The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-26 00:00:00

GLASGOW AND BELFAST UNION.

The CHAIRMAN stated, taut in respect of the 14th and 15th
allegations of the petition, which were under consideration
when the Committee rose, an error was made in the an-
nouncement that the allegations were overruled. It should
have been stated that the 14th was confirmed, and the 15th
overruled.
Several allegations as to minute differences between the
plans and sections having been read, and' witnesses having
been examined in support of and in answer to each,
The CHAIRMAN said that the Committee would not report
upon these allegations until they should ascertain what the
practice was, and whether it was usual to report such slight
discrepancies or not.
Mr. WEBB, on the part of the petitioners, said. that slight
as these discrepancies appeared to be—being in some in-
stances only 1-20th of an inch on the paper—they might lead
to very great inconvenience; and
Mr. CONNELL, for the promoters of the Bill, urged the im-
possibility of having the plans and sections alike in such mi-
nute points.
The other allegations of the Bill were then proceeded with.
It was alleged that in several parts of the line the limits
of deviation were not marked; but the allegations contain-
ing the objection were withdrawn.
The CHAIRMAN observed that it was not ncessary to mark
the limits of deviation if it was not intended to take the land
included in them ; but if it could be shown by the books of
reference or other papers that it was intended to take the
land, the omission would become a non-compliance with the
standing orders.
It was also alleged that a certain turnpike-road passed
by the proposed line, was described in the plans thus—
"turnpike-road, level and unaltered, the railway to pass
under. Height of arch 18 feet," while, from the sections, it
appeared that the railway crossed the road on an embank-
ment of 31 feet. It was represented that this was merely a
clerical error—the word " under" being substituted for
" over," and that it was not calculated to mislead.
Mr. WEBSTER admitted that it was clearly a clerical error,
and that no one could be misled by it. He, therefore, with-
drew the allegation.
Several other allegations having been disposed of, the
Committee decided that the standing orders were not com-
plied with.
DONCASTER, WAKEFIELD, AND LEEDS.
This case again came on, and was finally disposed of, th
Committee deciding that the standing orders were complied
with.

WEXFORD, cartziow, AND DUBLIN
YUNCTION.

This is a Bill to form a line connecting the Southern and
Western Railway (station at Carlow) with the town of
Wexford. The length of the line will be 46 miles, and the
cost is estimated at 420,0001. Sir John M'Neil is the engineer,
and Mr. Smith is the Parliamentary agent.
This was an opposed Bill, there being seven petitions against it.
Messrs. Hunt and Co., appeared in support of six, but in respect of
the seventh, that of Patrick Burns and others, no appearance was
made. The six supported petitions were:--l. That of Thomas Poun-
der and others. 2. Of Sarah Gaubiere and others. 3. Of Thomas
Greenhan. 4. Of John C. Sparrow. 5. Of Herbert Hall and others.
6. Of Michael Kerne and Sarah Wheeler.
The first allegation—of the petition of Thomas Pounder, and six
.other persons, was, that the notices served on them were so served
on Christmas Day, and that no such notices were served on any other
day.
In support of this allegation, the petitioner Thomas Pounder was
called. He stated that he received the notice on Christmas Day, but
could not say that no notice had been subsequently served, though he
had received none.

The agent for the line, Mr. Smith, said that the allegation was not
proved, as to this petition, as it was not shown that no notice had
been subsequently served.
The Committee were of opinion that evidence ought to be given to
show that a notice had been served after Christmas Day.
Mr. Smut said, that if the Committee would reserve the point, ho
could produce a witness to prove that notices had been served after
Christmas Day, on the seven petitioners.
Five other petitioners proved that the notices were served on them
on Christmas Day ; and one of them, Mr. Thomas Gaubiere, said that
he was present when a notice was served on his brother, who was
one of the petitioners, and that this notice was served on Christmas
Day.
The Committee were of opinion that the allegation was not
answered.