
kaockiug at the door, and asking whether Richard Yates lived there.
The CHAIRMAN thought the objection conclusive. The petitioners
could not pretend that there was a sufficient description of the

property.
~llr. COPPOCI thought the promoters of the Bill ought to prove the
service of two notices.
The Committee, however, dismissal the petition.
There was another petition, complaining that the petitioner had
not been served with a notice in respect of a cottage and smithy in et
court on the east skis of Bridges-street, Warrington.
-Mr. Pam said that there were three courts leading out of the
east side of Bridges-street, Warrington, and that this petition did
not state in which court it was situated. He would not press the
objection, however, as he found that the house was known to his
clients, and that the petitioner had been served wilts a notice.
The Cnaixestai said that he was very sorry to shut out a peti-
tioner on any point of form, as there might he a serious grievance,
bat where there was so loose and insufficieut a description of the
property, the petition must he rejected. There was no excuse fur
the insufficiency of description, as the petitioners had every opportu-
nity of referring to the plans, and they could very well describe the
property by the number given in the plan.
_

l its I or inittee, therefore, refused to admit the petition.
The petition of John Broadhurst, and others, met with no better
fate, the description being equally insufficient.
The petition of Mary Hine, Mary Ann Amany, and others. con-
tained several allegations as to the non-insertion of their names in
the hook of reference, and non-serving of notices.
It appeared that the property, on account of which the peti-
tioners represented that their names ought to have been in-
serted in the book of reference, was jointly Occupied by
John ,many and two sisters, who were both married. Notices
had been served on the husbands of the two female
Petitioners, but none had been served on themselves, and their
names had not teen inserted in the book of reference. it was ad-
mitted that a wrong name had been inserted in the twok of reference
in respect of part of the property, but that notices had been served on
ad parties concerted, the mistake having been discovered to time to
serve notices on the proper parties.
A witness was called to prove these facts.
The Committee declared the standing orders not complied with.
In respect of other property belonging to the same petitioners, the
eCtoatititdimiiitg orders
scideel not t:otentkpthiecdlewet gh.of reference was incorrect, and the
In another of the petitions against the Bill it was alleged that
.‘ the railway was deseriiied as passing through five tickle in the
parish of St. Mary on the Hill," whereas, tour of those fields were in
the parish of St. Oswald's.
Mr. Pater objected to the petition, as not stating what five fields
were alluded to, or which were the four that were in the parish of
St. Oswald's.
Some discussion ensued as to the sufficiency of the description, but
as it appeared that the numbers of the fields were given in one of the
later allegations of the petition, Mr. Pritt withdrew his objection, and
the petition was proceeded with.
After considerable discussion, anti after saveral witnesses had been
called on both sides, the Committee decided that, inasmuch as the
fields in question ought to have been dose: abed as in the parish of St.
Oswald's, the standing orders were not compiled with.
The next allegation taken was, that a Mrs. Belton, described in
the bock of reference as poFsessing premises numbered Nos. 206 and
207, was not at the time Ili.; notice was served the ocpacyaipnigernoof.rtehnet
premises (a mill) No. 207, as she was marked on the plans and de-
scribed in the book of reference.
Mrs. Bolton was called and examined, and from her evidence it
M. Prlt, in favour of the
appeared, that although she had here, in conjunction with other pre.
miser, in the occupation of the mill marked No. 207, she had dis-
continued
rgA ~e,ra
a great served uponal her, andin e thatnt r r
o sheln wasr now t
to hold the mill in question previously to the notice hav-
Bill, and Mr. Elicounbe, against it, _
The CHAIRMAN decided that the standing orders had not, in so let
as the point in question was concerned, been complied with.
The Committee thou adjourned,