Best v Lady Emily Best
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 January 1814 |
| Date | 27 January 1814 |
| Court | Ecclesiastical Court |
English Reports Citation: 161 E.R. 1107
IN THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS AT DOCTORS' COMMONS AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELEGATES.
[161] best v. lady emily best. Arches Court, Hilary Term, Jan. 27th, 1814.- Delay in instituting proceedings in a matrimonial Crtuse to be accounted for. Judgment-Sir John Nicholl. This is a suit brought by Thomas Best, Esqr., against Lady Emily Best, for separation by reason of adultery. The marriage took place in September, 1804; they cohabited together till 1807, when Mr. Best was confined within the rules of the King's Bench prison. Lady Emily at first continued to reside in her own house, but afterwards went to her father's (the Earl of Alboroughs) in Ireland-in 1808 she returned and cohabited with her husband in Temple Place, within the rules of the King's Bench-it appears there is, at least, one child, the issue of this marriage. In July, 1808, she quitted her husband, and went to live with Mr. Henry-she cohabited with him at the Pack Horse, at Turnham Green ; and afterwards went and residbd with him at his seat, in Ireland-she lived with him till he died, which was in February, 1810. During this1 cohabitation a child was born, which was baptized as the ehikl of Mr. Henry and Lady Emily Best. [162] In 1808 Mr. Best brought his action against Mr. Henry, for damages, in the Court erf King's Bench-in 1809, 20001. damages were awarded to him-judgment went by defaalt. The present suit was instituted in 1813. Of the proof of adultery there is no doubt-her cohabitation with Mr. Henry is completely preved-but the Court requires something more-the parties lived in open adultery for a year and a half, and it was not till five years afterwards that this suit was commenced-without deciding how far this delay in bringing the suit may amount to a condonation, at all events the delay requires explanation. Why is the husband better able to bring this suit in 1813 than in 18081 This excites the suspicion and presumption of former connivance, which must be removed. The Court would expect 11GS BEST V. BEST 2 PHILL.EOC 163. to be informed how the adulterer became acquainted with the husband^ And whether the infeeEeourse was carried on with clandeatinity ? All now stated is consistent with the husband's privity, though it is very possible that no privity existed Mr. Henry visits Mr. Best at Temple Place-Lady Emily kissed her child at parting, and told bar maid she should return the next day-which she did not-she wrote to the maid the next day to take care of the child--Mr. Best had already procured a nurse for it, and her maid went and found her the next day, and continued to live with her and Mr. Henry. The question is, whether this was a voluntary transfer of his wife 1 The Court would like to be informed whether he felt any distress at his wife's [163J riot returning; whether he gave her licence to go : but there is no one fact to shew what his conduct was on the occasion It is true an action was brought in 1809-but then judgment went by default A verdict was given for 20001 . this negatives a part of the excuse that the husband was unable to sue for a divorce on account of poverty Either the damages were recovered, or not, if they were not, the circumstances leads to the suspicion of ceilusron-if they were recovered, they must have supplied a fund for the prosecution of this suit. There was every motive to accelerate the proceedings here, a child was born, within eight or rune months after her cohabitation with Mr. Henry There was every danger of a spurious issue , the husband was conusant of the situation of his wife-the fact was not disguised-the child was openly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cane v Fitzgerald
...CANE and FITZGERALD. Eyre v. MarsdenENR 2 Keen, 564, S. C. 4 Myl. & Cr. 231. Christian v. FosterENRENR 7 Beav. 540; S. C. on appeal, 2 Phil. 161. Symons v. JamesENR 2 Y. & C., C. C. 301. Hopkinson v. EllisENR 10 Beav. 169. Ripley v. MoyseyENR 1 Keen, 578. Scott v. MooreENR 1 Sim. 534. Walte......
-
Capel v Robarts and Neeld
...the husband explanatory of his delay to bring the suit; and, being satisfied therewith, pronounced the sentence. See also Best v Beit, 2 Phill. 161. 3 KA.QG ECC. UW. CAPEL V. ROBARTS 1115 and in the welfare and management whereof he greatly interested himself, and that the respondents have ......
-
Cood Otherwise Coode against Cood otherwise Coode
...which reasonably prevent him from proceeding, he is not thereby debarred from doing so at a time more convenient to him In Best v. Best (2 Phill 161) there was a considerable lapse of time between the adultery and the suit; but the Court was satisfied with the reasons assigned for the delay......