The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-09 00:00:00

OKAPI'VELD ii.t7D LINCOLN JUNCTION

RAILWAY.
Mr. Pairr said that the present was one of those that arose
oat of the standing order to which he had already referred in
the preceding case.
Mr. Gainsford examined—Was solicitor to the Bill
brought before Parliament last session, as well as the present
Bill, which was substantially the same as the former Bill.
The Bill of last year was for a main line and a branch. The
House kad negatived the branch, and the Bill was ordered to
be engrossed. The main line for which the present petition
prayed was exactly the same es the main line of the former
petition.
Mr. LAIZtG, agent, presented a petition from Mr. W. Dun
'Wheeler, of Sheffield, solicitor, on the part of his client, Mr.
Clarke Hutchinson, stating that the proposed line would pass
through and injure his property, and that the petition was
not presented by the same& parties who had brought it fer-
ward last year.
Mr. Parrr said he objected in limini to the objection being
heard, as the petition was presented by one party on behalf
of another, whereas the party interested should apply himself.
It appearing that the petitioner had been authorised to act
for Mr. Hutchinson, the petition was received.
Mr. LAINO said that his objection was, that the standing
orders required parties to prove that the undertaking was car-
ried on by the same persons.
Mr. Gain:ford was then examined, and stated that the par-
ties were the same, and there was the same body of directors
with the exception of one individual, who had retired from
old age.
Mr. Limo said that out of 73 who had signed, only 23
had signed the present petition, while oat of 707 who had
signed the former contract only 93 had attached their names
to the present deed.
The, CIIALRHAIC said the Committee were unanimously
of opinion that the petition was from the same parties.
The Committee decided that the standing orders had been
complied with by the Company.
NEWCASTLE AND DARLINGTON ZUNC-
Tiair (DUREAIIII AND SUNDERLAND
R.AILWAT AND WEARNIOUTH DOCK
PURCHASES AND BRANCHES).
The Committee found that the orders had been complied

with.
mums AND HUNTS (HUNGZRTORD
lIXTEINSION) RAILWAY.
There were petitions against this Bill from the owners of
the land through which the line was to pass, stating that
due notice had not been given in the London Gazette.
The Committee resolved not to enter on the petitions to-day,
and adjourned, at four o'clock, till twelve o'clock to-morrow.

Sub-Committee, No. 3.
(continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
BANVICB. BRANCHES.

----
This was another petition of the North British Railway,
foe leave to bring in • Bill to make a number of branches
from their Hawick line, the estimated cost of which WSW
770,0001.

The Committee took an objection to the plans, inasmuch
as they did not correspond with the petition for the Bill. By
the petition the Company sought for powers to make a branch
from Torwood Lee to Selkirk, wane ttie plans deposited nett
for a branch from a place called Rink to Selkirk.
Mr. Miller, the engineer of the line, explained that so
much of the branch as lay between Torwood Lee and Rink
had already been sanctioned by the Legislature, and, there-
fore, it was abandoned in the present instance.
The Committee complained that this discrepancy between
the petition and the plans was calculated to mislead the
public, and they trusted that in future the promoters of Bills
would make the titles of their lines in their petitions and
plAns correspond. The decision of the Committee in this
ease Res the same as that in the last.

GIARLISLZ EXTENSIONS.
This was another petition of the North British Railway
Company, for kave to bring in a Bill to construct their Car-
lisle Extensions, the estimated cost of which was 660,000/.
The customary formal proofs having been gone through, the
Committee informed the parties that their decision in the
former case would apply to this also.
These were the three Bills included in the joint subscrip-
tion contract alluded to in the first case. The aggregate
amount which the parties to this instrument bound them-
selves for was 1,274,687/., and the question whether this deed
could apply to three Bills was left for decision of the Com-
mittee above, or the Committee on Public Petitions.