The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-12 00:00:00

Sub-Committee No. 3,

The Committee resurnetl its sittings at the usual hour this morn-
ing, In Room No. 8. There were present Mr. Aglionby (in the chair),
Mr. Aldam, Mr. Statisticla, and Mr. B.

DAnTINIOUTII, nnxxHrovi, TORBAY, AND

EXETE E. .

The object of the petitioners in this case was to make a railway
front Dartmouth, Brixham, and Torbay, on the south coast of De-
vonshire, to the city of Exeter. The capital of the Company was
7e0,0001., and the cost of the line was estimated at 630,0001. The
line was oppose,' by several petitioners, and only the tbrmal proofs
were taken to-day.

oxrortn, WITNEY, CHELTENnAIVZ, AND

GLOUCESTER.
The opposition to this case was then resumed.
Mr. VENABLES appeared to support the petition of two occupiers of
property near Cheltenham, which was proposed to be taken t'or the
purposes of the railway, but the promoters had neglected to give
them notice of this fact. The same petitioners also complained of
alleged omissions and defects in the plans and sections.
One allegation was that a cottage near to Cheltenham, proposed to
be taken by the railway, was not marked on the plans.
Mr. DEANs, on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, admitted this
allegation. It was not a cottage, as alleged by the petitioners, but a
small brick hut.

Mr. AGLIONBY did not find any exception of small brick huts in the
standhip; orders.

Standing orders not complied with,

The petitioners then proved that their cottages, for which they
paid r, rent of 4/. per annum, were placed upon the plans and ssction,
but no notice had been served upon them to that effect.
Standing orders not complied with.
. . . • .

Mr. VEXABLEs said he had a petition against the Bill, signed by
landowners on the line, who complained of omissions in the
plans and sections of property of which the petitioners themselves
were not the owners and occupiers, while the property alleged to
be omitted was situated at a considerable distance from that part of
the country, while the petitioners' property was intersected by the
railway.
Mr. Muss demanded that the consent of the occupiers or owners
of the property alleged to be omitted to the presentation of the peti-
tion in question should be proved by Mr. Venables before he was
heard upon it. _ _ _

Mr. VENABLES apprehended that as this was an objection open to
the general public, it was not necessary for him to prove such consent.
Mr. AGLIONBY said it was true that it had already been decided
that suzh allegations were open to the general public, but each ape
must be taken upon its particular merits and particular facts, and if
the particular circumstances and particular facts of the case did not
justify the hearing of a general petitioner, not immediately interested
in the property alleged to be omitted or incortectiy described, it was
competent for the Committee to refuse to hear evidence or arguments
upon such petition. That was the opinion of the Committee in the
present instance, and the petition therefore could not Us admitted.
Several allegations urged by other petitioners, of omissions and
defects in the plans, sections, and books of reference, were substan-
tiated, and alloWed by the Committee.
The Committee then adjourned.

Sub-Committee, No. 4.
Sub-Committee, No. 4, met this day at llalf-past Twelve o'clock,
in Room No. 11, Sir William Heathcote in the chair.
DITDLIN AND SANDYMONT.

The proceedings in the case of this line have been postponed to
Monday.