The Express.
London, England, 1848-03-15 00:00:00

SPOR7ING.

WARWICK AND LEAMINGTON SPRING RACES—Ter/MAT.
SCURRY STAKES of 5 80VII. each, and '.!O added. Gentle-
men rulers, 12st each. T.Y.C. (5 subs.)
Mr. Skerratt's Brute (Mr. Rowland i 1
Mr. Clifton'a Slimes
Col. Shirley', The Diamond (Mr. Brooke 3
Sir J. Gerard's Helena ............ (Owner) 4
TRIAL STAKes of 10 101% Nil, and 60 added. Mil*
coarse. (11 subs.)
Mr. T. Parr's The Spence (W. Butler) 1
Mr. Lillie's The Groat Western (G. Abdsle) 2
Mr. Damsan's Liston (Hay) 3
Won by a head ; IJatos beetles a
WOODCOTR STAIRS of 25 sass. each, linr-for 2-yr olds;
colts, Set 71b ; and flake, Sat 41b. Half a mlle. (3 sibs.)
Mr. B. Green'4l.Anuserusoor (Whitt Mgham) 1
Sir I. Osr.rd's Betty Billings (Pritocia) 2
WILLOUGHBY HANDICAP Of 20 son. each, 10 It, &c.,
with 50 added. 2 miles. (22 subs., 13 or whom dellared).
Count Batbyany's Master Stepney (Mr. ties-ill) I
Lord Howth's Icicle (Mr. Rowland) 2
Mr. Walter's Columbus (Capt. POMO 3
FREE HANDICAP of 10 soya. each, h R, and 25 added. Ono
mile. (6 subs.)
Mr. W. Smith's Master Dowses (Brookes) I
Mr. Parr's Marietta (Deekeray)
FARM PLATE of 501., two mile., WAS FOR is two heat;
by Mr. Cowper'. The Morsel (Mr. Cowley?, beating Logic and four
others.
FOUR MATCHES, for 200 sows. each, h ft, between Capt.
Alleyne's The Sieger and Mr. Cliftoa's Mahmuud, are compromised,
Mr. Clifton paying forfeit.
BETTING ON THE COURBII.—CHE4TER Cup.-25 to I eget
Swallow (t freely), 25 to 1 agat Blase (t), :10 to 1 agst Joisathan Wild,
40 to 1 eget Hetman Platoft colt (t), 50 to 1 Apt Cossack to
15 age) Mendicant (I), 1,000 to 10 age Sutiej, 1,000 to 10 aiet Whit.
stone.
The weather was remarkably fine, the Sport excellent, awl the
attendance numerous, embracing many of the leading supporiers of
the turf. The ground was heavy.

LAW Intelltatna.
HOUSE OF LORDS.

Present: The Lord Chancellor, Lord esumbed, and other Peers.
TURNBULL AND OTHERS V. CORAN.—TRuer DISPOBB.
TION.—CONSTRUCTION.—LIOLTIX.—ELECTION.—This wn
an appeal against a decree of the Court of Session in Scot-
land, in an; action of decimator brought there by the re-
apondent, for the purpose of having a declaration of the
rights of Thomas Turnbull, a lunatic, to whom the reapon-
dent was appointed curator bents (committee of the estate),
under a trust disposition (deed of settlement operating as •
will) executed by his father, the late W. Turnbull, of Ha-
wick, in Ilexburghshire. Two questions were raised in •he
appeal—one relating to the conttruetien to be put nn the
trust dip ,sition, and whether the author of it had th•,r.by
effectually disposed of all his property; the second. whezher
Mr. Cowan was hound to elect for his ward the lunatic,
only son of the trustee, between the benefits given to Lima by
the deed, and his legal right to legitim, in the event of it
bring declared the father did not, by the deed of settarnumt,
effectually dispose of his property. These question', in-
volving a great deal of the nicest points of Scotch law—not
very entertaining to ordinaq readers of newspaper- were
argued by Mr. Stuart and Mr. Anderson for the appa bant's
trustees and beneficiaries under the deed of settlement, and
by Mr. Sahel' and Mr. Wortley for the respendent.—The
Lord Chancellor promised the judgment on Thursday next.

EQUITY COURTS.
Before Vice Cheatedtor Knight Bruce.
Ex PARTE NASU, RE NASU.-1N WHAT CASES A Fla
IS AN KRUSE UP THR BANKRUPT Lows.—This was the
bankrupt's petition to have the fiat annulled on the ground
that it was issued for a purpose foreign to the objects of the
bankrupt laws. The petitioner, in 1810, entered into part-
nership with Mr. Henry Gurney as timber and hop mer-
chants, at Reed Farm, near S•roud, in Kent, and at Globe-
wharf, Rotherhithe. In March, 1847, the partnership was
dissolved by notice on account of disagreements between the
partners. Differences having arisen in winding up the part-
nership affairs, a deed of inspectorship was executed, un-
der which certain questions were left to arbitration. Disputes
again arose in carrying out the provisions of this deed, and
in January, 1848, the petitioner was summoned before the
Bankruptcy Court by Wm. Brodie Gurney, the father of H.
Gurney, to whom the firm was indebted to the amount of 20001.
and on the petitioner failing to fulfil the statutory requisi-
tions, for the purpose of avoiding the commission of an act
of bankruptcy, a fiat was issued against him on Feb. 7, on
the petition of Thomas Gurney, a brother of Henry
Gurney. The scope of the affidavits in support of
the petition was to show that the father and brother
of Henry Gurney resorted to the proceedings in bank-
ruptcy not to procure a distribution of the meta among
the creditors of the bankrupt, but merely to further the
views and objects of Henry Gurney with reference to the
affairs of the partnership.—The Vice-Chancellor said he wy
satisfied that if the petition ought to be dismissed,
it ought to be dismissed without cods, and that if :the fiat
ought to be annulled, it must be annulled at the
costs of Mr. W. B. Gurney and Mr. T. Gurney. Which of
these two orders it would be proper to make his Honour
could not decide without reading come of the affidavits again.
He would on an early day communicate his decision to the
reeistrar. In the mean time he would make a few remarks.
In the first place, he considered the fiat to be neither more
nor less Talk in equity than it would have been,
if W. B. Gurney him elf hail keen, in fact and form,
as his Honour considered him to be in substance, the yeti-
' tinning creditor. In the second place, the mere eircumatLnce
that a person, being the joint and several creditor of
two partners. one of whom was his son, issued a separate
fiat against the partner who was not his son, was not con-
elusive, though not to be disregarded. The true question
was, whether the leading and governing object which
Mr. W. B. Gurney had in view an issuing the
fiat was, not the payment of his own debt, nor
the debts of the bankrupt generally, but the
advantage and benefit of hie son Henry, in the dieputn be-
tween the son and his partner. If it should appear a just
conclusion to be drawn from the evidence, that Mr. W. B.
Gurney was not anxious or uneasy respecting the payment
of his debt—was not desirous of proceeding is bankruptcy
to secure payment of his debt or those of the other miitcn,
hut proceeded solely or substantially for another object; the
fiat could not be permitted to stand, as it would be under
such circumstances an abuse of the bankrupt laws., which the
court would not tolerate. Whether such was the result of
the evidence, his Honour did not at present give, or intend
to intimate, any opinion or inclination of opinion whatever,
but reserved his judgment.