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

GLOUCESTER.

The consideration of the petition against this Bill was resumed.
It was alleged that there were various inaccuracies on the datum
line between Worcester and Gloucester.

Evidence which was of a purely technical character being heard.
The;Committee found that at the road marked on the section fourteen
miles and six furlongs there was an error of eight feet, the point in
question being marked 116 feet, when it should have been 109 feet.
It was then alleged that on the turnpike road, 15 miles and a half-
furlong, at the point marked 125 feet above the datum line, there was
an error of 18 inches.

Evidence having been heard pro and con, the Committee found
that the allegation was sustained.

The Committee then decided that hi the case of this Bill the stand.
Lng orders had not been complied with.

Sub• Committee No. 6.

The members present on the meeting of this Committee, at twelve
o'clock this day, were Captain Jones (chairman), the O'Cenor 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 allegat:on (the 147th) was that the names of John Moseley
and Arthur Bendell were not Inserted in the books of refereace as
owner and occupier of certain property marked Nos. 19 and 20 on
the plan, although Mr. Moseley was the owner and Mr. Beudell the
occupier of that property.
Mr. Betidell himself was called to prove that he occupied the pro-
perty, and that it belonged to Mr. Moseley
In cross-examination isy Mr. ELLICOMBE, the witness said that he
had not signed the petition, and that he had not consented previously
to its presentation.
Mr. ELLicomisa 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. le admitted that there was
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 CHAIRMAN said that there was an apparent
with the standing orders, but that the standing orders
non-compliance
rderrs wtneerepseutibtisotanteir-
tially complied with, and he would ask the agent for
whether he would wish such a point to be reported?
The agent thought It ought to be
the reported,ianadindngtheorCdoermsinwitetreee
naoct-
cerdingly determined to report that
complied with.
The next allegation taken was that in crossnesiencgtioonn Nano.
i7n,ellanreo road
1 in 75, whereas it was i
near 15 miles 7 furlongs
in fact
represented as
fact arleevtenla
t the road was level, o
A witness was called
EpLoic (man admitted that the roadbut fre-
n
cross-exaraination
.
quently changed its level, being a sandstone road. The statement
in the cross-section was that the average level was 1 in 75, but the
witness said the average ought to have been stated as level.
Dir. Emacostsz said that the late heavy rains had caused a change
since the sections were drawn.
Allegation not sustained.
The remaining allegations were withdrawn. This Bill being now
disposed of, the Committee called the