The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-24 00:00:00

THE KILMARNOCK AND AYR DIRECT

LINE

was then. first called on ; it was not opposed, and after a very
short investigation,
The CitunmAx declared the standing orders to have been
complied with. The length of the line is 12 miles; the esti-
mated cost 160,000/., or at an average of nearly 12,000/. per
mile. Engineer, Mr. Gale; Solicitor, Mr. Lamont; Parlia-
mentary agent, Messrs. Deans, Dunlop, and Hope:

PAISLEY, ZIARItHEAD, AND NUR.LET

LINZ.

There were two petitions against this line, alleging non-
compliance with the standing orders; one from Sir J. Max
well, which was withdrawn, and the other from Mr. P. M.
Stewart, whose agent appeared. The object of this line is
to connect the village of Barrhead with Paisley and the
mineral districts; the length of the line is 12 miles, aed the
estimated cost 195,0001., on an average of 14,0001. per mile,
including branches. Engineer, John Mitten, Esq. ; Parlia-
mentary agents, Messrs. Deans, Dunlop, and Hope.
Mr. P. M. Stewart's agent, contended that there was dis-
crepancy between the datum line on the section and the
actual mode in which the line would traverse a bridge, which
crossed a river in Renfrewshire. A witness was called, who
deposed as to a mis-description in the section. The parapet
of the bridge was formed of iron railing, horizontal and up-
right; but that it would be impossible to understand from the
description in the section, whether the proposed railway was
to run below the level of the railing of the bridge or upon a
level of it.

Mr. George Martin, the engineer,who prepared the section,
deposed that he conceived the description in the section to
be sufficient, and that the term " railing," as applied to a
bridge, was such as no Scotch engineer could mistake.
The room was cleared for a division, and on re-admittance
the Committee declared that the objection did not hold good,
though they conceived that the description might have been
better.

The next objection was somewhat of a similar character,
and the error was admitted by the agent to the Bill.
The next allegation was that the miles were not numbered
on the map, but were distinguished by crosses, which was also
admitted.

The next allegation was that the plan and section differed,
inasmuch as that the plan described a certain distance be-
tween two given points, as 5 miles 5 furlongs, while in the
section the same distance was described as 7 miles 6 furlongs.
The agent to the Bill said he admitted the allegation, but
in the Bill he had limited the said distance to that marked
in the plan.
Standing order not complied with.
Several other allegations of the same character were made,
and declared by the Committee to have been proved, and the
standing orders not complied with.
The agent stated that all these discrepancies had been
corrected in the plan deposited in the Private Bill. office.
The Learned COUNSEL commented upon the opposition
offered, and then proceeded to call witnesses in support of his
case.
Mr. Sergeant BELLASIS, who now entered the Committee-
room, argued that he was entitled to be heard in opposition
fur the Ardrossan Company. They were a competing Com-
pany, inasmuch as they proposed to carry coals from the
Perston collieries to Irvine.
Sir T. PHILLIPS replied. He contended that his Learned
Friend should not be heard as competing, for he proposed
only to accommodate the town of Irvine, whereas the parties
he (Sir T. Phillips) represented intended to carry the line on
to the port itself.
The Committee decided that the only branch to the Per-
ston Collieries should be held as competing.
Mr. Miller, C. E., then, after explaining the course of the
present Ayrshire Railway, described the proposed branch to
the port of Irvine as commencing three miles from Kilmar-
nock, in order to remedy the preseet very circuitous route.
The country was peculiarly even ; there would be no tunnel-
ling; the steepest gradient would be 1 in 75; the smallest
radius of a curve, 15 chains ; the estimated cost 80,000/.
Cross-examined by Mr. WHEATLEY, Q. C.—The Perston
branch did go through some fields belonging to Mr. Guthrie,
and very near one of the farm-houses. If the line were
diverted, the estimated cost of 4,000/. would be nearly doubled.
The Company was most anxious to meet the wishes of Mr.
Guthrie as far as possible.
It was suggested by the Committee, that Mr. Miller should
try to effect an arrangement with some engineer representing
Iltr. Guthrie.
I IMr. WHEATLEY contended, also, that the compensation
should be made to Mr. Guthrie for " way leave," this branch
proposing to yield a nay to certain private collieries, which
would come into opposition with Mr. Guthrie's.
Sir T. PHILLIPS replied that no claim of the kind could be
made by Mr. Guthrie.
After a few words from Ur. Wsza•Trzx
• •