The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-07 00:00:00

NORTH STAPPORDSHIRE (CHUR,NET

VALLEY) RAILWAY.

This case, which was part-heard yesterday, was resumed.
Mr. Bunxit (for the promoters) called witnesses to prove
the formal points; after which,
Mr. GREGORY (for several petitioners against the Bill)
opened his case. The first was the petition of Mr. Edward
Chancellor, the owner of several houses which are to be
taken for the purposes of the line. The allegations were
that he had not received notice in writing of the promoters'
intention to take such property, and that the datum level of
the line, near the river Bollin, was incorrectly marked upon
the places. There was also an allegation complaining that
an arch, which was to be constructed by that river, was im-
properly marked. Mr. Gregory then in support of the latter
allegation quoted several authorities.

Mr. William Challenor was then called to prove the signa-
ture of the petitioner.
Mr. BURKE would submit that the petitioner was not
pecuniarily interested, and therefore his petition could not be
racsived. _ . _

Mr. GREGORY—That could matter but very little, as Mrs.
Mary Challenor, who received the rants, was also a pe-
titioner.
Mr. BURKE would request that the petition of Mr. Edward
Challenor should be withdrawn.
This was agreed to, and the petition of Mrs. Challenor
being in the same words, it was taken by at once calling
witnesses.
Mr. Leather, a civil engineer, was then called to speak to
the incorrectness of the datum level, as taken from Bolling-
bridge.
Mr. GREGORY would ask the witness if he understood
what was meant by the soffett of an arch, and whether there
was any specific point from which a level could be taken on
the term soffett ?
Witness—The soffett meant the whole of the centre of the
arch, and not any specific point.
Mr. &Itr.—Could any engineer be mistaken in the mean-
ing of the term soffett?
Witness—An engineer might certainly take it to mean the
centre of the arch ; but it was by no means a correct term
for a point of level.
Mr. Hoskins, Professor of Architecture in King's College,
examined by Mr. GREG-oily—The centre of a curve would
be called the crown and not the soffett. The soffett meant
the whole or any point of the arch not specified. The soffet
not only applied to an arch, but to a ceiling of any room,
whether horizontal or curved, but it did not literally mean
any fixed point; it meant the whole or under surface of any
part of architecture to which it may be applied.
Mr. BURKE—Suppose you were to find the word soffett in
any construction to which your attention might be called,
would you mistake it for any part of the arah, or would you
not at once see that it meant the crown of the arch?

Witness—l should, no doubt, after consideration, learn that
the term was misapplied, but I should not be able to affirm
that soffet was meant to apply to the highest part of an
arch. The word soffett, in architecture, was from the
Italian, and not applied to an arch, but to the under surface
of any horizontal part of the building.
Mr. Tight, Mr. Errington, Mr. Locke, and Mr. Gregory,
architect., and engineers, were called on the part of the oppo-
nents, and they concurred with Mr. Hoskins that the term
"soffett" did not apply to any fixed point.
Mr. BURKE called Mr. Stephenson, Mr. Vignolles, and Mr
Bull, who said that amongst engineers the word " soffett'
was invariably applied to the highest point of the archway.
Mr. BURKE, in reply, said that there were three points to
which they could alter their datum level, and as this was
but one, there were yet two others which, in the event of
the Committee deciding against him, he would contend for.
He must say, that this was the first period in his experience
where he found an objection raised to a phrase so constantly
used and understood by engineers.
The room was then cleared.

After a brief conversation the parties were called in, when
The CHAIRMAN said that the Committee, after consider-
ing the argmenta on both sides, were of opinion, that, al-
though the word " soffet" had been used in many ways, yet
that it was so commonly used in engineering construction
as well as in many Acts of Parliament to represent the crown
or height of arches; the standing orders had been complied
with.
Mr. GREGORY said, that as the Committee had come to
such an opinion, he would not proceed with the other
petitions.
This closed the case.

THE NORTH STATTORDSHrEE (POTXZ-

RISS LINZ).

Mr. BURKE appeared for the promoters. The formal
notices were then proved.
Mr. CoATF.s said he appeared for Mr. John Joseph Bey, of
Regent's-park, a petitioner against the Bill.
Mr. BURKE would object to the petition being
received. The petitioner, he submitted, must be a party in-
terested, so as to be affected by the proposed line of railway.
The CHAIRMAN wished to know upon what standing order
the objection was taken ?
Mr. Bunale--Upon the ninth standing order.
Mr. CoarEs--Tbat standing order applied to merits ; now
he was about to object to the subscription contract. He
would prove that there was no subscription contraet, inas-
much as the one submitted to the Legislature was invalid.
In a petition against the subscription contract it did not
require the petitioner to be a party interested within his
Learned Friend's meaning of the 9th standing order. When
a contract was attached any one of the public had a right to
petition, inasmuch as an imposition upon the Legislature was
a public injury. Now he could show that the petitioner
in the present case was personally interested, but he pre-
ferred taking his stand upon the broad grounds of a public
right. _ _

The CRAIRMAIT, after reading the 9th standing order, said
he was rather inclined to think that a petition against so
vital a part of the measure as the subscription contract did
not come within the meaning of that standing order.
The room was then ordered to be cleared.

