The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-17 00:00:00

PA I 'LW AY COMMITTEES.

(YESTERDAY.)

Sub• Committee No 1.
THE LEICESTER AND nzpropio.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
Mr. John Stapleton was called to prove that his property
was not correctly shown on the plans and secttens.
Mr. COATES admitted the allegation.
:Several other allegations were sustained, after which
Mr. BURKE proceeded with the petition of the Leicester
and Swanington Railway Company.
The first allegation was that there was no fixed point of
junction shown on the plan where the proposed line was to
oin the Leicester, and Swannington Railway.
Several witneg,es were called on both sides and the Com-
mittee decided that no fixed point had been shown. Standing
orders in this instance not complied with.
THE LONDON AND SOUTH ESSEX.
Mr. C. PARKES appeared for the promoters, and called the
witnesses to prove the deposit of the plans, sections, books of
reference, &c.
Mr. Burke appeared on a petition against the Bill, but, in
consequence of the absence of a material witness, the case
was adjourned till twelve o'clock to-morrow.
TZE RUGBY AND STAMFORD.

Mr. Venables appeared for the promoters.
The deposit of the plans, and sections, and books of re-
ference having been proved, the further proceedings were
postponed till to-morrow.
The Committee adjourned at half-past three o'clock.

Sub-Committee No. 4.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
YORE AND CARLISLE.
It is proposed by this Bill to connect the Lancaster and
Carlisle Railway w►th the Great North of England line, by
a line from Northallerton to Clifton, near Penrith ; also to
connect the Newcastle and Darlington Railway with Lan-
caster and Carlisle, by a line from Auckland to 'Orton. The
length of the proposed lines will be about ninety-five miles,
and the estimated cost is 1,950,0001. The engineers are
Messrs. Rundell and Harris, and the Parliamentary agents
are Messrs. Burke, Pritt, and Co.
The standing orders were complied with.

-
LANCASHIRE AND NORTH YORKSHIRE.
The case of this Bill having been called on, the clerk to the
Committee stated that a petition had been presented against
the Bill.
The CIIAIRBIAN was of opinion that such being the case,
the Bill must go before another Gommittee.
After some consultation, however, it was decided to call
the party to the petition against the Bill, that is the East
Lancashire Railway Company. _ _ _

- - -
It appeared that the petition had not been properly entered
on the votes of the House, as it did not describe the proposed
Bill by its proper title. No one appeared on behalf of the
petitioners, and the Committee decided to proceed with the
Bill.
There was a second petition from a Mr. Marley, in refer-
ence to which we understood the Chairman to say that he
would not report on the consideration of the oppoSed parts of
the Bill in the absence of the petitioner.
The other particulars of the Bill were proceeded with.
The object of the Bill is to unite the manufacturing dis-
tricts of Lancashire, Yorkshire, and Northumberland. The
projected termini are Elslark and Scorton. The length of
the line, 47 miles 5 furlongs and 4 chains, with the Clitheroe
Branch of 13 miles. The cost of construction is estimated
at 1,450,0031. The engineers are Messrs. Hawksbaw and
Gee, and the Parliamentary agents, Messrs. Dorrington
and Co. •
In the course of the proceeding Mr. Dyson appeared on
behalf of Marley's petition.
The CHAIRMAN believed that the objections in the petition
applied only to the plans and sections.
Mr. DYSON said that such was the case.
The CHAIRMAN then decided that the Committee could
not go into objections of that nature.
The remaining portions of the case were then gone into,
and the usual proofs were received ; but the case Iwas ulti-
mately adjourned till Thursday,to hear the opposition on the
petition of the East Lancashire Company.
HULL AND SELBY RAILWAY PURCHASE.
The object of this Bill is to give power to sell the above-
named railway to the York and North Midland Company, to
whom it had been leased some time ago.
The standing orders were complied with.
The Committee then adjourned.

Sub-Committee, No. 6.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)

BALLOCHNEY.

This was the petition of the Edinburgh and Glasgow Rail-
way Company, who are the proprietors of the Ballochney
Railway, for leave to bring in a Bill to make a railway about
three miles in length, for mineral traffic, from a point on the
Ballochney Railway, to the mineral fields near the Kirk of
Shotts. The line was laid out by Mr. A. J. Adie, who esti-
mated its cost at 33,0001.
One of the witnesses being absent, the Committee, at the
request of the parties, deferred their decision.

DIONILLAND /IND HIMXINTILLOCH
(CHAPEL-HALL BRANCH).

This was the petition of the Monkland and Kirkintilloch
Railway Company, for leave to bring in a Bill to make a mi-
neral branch from their Palace Cray branch to the Chapel-
Hall Iron Works. The cost of the line was estimated at
25,8001.
The usual formal process having been adduced, the stand-
ing orders were declared to have been complied with.

CALEDONIAN AND DUMBARTON
JUNCTION.

This was the petition of the Caledonian and Dunbarton-
shire Junction Railway Company, for leave to bring in a Bill
to make a line from Glasgow to Dumbarton and Loch Lo-
mond, with branches to Helensburgh, Milingavie, and other
places. The length of the line and the branches together is
thirty-two miles, and the cost was estimated by Mr. Neil
Robson at 590,0001.
The Committee decided that the standing orders had been
complied with,
VITLSONTOWN, MORNINGSIDE, AND
COLTNESS.

This was the petition of the ,Wilsontovrn, Morningside, and
Cultness Railway Company, for leave to bring in a Bill to
make a branch of five miles and three quarters in length,
from a point on the main line to Bathgate, the estimated cost
of which is 61,000/. _ _

... •
The parties proved that they had complied with the stand.
ing orders.

CALEDONIAN JUNCTION.

