The Sun.
London, England, 1845-04-25 00:00:00

LYNN AND ELY.—(Group I.)

The Committee met at twelve o'clock.
Mr. PAGET stated, on the part of the Middle Level Com-
missioners, that the parties were agreed upon the clauses,
with the exception of one or two points. One of those points
related to the bridge which the railway company wished to
make over the river. They wished that the bridge should
be made in one span of 110 feet, instead of in three spans, as
was the intention of the company.
Mr. BAGGALLAY said that he did not see any reason for
making such a proposition, when of the thirteen bridges
which the Commissioners were about to throw over the
river, it was intended that every one of them should have

three spans.
Mr. P.uaEl' replied that thene_ was a great difference be •
tween a .permanent bridge for a railway and temporary
bridges, which might be easily altered if the necessity of
drainage required it.
The CHAIRMAN asked of Mr. Rastrick what would be the
difference of the expense for making a bridge with three
spans and a bridge with one span ?
Mr. Rastrick said that the expense of a bridge of three
spans would be about 3,000/. ; that of one span would be
double. He did not see why the Company should be com-
pelled to make a bridge of one span, which the Comtnis-
inoners did not think necessary for their bridges.
The CHAIRMAN said that the Committee were unani-
mously of opinion that a permanent bridge for a railway
was very different from bridges for ordinary purposes. They
therefore thought that a bridge of one span ought to be con-
structed.
Mr. PACKET said that the other point upon which there
was any dispute related to a piece of land belonging to the
Eaubrink Commissioners, which was absolutely necessary
for them for hauling. They therefore wished that a clause
should be introduced preserving this land to the Commis-
sioners for this purpose.
After some discussion it was agreed that the Company
might purchase the land in question, giving the Commission-
ers a full right of usage for hauling, and that in any case
their rights in this respect should not be interfered with.
Lord Hardwick said he appeared there as Chairman of
the Bedford Level Commissioners, and it might facilitate
operations if the clauses which referred to the Bedford Level
were now read.
Several clauses were then read and agreed to.
It was understood and agreed upon between the counsel
for the promoters of the Bill, and the counsel for the Eau-
brink Commissioners, that a clause should be drawn up
allowing a right of purchase to the Company, guaranteeing
at the same time all the rights of the Commissioners, but
the Committee being of opinion that the Railroad Company
would not interfere with any existing right, the clause
agreed upon was not inserted.
HUNTINGDON AND ELY.
Mr. Ai sTEN mentioned this Bill.

The -CHAIRMAN said that it would, be reported that even-
ing, and probably they would meet to consider it again on
Monday week.
The Committee then adjourned.

Committee (No. 2.)
lUDDERSFIELD AND COOPER-BRIDGE LINE.

