The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-10 00:00:00

RAILWAY COMMITTEES•

(THIS DAY)

Sub-Committee No. 1.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition).
sintrawszunir, WOLVERHAMPTON, AND
SOUTH STAFrODDSHIRE (NO. XX).
The petition for this Bill was then gone into.
The standing orders were declared to have been complied with
save in one instance, where the notices in the Gazette were inserted
as only applying to a second-class Bill, whereas the Bill partook of a
second and third-class Bill.
The CHAIRMAN said they would consider the point, and give their
decision on Thursday next.
The Committee then adjourned till twelve o'clock to morrow.

sub-c@mmittee \o. 2.
LIVERPOOL AND LEEDS DIRECT.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
Several allegations of the same nature were abandoned, and the
ease for this petition terminated.
The next petition was from Messrs. John, Joseph, Isaac, and
Thomas Hollings, of Dradford, in the county of York, complaining
of non-compliance with the standing orders, by which they were
affected by the railway.
The first allegation was that with respect to the property which
consisted of a mill, &c. in the township of Poylancl in the parish of
Halifax, in the West Riding of the county of York, from sections 3o
to 46 no notice was served on the parties.
This allegation was sustained.
This was the case for this petition.
The next petition: was from Messrs. John William and Edward
Armitage, of Gloucester, complaining of non-compliance with the
standing orders, the necessary notices with respect to their property
on the line not having been served on the petitioners.
Mr. COATES here handed in a letter received from Mr. Edward
Armitage, to the effect that he had been served with a notice on the
30th of December.

Mr. PRITT said that the promoters of the Bill were
bound to have served all the parties when they were, as in the
present case, in the United Kingdom, but instead of that they served
only one of the parties who was at that time in Cheltenham, and dis-
tant from one of the brothers over 100 miles, and from the other 40
miles. One of these gentlemen only heard of the circumstance on
the sth of February last. lie believed that his friend (Mr. Coates)
would not attempt to deny these facts. if not he was ready to go
into the case.
Mr. COATES said that his friend had better go into his case.
Evidence being heard pro and con,
Mr. COATES said ho trusted that the Committee in their report
would mention the mitigating circumstances of the case, the parties
to be served here being scattered over the country.
The Committee found that in the case of Mr. Win. Armitage the
standing orders had not been complied with, but that the other peti-
tioners had been duly served. This was tno only allegation in this
petition.
The next petition was to the same effect from Mr. Budd, on the
part of Sir Charles Evanson, for whom he was agent.
Evidence being heard in support of the allegation as well as on
the part of the promoters of the 11111, the Committee found.that in this
case the standing orders Lad not been complied with, one of the
agents of Sir Charles Evanson being served, but that the agent of
the property in question was not served.
The further hearing of this case was then postponed till Thursday,
to-morrow being the day for the hearing of unopposed petitions.
The Committee adjourned at four o'clock.