The Sun.
London, England, 1846-04-07 00:00:00

Sub-Committee No. 6.

The members present on the meeting of this Committee, at twelve
o'clock this day, were Captain Jenes (chairman), the O'Conor Don,
Viscount Ebrington, and Mr. Deedes. They proceeded with the con-
sideration of the

IPSWICH, NORWICH, AND YARMOUTH.
On the part of the petitioners, a person appeared for Mr. Coates,
and proceeded with the remaining allegations of the petition.
All the allegations from that under consideration at the rising of
the Committee yesterday (the 100th) were abandoned.

This allegation (the 14th) was that the names of John Moseley
and Arthur Wilda were not inserted in the books of reference as
owner and occupier of certain property marked Nos. 19 and 20 on
the plan, although Mr. Moseley was the owner and Mr. Bandell the
occupier of that property.

Mr. Bei 'dell himself was called to prove that he occupied the pro-
perty, and that it belonged to Mr. Moseley
In cross-examination by Mr. Emacomsn, the witness said that lie
had not signed the petition, and that he had not consented previously
to its presentation.
Mr. ELLICOMBE said that the objection could not be entertained as
far as Mr. Bendell was concerned, he net having consented before
the presentation of the petition. Ile admitted that there was an
error as to Mr. Moseley (who was one of the petitioners), but the
mistake had been discovered, and a notice had been served on him.
The unAtamAN said that there was an apparent non-compliance
with the standing orders, but that the standing orders were substan-
tially complied will', and lie would ask the agent
for the petitioner
whether he would wish such a point too e reported
The agent thought it ought to be reprted, and the Committee ac-
cordingly determined to report that the standing orders were not
complied with.
The next allegation taken was that in cross section No. 7, a road
near 15 miles 7 furlongs was represented as being on an incline of
in 75, whereas it was in fact a level.
A witness was called to prove that the road was level, but on
cross-examination by Mr. ELLICOMBE admitted that the road fre-
quently changed its level, being a sandstone road. The statement
in the cross-section was that the average level was I in 75, but the
witness said the average ought to have been stated as level.
Mr. ELLICOMBE said that the late heavy rains had caused a change
since the sections wore drawn.
Allegation not sustained.
The remaining allegations were withdrawn. This Bill being now
disposed of, the Committee called the
CALEDONIAN EXTENSION.

This tin had been re-committed from the Standing Orders Com-
mittee, but in consequence of an arrangement between the parties
that it should not come on till two o'clock, it stood over, with the
understanding that it should be called on at two o'clock if no other
Bill was before the Committee at that hour.

STANDING ORDERS' COMMITTEES.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Room No. 9.
This Committee recommenced their sittings at the usual hour.
Mr. Estcourt (chairman), Mr. E. Strutt, Sir J. Y. Buller, Mr. H.
Aglionby, Mr. Cumming Bruce, and Mr. Wilson Patten, were present.
In the two following] cases the standing orders were declared not
to be complied with
CHELMSFORD AND BURT,
BRITISH AND IRISH UNION.
THE DARTMOUTH, EXETER, A.IID it'TYW 4 V
is nor under consideration.

BANKRUPTCY.-(THIS DAY)
(Before Mr. Commissioner FORELANQUE.)
IN RN LADD.

This insolvent, who was a brewer at Dover, came up for
his adjourned final order.
Au objection was taken that there was an omission in the
schedule fatal to the petition, one of the sheets not being
signed by the insolvent's attorney, or an attesting witness.
Mr. DUNCAN strongly contended that there was no cul-
pable negligence or fraud contemplated in this case, and that
therefore the Learned Commissioner had the power to allow
an amendment—it was clearly an omission by mistake.
The Learned COMMISSIONER, after hearing the arguments
and referring to the cases quoted, said it was an objection
which ought not to be favoured after the case had bees
heard two or three times on the merits, and he was at first
afraid that the term of the statute were so imperative that
he could not give leave to amend the schedule, but he was
now satisfied that under the 7th and Bth Vic., c. 96, s. 30,
be had a power to amend generally. He 'should, therefore,
allow the insolvent to reswear the sheet in dispute that it
might be duly attested.