The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-17 00:00:00

3UNCTION.

This Bill was, like the former, unopposed, and It also passed the
standing orders.

GLASGOW. BARRINEA.D, AND NEILSTON
(BRANCHES TO DUNLOP-STREET, GLAS-

COW).

The leng:h of this branch line was stated to be about a mile and a
half, and the estimated cost 180,0001. Neil Robson, Esq., engineer.
The Bill was unopposed and passed.
SCOTTISH MIDLAND EXTIDNSION.

This Bill was for the purpose of constructing a branch from the
parent line nearForfar,to Laurencekirk, in the county of Kincardine.

Sub-Committee No. 2.

This Committee met to-day at twelve o'clock ; present, Sir John
Yarde Buller (chairman), Mr. Bell. Mr. liemble, and Mr. Walker.
NEWPORT, ABERGAITENNY, AND lIERE-

F 07231.

The consideration of this 8111, which was commenced on Thursday
last, was resumed.
A portion of the formal proof, which was not produced on Thurs-
day, was taken, after which the remaining allegations in the peti-
tion, which was part heard, were proceeded with.
'ihe petition alleged that at the ninth mile and fourth furlong the
embankment was not marked on the county plans and deposits.
The Committee found that the omission complained of had been
committed.

There was a similar allegation with reference to the third furlong
on the line, which the Committee found to be sustained.

An allegation with respect to the second mile and first furlong, of
the same character, was sustaixed.
Several similar allegations were abandoned. _ _ • . _

The petition then alleged that the'rate of inclination at the 'ninth
mile and fifth furlong was omitted from the plans and sections in
question.

_
This allegation was not proved, but another to the same effect was
sustained.

The next class of allegations stated that the height and span of the
bridges, Sec., were not marked on the said plans.
Mr. SMIUBSOLE (a;ent tor the Bill) said that it was not necessary
to mark those points in all cases. . . .

Mr. GBUBBE (who appeared in support of the petition) contended
that the Act was quite clear on this point, and required that the points
should be all marked.
The Committee concurred in this opinion. . . .

The first particular allegation was, that the omission complained
of had been committed on the fifth mile, second furlong, and third
chain, which was susta'ned.
Several similar allegaticins were sustained.
The petition then alleged that all the lands included in the line of
deviation were not marked on the plans deposited with the clerk of
the peace for the county of Hereford.
The first instance adduced was the section marked on the proof of
reference in the Private Bill-office, 76a, which was not sustained.
Other allegations to the same street were not sustained.
The next class of allegations was of inaccuracy of description, in
several cases the parties set forth as owners, tkc., of the property
not being correctly represente.
One or two instances of the elleg,ed inaccuracy were adduced, but
not sustained.
This terminated the case for the petition, and the Committee
found, that with respect to this Bill, the standing orders had not been
complied with.

twelve o'c esent, Sir W. Ileathcote
The Committee met atSub.
(chairman), Mr. Shirley, Mr. Hope Johnstone, and Mr. C. Legh.
Cemmittee No. 4.
They immediately proceeded to the consideration of the petitions
against the
UTP-XLZTIELD, and DIXDLILIVI).
The first allegation taken this day related to the omission or
abstraction of the pa, es 115 and 116 from the book of reference de-
posited with the clerk of the peace of the West Riding of Yorkshire,
those being the pages which ought to contain the reference* of the
whole of the pariah et' Faraleigh.