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

LIVERPOOL AND LEEDS DIRECT.

The formal evidence, which had not concluded yesterday, was re-
sumed, in the course of which it appeared that the estimate of tl►e
undertaking was over 1,600,0001.
The petitions against the Bill, complaining ef non-compliance with
thestanding orders, were then considered.

The first petitiox taken WM from Mrs. Frances Mary Richardson
Kerr, alleging generally inaccuracy in the notices served on her
with reference to descripti:n of property through which the railway
proposed to pass.
The first specific allegation was that In sections 141 to 148 inclu-
sive, and 15, 19, 13, 104, &c., in the West Riding of York, the pro-
perty of petitioner was not set forth correctly in the notices served
on her. _ _

Mr. rARKE3 admitted that there were errors in the notices.

This allegation wai sustained.
The nest allegation was, that the mode in which the property
would be affected in the sections in question was not set forth in the
schedule.

Mr. PARKES objected to this allegation being entered into, inas-
much as it was included in the preceding allegation.
After some discussion the Chairman ordered the room to be cleared.
The CHAIRMAN, on our re-admission, said that the Committee were
of opinion that they might proceed with the allegation, and that
they might hear individual cases.
The Committee found that the standing orders in this case had not
been complied with, inasmuch as the height of the embankments and
cuttings where the railway crossed were not stated.
It was next alleged that there was an inaccuracy of the same de-
scription with reference to the section 119, which was marked 117.
Evidence having been heard in support of the allegation, the Com-
mittee found, that in this case the standing orders had Rot been com-
plied with.
The next allegation was that in section 123, in the parish of North
Earley-, there was a similar inaccuracy, which was abandoned.
The next allegation was, that in section 155 the embankment was
not st t forth, which was sustained.

There was a similar allegation with reference to section 116, a
tram-road marked 110.

This allegation was abandoned, as well as some others of a similar
eharacter.

It was alleged that in the same district, where tunnelling was sub-
stituted for open cutting the same was not stated in the schedule.
This allegation was sustained.
There was a similar allegation with respect to section 35, which
was sustained.

The next allegation was, that In various parts of the petitioner's
property the depth of the cuttings was not set forth.
After some discussion between the agents, the Committee found
that in this case the standing orders had been complied with.
The next allegation was, that in the cross-sections, where the pro-
posed alterations In the level were to be made, the same were not
set forth.

Mr. PARKES contended that this was not a case that came under
the standing order.
• This allegation was sustained.
It was next alleged that the radius of the curve of the sixth mile
and fifth furlong along the line in the parish of North Bailey was not
marked correctly.
This allegation was not sustained.
An allegation to the same effect was admitted.

It was next alleged that, on the plan deposited with the clerk of
the peace, the fences dividing the fields marked sections 154, 155,
153, 165, were not delineated.

There was- a similar allegation with respect to the section marked
20, a stable adjoining a public road, which was sustained.
It was next alleged that the line terminated at the point
marked 155, in the township of Wyck, which was sustained.
A similar allegation was admitted.