The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-09 00:00:00

Cbtrb laittion

SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock.

RAILWAY COMMITTEES.

(THIS DAY.)

Sub-Committee No. 1.
MORT* S7tArpORDSIIIICE (POTTZTLIES)

LIN M.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
The CI7AIRMAZi said he remembered one case of last sec-
tion which was similar to the point now raised. In that
ease one of the trustees was himself a shareholder, but there
was this difference, that without the sum for which he was
bound there was more than ample capital. He referred to
the Eastern Counties:(Norwich Extension.)
Mr. Burucis--In the present case he had to say that the con-
trast deed was perfectly valid. It had been held good, in
many decisions in a court of law, that where a co-trusteeship
existed, one trustee could recover from the others, under cer-
tain regulations of the deed. Now, in the case
for the promoters of the present Bill, there was
one person who had signed the covenant . who was
not a subscriber to the undertaking, and that made it quite
competent for him to sue the other trustee or the whole Com-
pany. This bad been decided over and over again in courts
of law.
Mr. COA.THS replied, after which the room was cleared,
and having consulted the Speaker,
The CHAIRMAN said that Committee bad considered the
case which had been argued at such length, but understand-
ing that exceptions had been taken to the decision of last
week by the agents who were interested for the cases
which had been alluded to by Mr. Coates, they
were anxious to take the opinion of the Chairman
of the Sub-Committees who would meet on Thurs-
da7 and consider the question raised. The Committee were
quite prepared to give their own opinion on the allegation,
but it would be no doubt more prudent to wait a consultation
of the Chairman, after which they would immediately decide
the point at issue.
IMPORTANT TO PARLIAMENTARY AGENTS.
The C11•11111Aff said that he was instructed by the Speaker
to inform the agents for Bills, that they had neglected to
comply with the standing orders, which required
Ole name of the Bill to be written on every petition
for or against the same ; any petition being presented without
this form being complied with, was contrary to the standing
order which was as follows :
" That on every petition presented to this House, relating
to any private Bill before the House, the name, or short title,
by which such Bill is entered in the votes, be written at the
beginning thereof; and whether such petition be in favour
or against the Bill relating to the non-compliance with the
standing orders."
LONDON, NNVIBITRY, AND BATE LINE.
Mr. C,oarza appeared for the promoters, and called 'eye-
lid witnesses to prove the several deposits of the plans, sec-
tions, and books of reference. After which
Mr. BURKPI said he appeared on the part of Colonel
Wroughton, of the parish of Wilton, in the county of So-
merset, and other landowners. The petition alleged that
the owners of property, though marked on the plans and
potions, was not shown in the books of reference.
The Clerk of the Peace for the county of Somerset was then

galled.
Mr. COATF.A objected to the petition being proceeded with
on the ert of the owners in the petition, unless it could be
shown p
that they were parties actually to be affected by the
proposed line.
The 'room was then cleared, and upon the parties being

'filled in,
The Citaxamax said that the Committee would not enter-
thin any petition against the omission of property in the
books of reference, unless it could be shown that the petition
was presented by the coasent of the parties to be affected
by the non-compliance with the standing orders.
Mr. BURKE would call Col. Wrougliton. The witness
merely pointed cut his property on the plan.
The Clerk of the Peace for the county of Somerset was
then called to produce the book of reference which had
been deposited with him. Upon referring to the book, it
turned out that the property was fully described.
Mr. Bunkis said that he would, of course, abandon that
allegation, as well as several others which were disposed of
by the decision of the Committee.
Mrs. Susannah Shaw was then called to prove that she
had not received notice for a piece of meadow ground which
was to be taken. This allegation was sustained.
The Committee adjourned, at four o'clock, till twelve
o'clock to-morrow, when the remaining allegations in the
petition will be taken.

Sub-Committee No. 2.