The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-27 00:00:00

RAILW A.Y COMMITTEES.
(YESTERDAY.)

Sub-Committee No. 4.
The Committee met at the usual hour. Present—Sir W.
Heathcote (Chairman), Mr. J. O'Connell, Mr. Shirley, ➢lr.
ETaus, Mr. Hope Johnstone, and Mr. Acland.
vrzxroan, CARLOW, AND DUBLIN
JUNCTION.
The Committee proceeded with the petitions against this

Bill.
The petition of Thomas Greenham, Thomas Brennan, and
others, alleged that one of the petitioners, Mr. Brennan,
ing property on the line, had received no notice except on
the 28th of December, being Sunday.
Mr. Brennan was called to prove that he received a notice
on the Sunday after Christmas-day, but could not say that
it was not left at his house on a previous day.
The petitioner's servant was called to prove that she re-
ceived the paper on that day, and said that she received
some paper then, but could not identify it.
Mr. Curtis, a clerk to the solicitors for the Bill, was then
called, and said that on Christmas-eve he met Mr. Brennan
on the quay at Wexford, and served him with the notice.
The CHAIRMAN said that if the Committee decided
that the allegation was proved, they must consider that Mr.
Curtis's statement was utterly false, while it was perfectly
consistent to suppose that the statement of Mr. Curtis was
true, and that Mr. Brennan was mistaken.
The Committee decided that the allegation was not proved.
The next allegation was that another petitioner, Mrs. Per-
ceval, had received no notice except on Sunday, the 28th of
December.
Mrs. Perceval was called to prose that she was served per-
sonally V. ith the notice en the day in question.
Mr. Curtis was again called to prove that he left the
notice on Saturday, but that on Sunday he called and left
the form of assent with Mrs", Perceval.
Mrs. Perceval was recalled, and said that she received
both the notice and the form of assent from Mr. Curtis on
The CHAIRMAN said that it was impossible that Mrs. Per-
ceval could be mistaken, but that Mr. Curtis might possibly
be mistaken, having eo many notices to serve. The Com-
mittee, therefore, decided that the allegation was preyed.
The third allegation was that Mary Ann Moran, another
petitioner, had received no notice except ou Sunday.
A sister of the petitioner was called upon to prove that she
received the notice from a strange gentleman, on the 28th
December.
Mr. Curtis said that he served the notice on a week day
but could not say when. He thought it was on Monday, the
29th December, but was not sure, as he kept no dated memo-
randa of the service of notices.
Mr. 'l'. W. O'Brien, a person engaged in the office of the
solicitor to an opposing line, said, that on Sunday, the 28th of
December, he saw a person going to the house of Miss
Moran, and band to her sister, who came to the door, a
paper, which he supposed to be a notice. He went to the
house as soon as the gentleman was gone to request Miss
Moran to allow him to see the paper, and he found that it
was a notice from the Wexford, Carlow, and Dublin Junc-
tion Railway Company. In cross .examination, he said that
he went out for the purpose of seeing whether any person was
serving notices from this company. lie believed ;that the
person whom he saw serving the notice on Miss Moran was
Mr. Curtis.
The Committee decided that this allegation was proved.
The petition of Sarah Ann Gaubiere and Michael Kernan
was then taken. This petition stated that the name of the
petitioner Sarah Ann Gaubiere was not inserted in the books
of reference, or plans, as lessee of the land marked 18 to 29,
including IBA and 26a, although she was the lessee of that
land.
A witness was called in support of this petition, but could
not point out the property on the plan, and- when some of
the numbers in question were pointed out to him, be could
not say that they referred to the same property as that in
which Miss Gaubiere is lessee. lie could not say what was
the nature of Miss Gaubiere's interest in the property.
The Committee considered the allegation not proved.
It was alleged that Michael Kernan was the lessee of cer-
tain property, namely, the fields No. 94, 95, and 97.
A witness, who was acquainted with the locality, was
called to prove that the fields in question were held on lease
by Michael Kernan.
Mr. Curtis proved that, in a conversation between himself
and Michael Kernan, the latter pointed out the fields in
question as belonging to another person.
Mr. Huai., the agent for the petitioners, withdrew the al-
legation, saying that it was clearly a mistake.
The petition of Joseph Carley was next taken. It was
alleged that there was a public road between the fields No.
3 and So. 4, in the parish of Killcorin, which was not named
in the books of reference, or represented in the plans.
A person who formerly held the office of surveyor
in the parish of Killcorin was called in support of the alle-
gation. but as he could not say positively that the road was
in the position described in the petition the allegation fell to
the ground.
It was alleged that a certain road was described in the
book of reference as the property of the Earl of Arran,
whereas it was a public road, but on refering to the book of
reference it was found that it was not so marked, but that
the preceding and following numbers were marked as the
property of the Earl, and that there was no name of any
owner given.
Mr. Smith, the agent for the Bill, stated that there were
several roads in the parish of Killcorin, which were said, in
the book of reference, to be the property of the Earl of
Arran, and which, it was alleged by the petitioner,
were highway roads, under the jurisdiction of the
grand jury. Now he (Mr. Smith) thought he could prove
that they were at that time the property of the Earl of Arran ;
and he could also prove that although they were not de-
scribed as public highways in the book of reference, yet,
nevertheless, the clerk of the grand jury had been served
with notices.
After a long and desultory conversation,
A witness was called to prove that notices were served on
the cleric of the grand jury in reference to these roads. But,
on cross-examination, lie admitted that they did not con-
tain exact copies of the entries in the book of reference, as
in the book of reference either Lord Arran was described as
owner, or there was no owner named, while in the extracts
given in the notice the grand jury were named as the owners.
The CHAIRMAN observed that the Committee intended to
report in reference to those roads in which there were no
names of owners or occupiers that the standing orders were
nut complied with.
The petition of Herbert Hoare was next taken. It alleged
that certain property was described as having no lessee,
whereas he, the petitioner, was the lessee of that property.
It was represented by the promoters of the Bill that the error
arose from the fact that at the time the property was
entered in the book of reference, the lease of Herbert Hoare
had just expired, and it was not the intention of the proprie-
tors of the land to give a new lease to the petitioner, which
had been done since.
Several of the allegations were admitted to be made under
a mistake, and were withdrawn.
The last allegation was that Mary Preston was represented
in the book of reference to be the occupier of certain pro-
perty, of which Alexander Preston was the actual owner.
This was admitted to be the case, but it appeared that Mr.
A. Preston was trustee, under the will of his brother, de-
ceased, for Mary Preston, the widow of the latter.
Mr. HUNT said, that as it was clear that the error had
originated in the parties being misled, he would withdraw
the allegation.
The Committee then adjourned, but did not fix a day for
their next meeting.

