The Lord Chancellor. - This was an action for divorce brought by a hus band against his wife and a co-defendant on the ground of adultery. The ac tion succeeded, an order for divorce was made, and also an order for a settlement to be made upon the husband for his life out of the property of the wife, who was a rich woman. As to that part of the order, there is no appeal here. The only question arising on this appeal is as to the amount of damages which should be ordered to be paid by the co-defen dant, who, in this country, would be referred to as the co-respondent, to the husband. The District Judge fixed the damages at Rs. 10,000 but on appeal to the Supreme Court of Ceylon that amount was reduced to Rs. 2,500, and the ques tion is whether the order of the Sup reme Court was right. It is impossible for this Board in such a matter to re-assess the amount of damages. The real question is whether there is enough to induce the Board to disturb the decision at which the Supreme Court arrived. Upon the whole, their Lordships do not think that there is. The Supreme Court clearly had jurisdiction to review the amount of damages awarded; they had all the facts before them; they knew the value of money in the Island, and they were in a position to form an opinion as to what was a reasonable sum to be awarded in such a case. Their Lordships consider it unnecessary to go through all the facts; it is enough to say that in their Lordships' opinion there is weight in the reasons given by the Judges of the Sup reme Court for their decision, and that their Lordships are not inclined to differ from the conclusion at which they ar rived. Their Lordships will humbly advice His Majesty that this appeal fails and should be dismissed with costs, including the costs of the petition for leave to adduce further evidence. Appeal dismissed.