THURSDAY, FOURTH DAY.
The Committee sat at twelve o'clock, and counsel proceeded
to give evidence in support of the statement of yesterday,
upon the Leeds and West Riding line.
Mr. Samuel Co!them, accountant, Manchester, deposed that
he had been employed by the Manchester and Leeds Com-
pany, to ascertain the extent of traffic carried on between
Huddersfield and Staleybridge. He had made a table of the
traffic for seven days, and the result gave 165,620 passengers
in a year, producing a sum of 3,1761. The sum likely to be
realised by the transit of merchandise was over 15,8001. His
calculation of the like intercourse between Huddersfield and
Cooper-bridge gave a much less result. He did not think
that the calculations made by Mr. Cope had been founded
on correct data. The witness was examined at great length
upon this point, and the whole detail of Mr. Cope's cal-
culations gone into very minutely, with a view to show, by
the witnesses' answers, that all these calculations had been
overdrawn and "very inflated."
Cross-examined—The whole receipts for the half-year, on
a distance of 65 miles, was over 165,5001. on the Leeds and
Manchester line, or 4,800/. per mile per annum.
To Mr. Sergeant BELLASIS—Thc majority of passengers
travelling by the Leeds line are third-class passengers, to
whom a difference in the price of the fare would be an object.
To the CHAIRMAN—WouId prepare the same tables it' he
-was called upon to make calculations for the promoters of a
Bill.
Capt. Lawes—Has been a long time in connexion with
railways. Would prefer a terminus in the centre of a large
town to one at a distance, because it would be a great con-
venience to the public. There is a great deal of traffic
and intercourse going on between Dewsbury and Hudders-
field, and other large towns along the line, and great
inconvenience is felt by the want of the line ; it would be
much more economical to the parties, and more convenient
to the public, if the line was in the hands of one company.
A junction at Cooper-bridge would not only be very expen-
sive, but very inconvenient, and of very little use ; the
effect of a line to Cooper-bridge would be to isolate kind-
dersfield ; the receipts of the Manchester and Leeds line for
the last half-year were decidedly the best they ever had.
Cross examined—The Grand Junction is a line passing
through an agricultural country ; the line between Staley-
bridge and Cooper-bridge passes through a very populous
district, and is nearly a straight line. The one witness is in
favour of is somewhat circuitous. There is no lease between the
Caldon Canal Company and the Manchester and Leeds Com-
pany, but there is some understanding as to the rates. The
rates were not doubled when that understanding was entered
into, but an addition of about 12 per cent. was made on part
of the line. An unusual amount of traffic has been created
on the Birmingham line by those gentlemen flying about the
country with new projections, but they can't last.—
( Laughter.) He saw hundreds of witnesses surrounding
this House, in anxious expectation that those projects would
be carried out.
Mr. Wickham—ls a magistrate of the county of York-
shire and a partner in the Lowmore Iron Works. Has a
very large traffic on the Leeds and Manchester Line of iron,
coke, and lime. Is decidedly of opinion that the line proposed
by the Leeds Company would be the most convenient to his
district, as it would be worked by one Company.
Cross-examined—lt was the want of unanimity, caused
by many Companies, that caused much delay and incon-
venience on the Normanton Line.
Mr. Hawkshaw, engineer of the Leeds and West Riding
Railway.—Had compared Mr. Jee's estimates, and found
that the works on the line he gave evidence of would amount
to 781,000/., including a tunnel of three miles of single line ;
Mr. Jee's estimate was 638,000/, but if the purchase cf two
canals was to be included, the cost would be one million ; a single
line of traffic through a tunnel would be very dangerous
unless the line *as single all through ; if the tunnel were
to be made so as to give adoteble rail the additiOnal cost

would be 115,6001 ; it would be less expense to make the
double line at once than to make it afterwards ; the second
tunnel would cost as much as the first, that was to say
211,200/.

Mr. James Thompson, an engineer of great experience in
tunnel works in Scotland, deposed that the proposed tunnel
on the Huddersfield and Manchester line would be highly
dangerous, as it had but one line of rails, while the road at
either end had two. The whole of this witness's testimony

went to corroborate that of the last.
Several witnesses then were called to show that the
inhabitants of Huddersfield were in favour of the Leeds and
Manchester line.
Mr. TALBOT then stated that was his case in favour of the
I.eedsand Manchester proposition, and spoke at some length
upon it; and hoped the Committee would postpone their de-
cision until the whole of their case was before them.
The CHAIRMAN said that the Committee could not depart
from the rule they had laid duwn.
Mr. TALBOT then said he could not proceed further at
that late hour.
The Committee then adjourned.

BLACKBURN, BURNLEY, ACCRINGTON, AND
COLNE—BLACKBURN, DARWEN, AND BOLTON.
—(Group D.)
The adjourned Committee met this morning at twelve,
and shortly afterwards proceeded with the further considera-
tion of these projected lines of railway. Mr. Bernal in the