Sub-Committee, No. 5.
The Committee met at 12 o'clock—present, Mr. Home
Drummond (Chairman), Mr. Forbes Mackenzie, Mr. Tatton
Egerton, and Mr. E. Compton.
GLASGOW, ST3MATHAVEN, AND LESMA-
HAGOW RAILWAY.
The object of the promoters of this line is to construct a
railway from the Glasgow, Barrhead, and Neilston Direct
Railway-, near Pollockshaws, to the town of Strathaven.
'f he proposed capital to be raised is 350,0001, and the esti-
mated cost the same amount. Engineer, Neil Ilobson • Par-
liamentary agent, G. H. Long, Esc'. ; and the local solicitors
are Campbell and Tennents, of Glasgow. The length of line
is 16 milt s.
Mr. DEANS appeared against the Bill on behalf of several
po'Noncrs, and the tirst objection raised was that the miles
and fi:riongs were not correctly marked on the plan, and did
not agree with the sections thereof.
This allegation was not sustained.
Iu the next allegation, that the fifteenth mile was one
chain shorter than the fburteentli, the Committee decided on
re,erving their judgment.
The next objection was that a portion of the said intended
railway was described as passing through the parish of
Straven, while there was no such parish, and that the plan
and book of reference in this case did not agree, as in the
former the said parish was described as the parish of An-
nandale _ _ _

At the suggestion of the Committee, Mr. Deans withdrew
this objection, as Straven was a contraction of Strathaven,
which was a parish, and through which the railway was
proposed to be. carried.
Another objection was that a certain cutting, described to be
forty feet, was, in point of fact, only thirteen feet.
Mr. LONG took an objection to this point, inasmuch
as Mr. Fcrgusson, the petitioner, was not interested, as he
was not owner of that part of the land where the said cutting
was to take Owe.
The Committee considered the objection invalid, but stated
that the standing orders were complied with, in reference to
the said cutting.
Mr. DEANS then proceeded to the next allegation, that a
field, marked No. 37, on the plan, was not truly described in
the book of reference, ben:yr stated to be the property of James
Allen, whereas the said field was the property of another
person, to whom no notice had been given.
Mr. Loxci called Mr. Gebby, a writer, who proved that he
proceeded to the ground, and was informed that the field
was the property of a Mr. Hamilton, and he drew up the
legal document accordingly..
Mr. DEANS
contended that the standing orders were not
Complied with, as the best means were not taken to ascer-
tain the real owner of thfield u
Standing orders complied wittit question.
.
The important objection to this Bill, that one-tenth was
not subscribed of the estimated cost, although it was paid up
andhe repobrtedscri t
theemmittee held to be good,
on t suption contract,
hat the standin
with in consequence.
g orders were not complied
GLASGOW Erzatnoure. GRAN
TERMINUS. WUNCTION
The length of this line is one and a half miles
aestimated
cost 110,0001. Engineer, Mr. Gale; Parliamentary
Mr: Lang; solicitor, Mr. Leech. This line was oppos agent
behalf of Sir John Maxwell, by Mr. Lock, and several ob-
jections of a technical nature were not entertained; but they
decided that the standing orders were not complied with,
inasmuch as no notice was given of the line of railway to the
harbour of Glasgow.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
This Committee resumed its sittings at ,
tivlve, this day.
THE KILLARNEY JUNCTION A.).1) GREAT
SOUTH WESTERN (CORK EXTENSIO) ,
WAY (IRELAND) BILLS, which had been adjourned
from a previous day for want of witnesses, were disposed
of, the Committee reporting that the companies had complied
with the standing orders.
THE LIFFEY EXTENSION AND LONGFORD
DEVIATION RAILWAY.
The capital of this line is 30,0001., and its length is about
two miles. The object is to connect the Midland Great
Western with the Docks and River Liffey.
The solicitor.> are Messrs. Young, Lamb, and Malley.
_ The Committee reported that the standing orders had not
been complied with, but that they should be suspended, and
the Company allowed to proceed.
The following lines were adjourned until Friday, in conse-
auaerzli,c,we,ofatnhae
Dublin
of witnesses:—The Wexford,
.Junction ; the Midland Great Western
(Mullingar to 6ral)1111:1
The Committee rearialeTeul,ongford and Siigo Extension.
hadgcloymail'acedd N. V
the company for the Mallow
and Fermoy Railwayth tn; standing orders,'
and the Bill was accordin

Potat.)es are now ceiling at Ramsey at 8s: per boll of
4 491bs. for export to the Liverpool and other English markets ; an,
some choice descriptions have bedsold st) 410 as 13S. per boll, as
se ed for irgno use.7lfanx A:ilUn