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

Sub-Committee No. I

The Committee met to-day at twelve o'clock, in Room No. 7,
(Cloisters) ; present, Mr. Strutt, chairman ; Mr. Beckett, and Mr,
lirotherton, and resumed the consideration of the
SOUTH DEVON (No. 2.)

The formal evidence having been completed, the standing orders
were declared to Le complied with.

The Committee resumed the consideration of the
DIRECT NORTHERN,

of which we gave the particulars yesterday,
In the course of the reception of some tormal evidence, which was
postponed from yesterday,
Mr. CoATEs (of the firm of Parks, and Co.), on the part of a pe-
titioner, proposed to take that opportunity of entering into an alle-
gation, that the standing orders had not been complied with, in re-
spect to the amount of deposit paid into the Court of Chancery.
Mr. WWII4TFIL gubmitlel that it was: not enmpptent to the other
side to enter upon that allegation at present, as it really did not
affect the formal evidence, but would be proper matter of considera-
tion when the Committee came to inquire into the adverse petitions.
The CHAIICHAN having consulted with the other Hon. Members,
said that the question could not be entertained in this stage of
inquiry.
The fonral evidence was then completed.
Mr. COATES then proceeded with the allegations of a petition from
Mr. Parsons, a landowner within the line of deviation.
Upen an allegation to the effect that the name of a parish through
which a part of the line would pass was not named in the notices,
The Committee decided that the standing orders were not com-
plied with, but they would report that the parish alluded to (Morban,
in Huntingdonshire) was named in the notices
,as to the main line,
although not on those relating to the branches.
After some discussion on other items of the petition,

Mr. CoATEs withdrew the ether allegations.
Mr. COATES begged permission to explain to the Committee how
it was that he could not proceed with the allegations respecting the
insufficiency of the deposits paid into the bands of the Accountant-
General, because hi truth he had been unable to ascertain what
amount of deposit had been paid. He could not obtain the informa-
tion by any means in his power from the Court of Chancery.
Mr. ;Snit= said that Mr. Coates had no right under the circum-
stances to come before the Committee. But if he could show that
he had used all diligence and could riot obtain the information, the
Committee would assist him if they could. But this would be a mat-
ter of indulgence, or else for their own information, as he had no
locus standi.
Mr. COATES said that he had endeavoured to ascertain the amount,
but could find no means of arriving at the fact, as the Court of
Chancery would give no information except to parties interested.
Mr. WEasTEN said that it was a matter of course every day to
apply for and obtain such inforination. He then examined
Mr. Leash, solicitor, who stated that the certificate of the amount
of deposit paid in was entered upon the records of the Court, and
were accessible to any one. He had repeatedly, in the course of his
practice, obtained access to the record of such certificates, althoa,;,ll
he had never had occasion to apply for the information in respect to
a railway.

The Committee then decided that Mr. Coates could not be heard
upon the question.
Mr. COATES withdrew all the other allegations of his petition, and
begged leave to withdraw also that which had been decided in his
favour, as he thought it hardly worth while to press an objection as
to the omission to ronumerate one parish in the plans of a line ex-
tending over 263 miles.

The Committee then decided that the standing orders were com-
plied with.
It was stated that the prometers had served about 10,000 notices,
and not one error had been proved in the service of any of thew.