The Sun.
London, England, 1846-08-05 00:00:00

(LEFT SITTIMII.)

SECONDARIES'.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Secondary POTTER.)
GUNN s'. KIMPTON.
This was an action to recover the sum of 4/. 18s., for print-
ing bills and cards for the defendant, the patentee of the
patent India corn bread.
The defendant had suffered judgment to go by default,
and a curious discussion arose as to the right of any person
to address the Court in his behalf except counsel, defendant
not having entered an appearance.
A young man said, that he had been looked on and treated
as the defendant, and therefore considered he ought to have
the opportunity of showing he was not.
The SECONDARY said, if he was not the defendant he
could not be heard at all. It was a very great pity that a
professional gentleman had not been engaged, or his advice
taken. The jury, if they gave a verdict against the de-
fendant, would do it against Thomas Kimpton, and it would
be for the plaintiff to see that the execution was enforced
against the right party.
Mr. Kimpton, jun., then said that he should call his father,
and prove that he was the patentee, and the orders had been
given by him through him (the speaker).
The SECONDARY—Then he is the defendant, and you can-
not be heard, nor can he give evidence.
Mr. Kimpton, jun.—But I gave the order, and am looked
on as the defendant.
Mr. Kimpton, sen., said he was not the defendant.
The SECONDARY—This comes of irregularities; you in-
tended to prove your father gave the order through you ;
the only way you could get his evidence was by his proving
he was not the defendant, and as you gave the orders you
must stand the consequence.
The jury said they were perfectly satisfied, and gave a
verdict for the amount claimed.

RAILWAY COMMITTEES

(THIS DAY.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Room A.
HERTFORD AND HATFIELD RAILWAY.
The Chairman (the Marquis of Winchester), and the other Mem-
bers of the Committee on this Bill, met to-day at ten o'clock, and the
evidence in support of the Bill was resumed.
Mr. Webb (farmer and butcher) was examined with respect to the
price of coal at Hatfield, which he stated was at present IBs. Gd. a ton.
This witness was cross-examined by Mr. TALBOT on the part of
the petitioners.
Mr. Rigby stated that the price of the best coal at Hertford was
325. a ton.

Cross-examined by Mr. Timm Alto, Q.C.—The proposed railway
had, in his opinion, the effect of reducing the price of coal at Hatfield.
He made no allowance for detriment to the coal by transhipment,
&c., which, he believed, could be effected without any injury to the
coal.

Mr. George Wedd, corn-factor, stated that 12,000 tons of barley
went annually to London from Hertford, which would be conveyed
by the proposed line if it should be established, and that he was satis-
fied with the correctness of the traffic-tables of this line. He also
stated that a large saving would be effected in the transit of barley,
linseed-cake, Sze., along the line.

Cross-examined by kr. TALBOT—The granaries ware all along the
river-side, but he considered the course of traffic would be diverted
in the direction of that railway. One of the crushing-mills at Hert-
ford was on the river-side. 11,000 tons of corn would come from
Luton and Dunstable, though the Bill for that railway had been
thrown out. Had assumed in his calculation the traffic going to
Ware.
Re-examined—Had seen the inconvenience of the terminus at
Shoreditch. There was not the least apprehension of the corn from
London stopping short of Hatfield and not reaching Ware. It was
very desirable to mix foreign corn with their own corn, and the
millers along the line would consequently have no objection to
closer proximity to the corn coming trout the Baltic, which would be
afforded by the proposed railway.

Room B.

WEST RIDING 'UNION (No. II.) RAILWAY.
Mr. Sergeant Was.Nottax opened the case for the opposition to this
Bill, and at con=iderable length urged upon the Committee the ne-
cessity of rejecting that portion of the system included in the Bills of
the promoters for constructing the Elland and Brighouse branches,
upon the grounds of their not affording the means of a sufficiently
direct communication between Bradford and Manchester, via Hud-
dersfield, and also calculated to prevent any future extension of the
Manchester and Huddersfield line, which would afford that necessary
accommodation.
Mr. Gee, the engineer to the Manchester and Huddersfield Railway,
was then examined with reference to the engineering features of the
line, and also to some alteration in the gradients which had been in-
troduced in the present Bill since last session.
Several other witnesses were examined, who stated that the ac-
commodation proposed by the present line would not be sufficient
to supply the wants of those districts between Bradford and Man-
chester.
Their Lordships then adjourned.