The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-18 00:00:00

FORD.

The consideration of this Bill, 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.
The 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 sustained.
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, &c., were not marked on the said plans.
Mr. 6111tUBSOLE (agent for the Bill) said that it was not necessary
to mark those points in all cases.
Mr. GSCBSE (who appeared is support of the petition) contended
that the Act was quite clear on this point, and requiredthat 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 sustained.
Several similar allegations 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 Pill-office, 76a, which was not sustained.
Other allegations to the same effect were not sustained.
The next class of allegations was of inaccuracy of description, in
several cases the parties set forth as owners, &c., of the property
not being correctly represents::.
On• or two instances of the alleged 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.

xacHrxELD, AND MAN-

CHESTER.

Ibis Bill was next considered. The object of the promoters 1s
to -construct a line of railway from Lichfield to Birmingham, the
length of which 1 4 miles, 8 furlongs, and 80 chains.
Parliamentary agents, Messrs. Dorrington and Co. ; engineer, Mr.
31 aclmn. . . .

There was one petition against the Bill from Mr. George Edwards
complaining of non-compliance with the standing orders.
The. formal proofs having been taken, the Committee proceeded to
considerthe petition, which was supported by Mr. Hoare.
The first allegation was that on the 7th mile and 7th furlong the
vertical height of the railway was not shown, which was sustained.
There was another allegation to the same effect, which was not
sustained.
It was then alleged that at the ninth mile and twenty-seventh
chain, though the public road was shown, the span of the arch where
the bridge crossed was not given. which was amlinltted.
The next allegation was that the space between 10 miles 58 chains
and 11 miles 45 chains was not shown. This allegatiou was sus-
tpined.
The_ketitiou further alleged that the rate of inclination at a certain
point of the line was incorrectly stated to be 1 in 354.
Mr. Woolsey, engineer, was examined, and stated that the correct
rate was 1 in 130. -
The Committee found the allegation to be sustained.
There were some other allegations to the same effect, and the
("emir:Mee found, that at 11 miles 46 chains and 12 miles 45 chains
the'rate of inclination was not shown on the plans and sections.
Ar.:tllegation, that at twelve miles five chains there was no cross
re,tien given, was sustained.
t was next alleged that at certain points on the line, where the
was crossed by the railway, the vertical height from the sur-
fiee of the river to the rails was not shown.
Several instances of the alleged omissions were adduced and ad-
mitted: It was next alleged that no notice had bees& given to the
Waterworks Company of their property, at section 8, being crossed
by the railway. Proof of the consent of the Company to the peti-
tion being adduced, the Committee found that in this case the stand-
ing orders had been complied with.
This concluded the case for the petition.
The CuAtastaN then announced that in the case of this Bill the
standing orders had not heen complied with.
SITZLEET MON RAILWAY.

This was the next Bill considered.
There was one petition against the Bill from certain owners on the
and adjoining the railway, which alleged that they had not received
the necessary notices.
Mr. VENABLES (who appeared 111 support of the petition)
said that he understood it was agreed between the agents
on both sides that all the facts alleged here should be admitted, and
that they were merely to decide upon the principle involved in the
petition.

- Mr. Watt:ol,m,, who appeared in support of the Bill, after some
discussion, agreed to adopt that course.
The point at issue Was whether in a Bill of the third class it
was necessary to serve notice on the owners of land to be affected
by any wcrk ?
Mr. VENAELES said that the provision of the Act under
which the Present case came was the 3Gth. Since last
session another provision, 3,1 A, had been added to the Act, and
bP contended ttat the term apQmany
did not, as was maintained on
the other side, mean exclusively, and therefore that third-class Bills
were Included as well as those of the second-class.
Mr. WALMSLEY offered a few observations in reply.
The room was then cleared.
After a few minutes we Nere ye-admitted, hut the Mull:max
merely announced that the Committee would meet to-morrow, at
twelve o'clock, leaving the matter ad we sub judire.