chair.
Mr. GREGORY resumed his opposition to the Blackburn
and Colne, on behalf of Mr. Parker, and called Mr. Wald, who
stated that many buildings were being made, and many more
were contemplated being made on that part of Mr. Parker's
property through which it was proposed to carry the line.
At this point of the proceedings Mr. Locke, the engineer,
entered the room, when, by the Chairman's permission, Mr.
Ward's examination was suspended until Mr. Locke's opi-
nion had been given.
Mr. Locke.said, in reply to Mr. GREGORY, that he saw no
difficulty in forming so immaterial a deviation as that which
was desired by Mr. Parker, and that he would concede it
without hesitation. Two approaches on a station were unne-
cessary, and in his opinion were rather an inconvenience than
otherwise.
Mr. Ward's examination was about to be resumed, when
it was suggested that the preamble and clauses should be
first proved. The preamble was passed without opposi •
tion, and Mr. Qoates, the Parliamentary agent proceeded
to read the clauses; and on reaching clause 14, entitled
" Power to make railway according to deposited plans,"
Mr. GREGORY rose to oppose it, and proposed substituting
another clause, which would have the effect of throwing the
Bill out he the House of Lords on a non-compliance with
standing orders.
After a great deal of conversation, Mr. PARKER said,
that in order not to waste unnecessarily the time of the
Committee, and to hinder any unpleasantness, he would at
once withdraw his opposition to the clause.
The CHAIRMAN then said, after the handsome manner in
which Mr. Parker had behaved, he thought the Railwa •
Company should do all in their power to satisfy
Parker as to the manner in which the proposed line
would pass through his property ' • and to effect that
the Hon. Chairman recommended that Mr. Parker should
withdraw with Mr. Cawley, the engineer, and confer toge-
ther, when, no doubt, a satisfactory arrangement would be
come to.
After a delay of about half an hour, during which a com-
plete stop was put to the proceedings, Mr. Parker and Mr.
Cawley enterec, when Mr. Parker said he could not come to
satisfactory arrangement with Mr. Cawley as to the extent

of deviation to be made through his land, but that rather
than injure the property of Colonel. Scarlett, through which
the line must goif altered, he would no longer oppose the
clause before the Committee.
- Mr. GREGORY resumed, on behalf of Mr. Parker, and in-
sisted that a saving clause, or rider, for a satisfactory devia•
tion, should be inserted in the- Bill for the protection of Mr.
Parker's properly, and proceeded to. call him as a_witness.
Mr. Parker,stated he had nearly 900 yards of ground, part
of which Was built over, and the remainder he intended
letting out on building-leases.
Mr. Sr. Jolts contended that Mr. Gregory was trying to
establish a most unusual precedent, inasmuch as the clause
under which he endeasoured to classify Mr. Parker's pro-
perty was only intended to protect land already built on, and
it had not been satisfactorily proved that, Mr.' Parker's pro-
perty had been built on to the extent which would warrant
the interference of the clause referred to. Several witnesses
were then called ; but nothing of further importance appeared
in evidence. _ .

The Ciimummi then ordered the room to be cleared, and on
our return, stated that the Committee had come to the deter-
mination of limiting the deviath n on Mr. Parker's property
at the station and immediate vivinity to ten yards.
hut the amended clause was not yet to be considered
as part of the Bill until one or two points had been cleared
up. The final resolution of the Committee would therefore
remain suspended until to-morrow.
Mr. GREGORY then said that he had intended opposing
one or two other clauses, but would not proceed with his
opposition. He would leave his client's (Mr. Parker) inte-
rests in the hands of the Company; only requesting that
compensation might be made to Mr. Parker by an annual
payment, and not in fee.
lir. Sergeant WRANGIIAM saw no objection to the course
proposed, and the opposition of Mr. Parker was relin-
quished.
The remaining clauses were about being proceeded with
when
_ . „

Mr. Me.nEwETILER stated he was instructed, on behalf of
the trustees of the Blackburn turnpike-road, to oppose
clause A, and presented a petition from the trustees re-
questing that the proposed line, where it should cross the
turnpike-road, might be carried over by an arch instead of
on the level, as was ►ntended.
Mr. Sergeant \VI:ANGLIAN* appeared to support the clause.
Mr. Cawley and Mr. Gooch, engineer, were severally
examined, and their evidence tended to show• that. the line
could not, without a very large expenditure, be carried over
the road otherwise than on the level ; and further, that the
constriction of an embankment for making the arch would
throw the line out of the limits of deviation ; and also that
crossings on the level were not dangerous to the public if
the line were properly constructed, and the servants of the
Company attended to their duty.
Mr. Hardcastle was called as a witness by Mr. Mere-
wether, and said he had seen several accidents resulting
from a line of railway crossing" the road on the level, and
instanced one in particular which happened a short time
since on the Bolton and Lee line. _ _

Mr. Sergeant Wranginun and Mr. Merewether having
mutually addressed the Conimittee,
The CIIAHL\tAN stated that the Committee were unani-
mously of opinion that the line should be carried over the
road on the level, and that the original clause A should he
agreed to.
Some of the remaining clauses were then proceeded with,
when a messenger from the Commons announced, that the
Speaker was at prayers.
The Committee adjourned till twelve to-morrow.

