The Sun.
London, England, 1845-06-06 00:00:00

was not proved.

The CHAIRMAN then said, that if there was any one present on
behalf of Mr. Smith (one of the dissentient landholders on the
Wakefield, Pontefract, and Gsole line), the Committee would be
happy to give every consideration to any clause he could suggest,
having for its object the protection of Mr. Smith's property. The
Committee, however, did not consider that they would be justified
either in rejecting or postponing the consideration of the Wakefield,
Pontefract, and Goole line, in consequence of the annoyance to
which Mr. Smith would be subjected by that line passing contiguous
to his house and lands. _ . .

The CHAIRMAN then said that the Committee would now pro-
ceed to the consideration of the several clauses of the Wakefield,
Pontefract, and Goole Railway.
Mr. WEBSTER, on the part of the opponents of the Doncaster
and Goole line, asked for leave to apply for the Speaker's warrant
to compel the production of certain books and documents belong-
ing to the river Don Navigation Company.
Mr. CHOWDER, on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, opposed
the application, and after some discussion it was refused.
. . _

The Committee were then engaged up to four o'clock settling
the rates of the different descriptions of goods that were to be
conveyed on the Wakefield, Pontefract, and Goole line.

GROUP X.
LONDON AND TORE LINE.

At the sitting of the Committee this day
Mr. AUSTIN said he understood the Committee had arranged to
take up, after the disposal of the London and York line, the Lin.
coin and Direct Northern. He would ask, would it not be equally
convenient to the Committee to take up the Midland and Eastern
Counties ? By doing so it would be convenient to him, as he was
interested in them, and he believed no party ould be incon.
venienced.

The CHAIRMAN said the Committee would let him know in the
course of the day. _ .

Mr. AUSTIN then proceeded to state the grounds of opposition
he was instructed to lay before the Committee on behalf of the
Archbishop of York. The Bishop's Palace was situated on the
river Ouse, and the bishopric was a benefice of very great anti-
quity ; he believed it dated its origin so far back as the reign of
Henry 111. He understood that the London and York line pro-
posed to pass within 450 yards of the palace, and close to one of
the gardens, and the result would be, not only serious injury to
that part of the property, but cause great inconvenience to
his Grace. He (Mr. Austin) would now proceed to call witnesses,
by which it would appear (that the country around Bishopsthorpe
was so level, that a considerable deviation might be made in the
proposed line, by which the proposed innovation would be avoided,
while at the same time no additional expense to the company, or
Inconvenience to the public, would be the consequence.
Mr. Birkenshaw, surveyor, was then called, and his depositions
corroborated the statement of the Learned Counsel.
In his cross.examination, he said that the direct Northern
proposed to pass in a direction quite as objectionable as this.
Two other witnesses were examined to the same effect.
Mr. Pacer said he by no means meant to deny that much
personal inconvenience would be occasioned, net only to, the
Archbishop of York by the direction taken by the London and
York line through Bishopthorpe, but to all other persons through
whose properties this line would pass, and this admis-
sion he had already made in respect to Lord Scar.
borough and Sir W. Milner, but then all he could say
was that the London and York Company would be ready to make
any concession to those parties consistent with public convenience.
With regard to the innovation on the private walk of the Arch-
bishop of York, he (Mr. P.) understood from Mr. Cubitt that a
deviation might be made by which this private road could be
avoided.