Sab-Committee No. 4.
The Committee met at twelve o'clock ; present, Sir W. neath"t.
(chairman), Mr. Shirley, Mr. hope Johnstone, and Mr. C. Legh.
They immediately proceeded to the consideration of the petitions
Against the
veiralczpiczam, and MlDL.aign.
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 onzlit to contain the references of the
whole of the parish of Farnleigh.
Mr. Conner, the 19th of Jan.
from the office of Mr. Dixon, the clerk of the peace,
stated that the missing leave:, were in the book on
when it was inspected by Messrs. Taylor and Cumberland, the
solicitors for the Bill. On the 13th of Iv,. the book was brought to
London, and souls time after that the leaves in question were
inisse I. The book had not been inspected between the Ifith of
January and the 13th of February.
Mr. GREGORY, for the promoters of the Bill, called several wit-
nesses, who traced the reference books to the hands of the binders,
up to which time they were correct and perfect. The bookbinders
also were called to prove that the books were perfect when they
passed from their hands to the clerk of the peace's office.
Mr. Haselton, reporter for the Leeds Times and the Leeds Mercury,
stated that he copied for the reference hook the whole of the pages
relating to the parish of Farnleigh. On examining the books to MI
Dixon's office, two days after they were deposited, he discovered
that all the pages which he had written had been torn out.
Mr. Wright, clerk to the solicitors, Messrs, Taylor and Co.,
stated that on the ilst of Jan., he went to the office of the Clerk of
the peace to ascertain if it were true that the book of reference had
been divided into three parts, and each part sewed up In cartridge
paper. On that occasion he discovered that the leaves in question
had been torn out. Mr. Hezeltun was present with him.
The CHAIRMAN did not think it necessary to call upon Mr. ' Pr'tt
the agent for the petitioners, to address the Committee, as they were
uoanimously of opinion, from the evidence and 1n
book of reference,it never did eontain the whole of thesplricti pariah of f
ofolo a ther
-
leigh. They attributed nothing like improper conduct on the part of
the promoters. There seemed to have been an error on the part Of
the bookbinders in respect to the: two parishes Of Faruleigh, one on
the branch and the other on the main line.
The 411.11.4194 WWI lustnlatd.

The next allegation was to the effect that the properties situated
near the Bradford cud Leeds and the Wakefield and Leeds Branches
were not numbered in the book of reference deposited with the clerk
of the peace of the West Riding.
For the promoters it was alleged that the numbers were entered
upon the pages, which disappeared from the book after it was depo-
sited with the clerk of the peace.
The Committee decided that the allegation was sustained.
The next allegation charged that the levels, as laid down in the
sections deposited, were Inaccurate to an amouat from six to sixteen
feet in the depth of the cuttings.
After the engineering evidence in support of the allegation had
been received,
Mr. GREGORY, for the projectors, said that he would admit that
between the pints set forth there was an error of about ten (bet,
hoping that the engineer, Mr. Murphy, would give such an explana-
tion as would enable the Committee to report favourably for the
promoters on this point.
Mr. Murphy, being examined at some length, explained that the
error was occasioned throughout by one mistake made in casting up
the figures at the commencement of the levelling, that Is, at the
Wakefield end of the branch.—Allegation sustained.
Mr. Pazrr, for the petitioners, then said that this concluded
their case.
The Committee then proceeded with the
BRISTOL. AND GLOUCESTER (GLOUCESTER,

AND STONEHOUBE JUNCTION).
The object of the Bill is to carry on the Bristol and Gloucester
line from Stonehouse to Gloucester, a length of about tPA miles, so
as to complete in that direction the railway communication between
Bristol and Birmingham. The engineer is Mr. It. Stephenson ; the
agent, Mr. ILrrington ; the solicitors, Mr. Carter, of Birmingham,
and Mr. Addison, of Gloucester. The estimated cost is 100,000/.
There was a petition against the Bill, bat Mr. Pritt, who repre-
sented the petitioners, did not propose to press it.
The formal evidence having been gone through, the standing orders
were declared to have been complied with.

THE BIN XENHEAD, LANCASHIRE, AND

CUESIIIIitZ J►JNCTION.

The object of the Bill is to connect the docks at Birkenhead,
th., Mersey, with the manufacturing districts, forming a communi-
cation from Birkenhead and Chester to Manchester and Stockport.
The length of the main line will be thirty-eight miles, and that of the
Chester Branch will be eight miles. The cost is estimated at
1,400,0001. The engineers are Messrs. Rendel and Lister; the agents
Messrs. Burke, Britt, and Co, ; and the solicitors are Messrs. Mal-
laby, Townsend, and Newdell, of Birkenhead.
. _

The formal evidence having been gone through, the titles of se-
veral petitions against the Dill were read, and the Committee agreed
to take the petition of a person in Warrington, who alleged that, being
the occupier of a chop within the limits of deviation, which entitled
him to receive notice from the promoters of the Bill, he had not re-
ceived such notice.

Mr. PRITT submitted that the petitioner should have set forth that
he was occupier of the shop in question on the 30th of November, and
further, that the petitioner did not euticiently designate the premises
in respect to which he complainel to enable the promoters to show
that notice hail in reality been served upon the petitioner.
Mr. COPPOCK contended for the admissibility of the petition, but
The Committee decided that it could not be received.

Sub-Committee No. b

The Committee met at half-past twelve o'clock. Present, Mr.
Horne Drummond (chairman), Mr. Compton, and Mr. Packe.