The CHAIRMA s.". having consulted the Speaker, returned,
and the parties were called in, when the following decision
was given by
The CHAIRMAN—The Committee had to inform the agents
that having given their best consideration to the point of ob-
jection raised against the petition, they were of opii.ion that
the 9th standing order was not sufficiently specific to be
bound by it, and they were therefore of opinion that the ob-
jection should be overruled, and the petition received.
The Speaker was then announced at prayers, and the Com-
mittee adjourned Cll twelve o'clock on Monday, when the
allegations in question will be submitted.

Sub-Committee No. 2.

The following members of this Committee sat to• day at
twelve o'clock, Sir J. Y. Buller] (chairman) Mr. Deedes, Mr
Kemble, and Mr. Bell.

THE AYRSHIRE, BRIDGE or WEIR, AND
PORT or GLASGOW JUNCTION RAIL-
WAY.

The examination of the witnesses to ascertain if the stand-
ing rules of the House were complied with was resumed.
The CHAIRMAN said he found some erasures in the deed,
where the names of the attesting witnesses were subscribed.
Mr. DEANE contended that the erasure did not vitiate
the deed, and cited clause 32 of the Railway Act to show
that the deed was drawn up in conformity with the law.
The CHAIRMAN then proceeded with the hearing of the
petitions against the Bill. These were from Mr. W. Napier,
and the Glasgow Company.

The allegations of the road trustees were taken first, and
these contended that the rides of the House were not com-
plied with, the deviation in the line in the parish of Kilbarton
not being fully described in the notices.
Mr. Dais said that they had given all the information
required by the law, namely, the depth of the embankment
and of the cuttings.

The CitainmAi4 said that in this case the Committee were
of opinion that the standing orders had been complied with.
The petition of th►
GLASGOW, PAISLEY, AND GREENOCK

RAILWAY COMPANY
was then heard, and contained an allegation that the standing
orders had not been complied with, inasmuch as that the portion
of ground No. 28 marked in the book of reference, was described
as being vacant—the ground was the property of the Rope
Walk Company in the neighbourhood.
The CHAIRMAN, after hearing some witnesses as to the
boundary of the line, said that the Committee considered the
orders of the House were complied with.
It was also alleged in the petition that there was an inac-
curacy in the datum line, there being seven furlongs marked
oa the sections, while there were only six furlongs on the plan
to the port of Glasgow harbour.
The CHAIRMAN said, the Committee were of opinion that
the standing orders had not been complied with in this case.
The next allegation was, that the radius of every curve
not exceeding a mile in length was not marked on the plan,
which the Committee considered was sustained.

The next allegation was, that tilers was inaccuracy in the
description of the cotton mill marked No. 66 as being on the
line, which the Committee considered sustained.
The Cl/AIRMAN said that the Committee were of opinion
that the Company had not complied with the standing
orders of the House.

NEWCASTLE AND DARLINGTON (THIRSIC
AND WALTON BRANCH) SUNCITION
RAILWAY.

YORK AND NORTH MIDLAND RAILWAY.

These Bills were unopposed, and the Committee were of
opinion that the standing orders had been complied with.
THE CAIVIERIDGE and OXFORD RAILWAY.
There was a petition against this Bill from the landowners
through whose property the line would pasa. The petition
stated that the line passed through their property to the
detriment of the same, and that the standing orders of the
House had not been complied with.
Mr. Ellicumbe, agent for the promoters, said he objected
to that petition. The facts of the case were that those gen-
tlemen were members of a corporation interested in certain
lands, as stated in the book of reference, but such was not the
case. The corporation could only appear in a case like the
present, under their corporate seal, and not as individuals.
Mr. Pritt, agent for the petitioners, said that the present
was the first time that he had ever heard of its being
necessary for the parties petitioning to prove that they were
entitled to do so. But, even admitting that such were the
case, he considered that his clients were entitled to be heard,
for who was the first of the petitioners? why, the head of
Brazenose College, to whom the property belonged.
The CHAIRMAN said—We are of opinio❑ that Mr. Pritt
has a right to be heard on the petition.
The Committee then adjourned till twelve o'clock on Mon-
day next.