The Sun.
London, England, 1814-01-28 00:00:00

tAw IlPtiEl4l,Y(;;tNt.

-dOlfitT" OF KING'S :lAv. 27.
.CAhSTP. 1 Ir. Xtftwrei. ,

The AirToßOt X-GENURAL thoved for a rule to
Slicw cause whya crew trial should not be granted
in. thWcatise, 'add' the Vei'dict tor the plainitiff set
aside. 'The actin bad been bicought On a policy
of insurance against the defet'idant as under-
writer, for the loss of the ship Sir Simon
Clarke, on her return from Jamaica. 'EMS ship
was licensed to-s-2itil to Jamaica .wiihont conVoy',
but was captured do her retuFn by an enemy's fri-
gate. When the policy WaS effected, it., was scat;
ed., as appeared int evideke at the trial, that the
ship would probably return with the Maytonvoy,
which, however, turned out not to be the fact;
and the ground upon which the rule was applied
for was, that the olFner was instrumental and privy
to her returning without convoy, contrary to the
Act of Parliament. Of his privity and.instrumen-
tality no doubt could, exist, when it was consider-
ed that the owner's son was on board, and from
the unlimitexl discretion which he had 'vested in
the raptaiw.'
Lord Kt.LEtlnsaitoucn said, that when a party
was said:to be instrumental or privy to a transac-
tion, Ive must be understood to 'have been con-
sciously so.
_ _ _

The ,ATTORNEY GENERAL said, that conscious
privity and instrumentality should be inferred in
tIPA case, where the son of the party was on board,
where a peNOti appointed by the owner was em-
,ployed. The fact was, that the owner, as it ap-
peared, had sent out two fas,t sailing ships, well
tirmo„ CO take advantage of a foreign market,
.and •return as speedily at possible.
-The Court inquired whether Admirals on fo-
reign statigns bad . power from the Admiralty to
grant licenses to ships to proceed without convoy ?
Mr. JERVIS stated, that such a power was vested
in the Admirals on foreign stations.
The "Court, then decided, that under these cir-
cumstances, the ship must be supposed to have
been returning without convoy, not by the con-
scious and illegal privity of the owner, but in the
regular way.—Rule refused. .

ARCHES-COLTItf; DOCTORS-COMMONS, JAM. 27.

ADULTERY.

REST V. JADY EMILY REST. •
Thii was a proceeding for a divorce, at the in-
stance of Thomas Best, Esq. (the Gentleman by
whom the late Lord Camelford was shot in a
duel), Against Lady Emily Best, his wife, on the
ground of adultery, alleged to have been..com-
mitted with Joseph Henry,, Esq. ,
It appeared 'front the evidence, than the parties
were niarriett 'in Sept. 1804, and lived together
from that time until the year 1807, .at Mr. Best's
house, in Stratford-place. About that time, from
the embarrassed state.of his nifairs, he was under
the necessity of surrendering himself to the King's
Bench, and having. Obtained the rules, he took
up his residence in Temple-place, St.
fields, Lady Emily remaining with her father, the
Earl of Aldborongh, in Brook-strert,•Grosvenor-
square. From thence she accompanied him, and
the Countess, her mother, to Ireland ; and, re-
turning in 1808, renewed her cohabitation with
her husband in Temple-place. She Left him
shortly afterwards, and eloped with Mr. Henry,
passed the night at his lodgings, in Duke-street,
Westminster, and the next morning ,they went
together to the Pack-horse, Turnham-green,
where they remained about three weeks ; they
then removed to LOdge-park, Kildare, Ireland,
the seat of Mr. Henry, where they continuer) un-
til his death in February 1810, constantly during
this time passing as husband and wife. A.child,
who was baptised as their's at Teddington, Mid-
dlesex, shortly after Lady EMily's return, . was
the fruit of this connection. Mr. Best brought
' his action against Mr. Henry in the Court of
King's Bench, who suffered the judgment to go
by default, and iu January, 180, an inquisition
was taken, and the damages assessed at 20001.
Lady Emily's Counsel admitted 'that the adul-
tery was amply proved, and that upon an 'attentive
consideration of the whole eiremnstances of the
case, they did not see any sufficient ground to .
resist the application for a divorce founded -upon
tltem.
Str JOHN Nrcnor.t. suggested, whether there
was any satisfactory reason assigned for the lapse
of.time (near five years) between the verdict at
common law, and the cotnencement of the present
suit, a circumstance which carried'with it a suspi-
cion of connivance an the part of the husband ?
Lady Emily's 'Ciounsel replied; that that cir-
cumstance had occurred to them as the only
ground of objection ;, but they were apprehensive
it was sufficiently repelled by the proof of .Mr.
Best's circumstances being such as to render it
hnprobable he could possess the means of sustain--
ing the present suit at an earlier period. As,
however, the circumstances seemed to be -consi-
dered.so ;important by the Court, their doubts bad
revived.; And hey therefore, proceeded to con-
tend for the suspicion' of 'connivance, noticing •
particularly, that it was to be inferred from the
circumstances of Mr. Best's not appearing to have
enforced payment of the damages, which, if he
had, would have enabled him to have brought the
suit in. due time.
Sir JOHN NICROLL recapitulated the circum-
stances of the case, and observed, that upon the
pr,,of Of adultery there could he no doubt ; the
Cpurt, however, 'expected something more than
this from the complaining party :
,it expected an
ample 'elucidation of his conduct, more or less,
according to the' suspicion attaching to it ; and a
forbearance from claiming his remedy for so long
aperiotl as five years, required some further ex-
planation than a mere suggestion of embarrassed
.circumstances: Such a forbearance raised a„stis-
picion of connivance, and that suspicion must be
removed, . before the- husband could now fairly
'claim• his remedy. :He then entered into an exa-
ntination• of the facts. in proof, and of the bui-
band's conduct ; and was of opinion, that they
rather tended to infer his privity to the elope-
ment and adultery complained particularly as
there was cto a man otherwise circumstanced) sin
strong a motive.for seeking a divorce, as the birth
of a spurions child, publicly recognised and'regis.-
tered as such when ehr4teneti. As, hOweVer, the
.1