This was another petition of the Wilsontown, Morning..
side, and Coltness Railway Company, for leave to bring in
a Bill to make a branch to connect tbeir line with the
Edinburgh branch of the Caledonian Railway, the esti-
mated cot of which was 123,3741.
The Committee postponed the case, to admit of the attend-
ance, of an important witness.
The Committee adjourned at four o'clock.

LAW Li TELLIGENCE.
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Feb. 16.
(Before Mr. Justice WicarrmAN.)

BREACH OF PR-03ILSE.-MARY ELIZABETH SMITH V. WASHING

TON LORD FRRRERS.

The'cross-examination of Mrs. Smith, by,.the ArronsE-r-
-. GENERAL (continued from our Afternoon Edi Lion of yesterday)
—Amongst the articles mentioned as presents, there was a
pink silk bonnet, sent on the 29th of June, 1844. That was
after the time I was made aware that the other articles had
not been paid for. All the bills bad been paid at that
time. My daughter did not say where the bon-
net came from. I understood that it was sent
by Lord Ferrers, from London. My daughter did
not tell me about it until the bill came in on the following
Christmas. I went to Ashby and paid for it. Probably 1
did make some inquiry about it, as 1 did not imagine it could
be owing for. It was when the bonnet came that my daughter
told me it was a present from Lord Ferrers.
To the COURT—She told me before the bonnet came that
• she expected a bonnet from Lord Ferrers from London.
To the Arronstev-GEsusuat—Mydaughter knew she had
done wrong. She dia. not explain to me
_particularly about
it. I showed her the bill, and said, " How is this?" and
site made no reply. She did not say she had ordered the
bonnet when I showed her the bill. She did deny having
ordered it, or that it must be a mistake. She was conscious
she had d ,ne wrong, and said very little about it.
Did she deny having ordered it?—She did. When the
bill came I learned that the bonnet came from Ashby. When
the bill came I went wth Mr. Hammel, the attorney, to Ashby.
My daughter and I went to Miss Wyman's. This was about
January, 1845; I said to Miss Wyman, "You have sent me
a bill f,r a bonnet that I knew nothing of." Miss Wyman
said Miss Smith had ordered it for herself; my
daughter instaatiy denied she had ordered it; she
said it must be a mistake, or "You must be mis-
taken in the person. " Miss Wyman probably
said, " Miss Smith, if you would say that, you would say
anything." I do not remember my daughter saying, if she
stood there for hours she would deny it. Ido not remember
_iss Wyman saying, " Oh, Miss Smith, I wonder you are
dot afraid of being struck dead." She may have said it. I
believe I did not say in the presence of Miss Wyman, that
" it my daughter would own to the bonnet I would forgive
her." I said, "my dear, if you ordered the bonnet, say so."
She looked at me, but never said a word, and we walked out
of the shop. About this time I said my daughter had re-
ceived a bonnet from a noble individual, and that there was
a note in the box. Miss Smith opened the box. I saw the
note, but Ido not know where it is now. It was a note pur-
Porting to be from Mr. Devereux Shirley. That note was
handed to Mr. Hammel, the attorney.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL asked for this letter, as it was
. • produced on Saturday, but it could not be found for a consider-
able time, and a good deal of confusion followed. Having been
at length produced, it was handed to the witness, but she said
it was not the one that came in the box.
Did your daughtershe explain how that note came in the
box ?—She did ;said that Earl Ferrers told her be would
send her a bonnet from
veniant Oslo so, but NVial;ondon; but he had found it incon-
d her to purchase one at Ashby,
,and she did so, as she
one
ed told her papa and mamma that
she was to have
refused to do so unlre°ssin London • but that she
trould write a note stating that it IMr. Devereux Shirley
believed then that it had
come lad come from London. I
London. Mr. Shirley
gave Miss Smith the note to enelsrssehnlein the box ; this is what
ot the note at Ashby
my daughter told me, and that
irom Mr. Shirley; but in fact the noi)vedas not put into the
de!euibvte inthyedaughter
until it came into the hous.e.
lie =4 after I
- put the note 'lnto the box muftis, to
papa, She told me all this at and her
went to pay for the bonnet.
the bonnet is paid for ; but. I believe SAY if
I went to Miss Wyman's shortly after this, and I may have
have
said that I did not pass the door without saying how sorry
was that this had occurred ; I won't swear that I did not
ask Miss Wyman's to say nothing about this story until the
trial was over; but I said some words to that effect. Pro-
bably I might have said that I wished the Misses Wyman
to understand how it was. I might have said to ahem that
Lord Ferrers was to have sent my daughter a bonnet from
London, but that be had not done so, but had desired her to
c.reer one at the shop, and that Mr. Shirley had told
.ny daughter to order it. lam not sure of this, but I might
have said it. I don't recollect saying to the Miss Wymans
that my daughter 'wets at her grandfather's, and that her
father would not have her in the home. I inn certain I did
not say that. I believe the paper now handed me to be in
my daughter's handwriting. The witness was handed a third
paper, which she said was not very like her daughter's hand-
writing. She was handed a fourth, which she said was her
daughter's writing. She gave thesame answer to a sth and 6th.
She then con; it:tied :—There were two handkerchiefs sent in
lettsira. I seta the beginning of one of these letters; it he-
gan, with "Dearest Washington." This letter was posted at
a Bworth, as my daughter told me that it was the Earl's
particular wish that letters for hint should not be posted at
Appleby. The envelope now handed me -contained the two
handkerchiefs in question e-lion. There was a letter written by
Mr. Smith after
thater of Lord Ferrers of the 24th
.
tit- .;tine. I putwas letterat in the office at Ashby
it; welt. When
is fetter posted respecting the btoTlida:l3;re This was before Mr.
Court, there was
smith's letter. My daughter
at Lind Feirerli