COURT OF CHANCERY, April 24.
The Lord Chancellor sat in his Court at Westminster to-
day, and took appeal motions.

ROLLS' COURT, Apil 24. •
,Notions and the part-heard case vt. "ti ewer z. Fyson"
occupied the Court the whole day.

VICE-CHANCELLORS' COURTS, April 22.
(Before Sir L. SHADWELI.)

PEAPSON V. THE LONDON AND CROYDON RAILWAY COMPANY.
Mr. STUART (with whom was Mr. Malims) was heard in
conclusion of this argument, in support of the demurrer of
the Company.
111 r. James Parker supported the Bill.
His HosOuu said the case was a very clear one. It was
true the thing was not expressed as clearly as it might Lave
been, but still it was clear enough. The second resolution
alluded to the 10th of August, but it was so worded that the
date was not annexed to the expressions regarding those who
were registered owners, but only applied to those who held
scrip, if they should bring their scrip to be registered on or
before the 10th of August. But it would be rather whim-
Meal to put this construction, that with respect to registered
shareholders they might at any time claim their shares, but
for those who had scrip they should only obtain their shares
on or before the 10th of August. Although it was not ex-
pressed clearly before the 4th resolution at what time regis-
tered shareholders should make their al- Ovation, that reso-
lution, however, removed all doubt, for it expressed iu the
plainest language that the shares which should not have hem
applied for on or before the 10th, should be distribnted ameug
those who had applied before the 10th 01 August.. His Honour,
therefore, allowed the demurrer.
The suit, it will be recollected. arose from the accident that
Sir Edward Pearson was at Naples when the resolutions
were passed, and had not time, therefore, to make his appli-
cation as a registered shareholder on or before the 10th of
August, as he did not, in fact, hear of the resolutions till after
that date.

(Before Sir J. L. KNIGHT 1h
THE ATTORNUN-GF.NERAI. C. MUNtio.

This was an information filed by the Attormw-General at

the relation of James Kennedy, JZnSTieWerd,--.Cie;;;;
Spence, James Young. William Kennedy. John Frazer,

David Johnstone, on behalf of themselves:all other the en-
rolled communicants and pew or seat-holders in the church
in St. Peter's square, in Manchester, and of all other persins,
if any, entitled to the benefit of the trusts declared by the
indenture of the 4th day of April, 1833, except those who
were severally defendants thereto. The relators objected to
the doctrines of Mr. Munro. Under these circumstances the
relators insisted that Mr. Munro could not come within
the description in the deed of constitution ; that
he` must be considered as no longer belonging to,
or in communion with, the Established Church of Scotland ;
and that, therefore, he ought to be restrained by the injunc-
tion of the Court, from conducting Divine worship and
service, or otherwise officiating, in tk Scotch Church in St.
Peter's-square, Manchester, and rsstrain the defendant,
James Burt, the elder, and othas, from permitting or
allowing-the church, &e., to be ust d for any other purpoie
than for Divine worship and service, in connexion with. aud
according to the uses of the Establish ed Church of Scotland.
The motion also prayed for an injunction to restrain several
other defendants from conveying or assigning any estate or
interest in the same church, &c., otherwise than fir the pur-
[me of giving effect to the trusts declared concerning the
same in the deed of the 4th of April, 1844.
Mr. J. Russell and Mr. Little appeared on behalf of the
relators. _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Mr. hour appeared on behalf of the defendant, the Rev.
Alexander Munro. The very principle of the Scotch Church
was one of self-government, and this was proved by thellook
of Discipline of Knox, and by the writings of Andrew Melvil.
The views which the Free Church entertained were unques-
tionably the views which were entertained by a majority of
the Church of Scotland in the year 1832. The Veto Act
passed in 1834. He would admit that his client did not
approve of the system of lay patronage; but he had never
done any act to show whether he still belonged to the Est a-
Wished Church or to the Free Church. The deed referred to
the doctrines of the Established Church at a particular pe-
riod, and it was not proved that Mr. Munro had ever ex-
pressed opinions contrary to those doctrines.
Mr. WIGRAM and Mr. SELWYN appeared for the defend-
ants. After addressing the Court at some length, they took
an objection on the ground that the deeds relating to this
property were informal. inasmuch as they had not been en-
rolled accordirg to the provisions of 9th Geo. IL, cap. 36.
His HONOUR said that, some of the defendants having ex-
ercised their undoubted right of raising a question in this
case, founded on the statute of the 9th of Geo. 11., and if
all parties concurred in thinking that the objection was ap-
plicable, it became the duty of the Court first to consider
that question. The order, therefore, would be this : let the
defendant James Burt, the elder, naming also the other de-
fendants, be restramod from permitting or allowing the.
church, buildings. &c., in the pleadings mentioned, to be used
for any other purpose than Divine worship and service ac-
cording to the rites, forms, and usages of the Established
Church of Scotland, by a minister or licentiate who has been
ordained or licensed according to the doctrines and rites used
under the authority of the Established Church of Scotland,
and from doing any act or procuring any act to be done by •
which the said church, building, &C., might become liable to be
used for any purpose save as aforesaid, and let the defendants
Marshall, Burt, and Stewart lie restrained from conveying
any estate or interest which they might have aequireil by
virtue of the indenture of the loth of February, 1844, in any
manner otherwise than in giving effect to the trusts deelured
of and concerning the said trusts by the said deed f the 4th
of April, 1832. This order was to be without prejudice to
any question whether any injunction should be . granted
against the said Alexander Munro, or any further injunction
should be granted against the other detendauts, or any of
them, without prejudice to any question as to the extent of
relief to be granted at the hearing of the cause. It would be
for the relators to prosecute it with dispatch. Be would hear
it whenever the parties were ready.
APRIL `i4.
(Before Sir J. KNIGHT BRUCE.)