Messrs. Hounsefield and Co., coal-owners at Sheffield, objected
to the line, as it cut off the communication between their coal-pit
and the entrance to their yard.
Mr. BAIES next addressed the Committee on the merits of the
Sheffield and Lincolnshire line. He contended that the line sug-
gested by Mr. Cubitt, was a very circuitous line, and very un -
necessarily involving a destruction of propery, while the line he
(Mr. Baines) represented, proposed a comparatively straight line,
and did not at all involve an extensive removal of houses and other
private property..
Mr. PAGET contended that the opposition of his Learned Friend's
client amounted, in one word, to a claim for compensation, which
would be a question entirely for a jury.
Mr. HARDY appeared on behalf of Mrs. Smith, landowner, re-
siding near Wakefield, against the Doncaster and Wakefield branch
of the London and York scheme. The part his client complained of
was that which ran through his property from Okenshaw to Wake.
field, which spoiled the view and approach to his residence. Mr. Smith
had already sacrificed to the public convenience on two occasions,
namely, the Manchester and Leeds line, and the North Midland
line, both of which passed through his property. The Learned
Counsel then read a passage from the report of the Board of Trade,
by which it appeared that that body did not approve of the Don_
caster and Wakefield branch. He then went on to say that if this
line should be made, Mr. Smith would be completely hemmed in, as
this would form the base of the triangle of railroads through his
estate, and be a complete eyesore from his house.
Mr. Clarkson, land surveyor at Wakefield, supported Counsel's
statement.
cAnzsrunGz AND LINCOLN RAILWAY.
The CIIAIRMAN here intimated that as the Committee proposed
to sit until five o'clock, the Learned Counsel who intended to open
the case kr the Cambridge and Lincoln line had better be prepared.
Mr. WEBsTER said he would be prepared.
Mr. HiLnvaan said the course he intended to pursue in reference
to the Cambridge and Lincoln line was this: he would commenee
by placing his engineer, Mr. Rendall, forthwith in the witness-box,
and reserve his observation for the close of his case. But this he could
not do at present, as Mr. Rendall was at that moment being examined
as a witness before another Committee. if this Committee would,
therefore, adjourn now, and meet to-morrow at eleven o'clock, he
would be prepared to proceed then.
The Committee agreed to do so and then adjourned.

"WAKEFIELD, PONTEFRACT, AND GOOLE RAILWAY.—
After a protracted struggle of three weeks between
the two treat companies of the Manchester and Leeds
and York and North Midland, the premable of this line
of railway, which connects the east and west coast of
England, was to-day declared to be proved, and the
line promoted by the York and North Midland was
thrown out. This is the first defeat which Mr. Hudson
has sustained, and is likely very materially to affect his
favourite York line.

QUEEN'S BENCH---(THIS DAY.)
'WORTHINGTON' V. GRIMSDITCH,
This was a rule obtained in Easter Term last year, to show
cause why the verdict for 1,268/. 4s. 10d. obtained in this cause
should not be set aside, and a verdict returned for fhe defendant on
the issue raised on the plea of the statute of limitations.
Lord DeNsiaw delivered the judgment of the Court. This was
a case tried at the Chester Spring Assizes in 1844, when a verdict
was given for the plaintiff. The rule was obtained to set aside
that verdict on the ground that certainevoindienetnecreestwitioichotoemek,
he the
case out of the Statute of Limitations had beeny in hisimpro handsperly left
to
bethe jury. It appeared that.the defendant was solicitor and cousin
ltoontgwito,goldtoladthieosm,
.andihosetledada sum mof m
paying
paid an amount equivalent, or nearly so, for rent due by them in
each year, and the question was, whether this payment was on ac-
count of interest or not. it appeared to the Court that the rela-
tionshiplin which the parties stood to each other:had much to do with
the question as to what at:count the payments were upon, and the
statements in the hand•writing of the defendant showed that al-
though the: first payment of rent was not made by au.
thority, the second, and some subsequent payments, had
been distinctly charged against the interest, and although
the interest account in late years had disappeared, still the account
in respect of which the payments were made, and all the circum-
stances, formed matter of fact rather than of law, and had been
properly left to the jury. They had found that the payments were
made for interest, and thus taken the case out of the operation of
the Statute of Limitations. The evidence had been properly ad-
mitted and the rule must be discharged.

The Dutch steam-ship Batavier, which arrived at
the St. Katharine's Wharf, on Wednesday afternoon, from Rotter-
dam, had the unusually large number of 71 oxen and cows on
hoard, the whole of which were in excellent condition, and were
landed immediately and delivered for the London markets.