Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

13 articles on this Page

[No title]



Family Notices



VALE OF CRICKHOWELL RAILWAY (WESTERN EXTENSION.) Last year the promoters of this Railway, obtained an Act for a line from Llanfoist (that is practically from Abergavenny) to Crickhowell.. The Bill this year was for powers to make an extension Westward to Talybont station on the Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Railway. It will be remembered that this Bill was allowed to pass on standing orders of both Houses of Parliament, upon fresh plans and sections being deposited correcting some engineering errors. The Bill came before the referrees upon engineering details, on the 15th of May last, when it appeared that the Duke of Beaufort, Lord Tre- degar, and G. W. P. Gwynne Holford, W. W. Lewis, and David Downes, Esqrs., and others, had petiti- oned against the Bill. Mr. D. Thomas, of Brecon, was solicitor for the Bill, and Messrs. Cobb and Price, also of Brecon, were solicitors for the Petitioners against. Mr. Henry Conybeare (the Engineer for the Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Railway), Mr. Geo. W. Hemans and Mr. A. Henshaw (the Manager of the Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Railway) were examined to prove certain en ()-ineeri ,ects of the line, and to prove that it was badly laid out by the promoter's engineer. The two first named gentlemen said the junction was a bad one, being between two steep gradients, one of 1 in 38 for If miles, and the other of 1 in 40 for between 6 and 7 miles, and that this junction would destroy the existing sidings and engine shed at Talybont Station, and that the limits of deviation of the line were too short. Mr. flenshaw's evidence was that the Junction was so bad that it would be a very dangerous one indeed to work, if it could be worked at all. Mr. Isaac Davies the engineer fur the Bill, was then examined in support, who said he was com- pelled to confine the limits of deviation in conse- quence of the river close by, and admitted that the sidings proposed to be substituted for those to be destroyed would be out of the limits as laid down on the plan. Mr. Ed. Wilson also gave evidence in support, to the effect that wherever Mr. Davies had placed his limits, the works must nave been where they were, .in consequence of the floods of the river, and that the sidings might be put within the limits, and that the junction was a good one of the sort. The Referees reported that it was complained that the proposed railway would destroy the sidings, that it would be desirable, if possible, to avoid effecting a junction with a railway so near to such long and steep inclines, but from the nature of the country, if a junction was to be effected, it could not be made without some such defect, and as the control of the trains and signals would be vested in the Brecon and Merthyr Tydfil Railway Company, the Referees were of opinion that there were not any engineering objections to the construction of the proposed Junction. That the sidings in question would be destroyed, and it was suggested that certain sidings should be provided in lieu thereof —but those laid down in the plan produced to the referrees, were not wholly within the limits of devi- ation contained in the deposited plans, and con- sequently could not be affected within the powers contained in the Bill. The Bill came before the select committee of the House of Commons, on the 30th of May last, when the formal proofs of the deposit of the amended plans were first taken. Mr. Karslake and Mr. Jeffreys appeared for the promoters, and Mr. Millward and Mr. Thomas for the petitioners against. There were some twelve or so witnesses ex- amined in support of the line, including the Mayor of Brecon, who said he was a brewer, and got his malt from Bristol, Gloucester, and Great Grimsby. In reply to Mr. Millward: He said the- Welsh people were addicted to taking beer, and that recently they had driven him to Great Grimsby for his malt, and that he consumed not less than 50 quarters a month, but that he was not putting forward this line as at all necessary for accommo- dating the Grimsby maltsters, but it might be a competing line. Several commercial men from Bristol were also examined. in support. Mr. Isaac Davies the Engineer's examination was also commenced, when it was adjourned until the 1st of June, on which day his examination was resumed, when he was severely cross-examined as to his knowledge of the financial position of the Company,, and who the Directors were, and who f jund the money deposited, but Mr. Davies would not admit knowing anything about those facts, except that he knew.of only five directors. Mr. Millward then said that the Act of last year authorized only six directors, and that the existing directors of the Company should be the persons in whose names the deposit should be made, and that the money had been deposited in the names of three gentlemen (beside the five directors) as being directors or persons having the management 6f the 11 9 affairs of the undertaking, thus making eight, whereas the Act only authorized six and he con- tended that the money was not under the control of the directors. At the request of Mr. Jeffreys, it was agreed the point should stand over until his leader, Mr. Karslake, returned, and upon his re- turn the point was argued, and Mr. Karslake called the Secretary, Mr. E. J. C. Davies, Solicitor, Crickhowell, who was examined, and admitted that although he was the Secretary for the Company and attended their monetary affairs, he did not know who found the money deposited, and that he knew nothing of one of the gentlemen in whose name the money had been deposited and that this gentleman had never been appointed a director. Mr. Karslake and Mr. Millward again addressed the Committee, when the latter said they would not give any opinion upon the question raised, but wished the promoters to conclude their case. Mr. Isaac Davies's cross-examination was then proceeded with, when he admitted in his previous examination before the referees having said that one of the existing curves at Talybont, was two chains, but he had since found that was a mistake several other witnesses were afterwards called, and the promoters closed their case, and without calling upon the Petitioner's Council the Committee de- cided that the preamble of the Bill had not bees proved. Oornrn unicated.