His Honour, after disposing of several motions, proceeded
'A hear the further arguments in the part-heard case of
Law t. Law," which occupied the Goth;; the remainder of
the day.

(Before Sir J. WIGRAM.)
His HONOUR, after disposing of the different motions in his
paper, proceeded to hear the further arguments in the part-
heard case of Warren r, Russell, which occupied the Court
the remainder of the day.

COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCIL dpi! 23.
Their Lordships were engaged the whole miming heal Mg
arguments as to the liability of the borough of Salisbury to
repair the bridge of that town.

. .
Mr. Crowder was for the borough. and Mr. Cockburn
contra.
Their Lordships took time to consider.

BAIL COURT; April 23.
(Sittings at Nisi Prius.)
int4.KNLAN S. AnwEws.

This action was brought to recover a portion of a premiums
alleged to have been forfeited by an infringement of the
articles in an indenture of apprenticeship.
Mr. Knowles, with Mr. Merrvweather, were for the plain-
tiff ; Mr. Ifumphery and Mr. Lush for the defendant.
The circumstances of the case are very easily told. The
plaintiff was 'apprenticed with the defendant, a baker in
Uxbridge, to learn his trade. The stipulations in the inden-
ture provided that the plaintiff should not marry, play earth,
patronise theatres, or remain out of his 'nesters house
all night, and in consideration of his faithfully fulfilling
these conditions the defendant covenanted to give the plain-
tiff his meat, drink, and lodging, with a shilling a week as an
encouragement to industry. The defendant, fortified by lova
and his " splendid shilling," went out, however, on the
Christmas-eve of 1844, and got married, and his master then
gave him notice that no married apprentice should reside
within his doors. The defendant had not the same objection
to the premium, however, and malgre the remonstrances of
plaintiff's parents, he retained the whole of it. For this .the
action was brought, the plaintiff averring that he had been
turned away, and the defendant contending on the other
hand that lie had left, of his own accord.
Mr. Justice COLERIDGN summed up, and the jury at ones
found for the plaintitt—Damagts, 121.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER, April 23. •
(Sittings in Banco.)
The LORD CHIEF BARON announced at the vatting of the
Court this morning, that his Lordship, with Mr. Baron Rolfe
and Mr. Baron Platt, would sit to-morrow ou the trial at
bar between the Attorney-General and George Smith, the
distiller, of Mile. end, while Mr. Baron Alderson would bear
motions in the other Court.
Their Lordships proceeded to hear arguments in cases from
the special paper, but nothing of any interest came before the
Court.

Arm 24.
TRIAL AT BAIL-THE GREAT DISTILLERY CASE
THE ATTORNEY • G ENERAL I'. GEORGE SMITH •