The Sun.
London, England, 1822-10-19 00:00:00

ST. ETHELBERT'S TOWER.

CANTERBURY, OcT.lB.—Abont five o'clock in
the morning of Wednesday last the inhabitants in the immedi-,
ate vicinity of the Old Palace, as it is commonly called or more
properly of St. Augustine's Monastery, adjoining to this city,
were alarmed by a tremendous crash, in a degree assimilating it-
self to that of the shock of an earthquake, which, upon the dawn
of day, was found to have been caused by the falling of the south-
ern and western sides of that beautiful remnant of gothic archi-
tecture, known as Ethelbert's Tower, which, from the devouring
hand of dine, aided by the elements, had been precipitated into
the adjacent grounds, principally on the western side, so low
down to its base, as to what may be presumed to have been,
from the corbels, the floor or roof over the great gothic
arches, that are apparent both externally and internally on
either side of the tower, about thirty feet from the ground;
and leaving the eastern side (the whole north side hay-
ing long since been lost), still standing to its summit,
" like an eagle's nest in the clouds," and' to which, in-
deed the southern angle of the tower had for a long
period merely abutted. This remnant is now so awful
in its aspect; that fears are ,entertained that it will speedily
follow the fate of its late adjunct, and endeavours are in
consequence using to pull it down, but as its base is yet firm,
and as it has sustained but little injury, notwithstanding
the concussion occasioned by the fall of its corresponding
angles, it is to be hoped it will resist every effort, and still re-
main a monument of its pristine grandure. The site of Ethel-
bert's Tower is immediately adjacent to the grounds of the
Kent and Canterbury Hospital, to that part of the old Abbey
now used as a Fives Court, and to a garden occupied by Mrs.
Hill, into which latter the largest portion of the ruins has
fallen, consisting of several hundred cart loads of flints and
mortar, and many fragments of Caen stone, used for the ashlar
and the columns and capitals of the pillars which adorned the
external part of the building :—to whom they may appertain,
or what compensation is to be made for the injury sustained by
the falling of the rubbish, are questions yet to be determined.
It is gratifying however to observe that; although the appear-
ance of the tower to near observers had for some months past
indicated its fate, yet the downfall, took place, providentially,
at a moment when no one was near it— while two persons had
been employed during the two preceding days in removing a
quantity of manure and rubbish, which had been collected in
the grounds of the adjacent Hospital.
Thus has "passed away," leaving but -" a wreck behind,"
the most magnificent part of the structure, which 44 notwith-
standing (according to Masted) soon after the suppression
of this Monastery, many of the buildings of it had been
demolished, there was sufficient 1 ft to accommodate King
Henry VIII. as a palace for his own use," as also Queen
Elizabeth, in one of her royal progresses in 1575, and King
Charles I. on the consummation of his marriage, with Hen-
rietta of France, in 1625, and King 'Charles 11. on his pas-
sage through Canterbury from Kingsgate, At his restoration.
Somner, the more ancient historian of Canterbury, supposes
Ethelbert's Tower to have been built about the year 1047, and
quoting the words of Speed in the close of his discourses touch.
ing this Abbey, thus speaks of it:—
'° Only Ethelbert's Tower, said' he, " in memory and ho.
nour of the man, as yet hath escaped the verdict and sentence
of destruction, whose beauty, though much defaced and over-
run, will witness, to succeeding ages, the magnificence of the
whole, when all stood complete in their glory together."—
, (Kentish Gavtte. )

By the death of Mrs. GARRICK, the library
of the British Museum will be further enriched
by the addition of her husband's valuable col-
lection of old English plays, besides which, the
celebrated statue of SIIAKSPEAKE, by ItovaiwAc
(of which the one over the fire-place in the ro-
tunda of Drury-Lane Theate is a cast) will grace
the hall of that national Establishment. The
Chair, too, made from Shakspeare's mulberry
tree, will also, it is supposed, be there
deposited. It is richly carved, and would,
if it was put up to auction, fetch an enor-
mous price ; as would doubtless many other
articles of vertu, as having once bolonged to the
" best living commentator" on• the works of the
Bard of Avon. Among these must not be for-
gotten four originals by HocAnnt, of the Elec-
tion. The fate of these species of saleable
property, which were bequeathed to Mrs. GAR-
RICK during her life, will shortly be decided by
the hammer. The children of Mrs. GARRICK, of
the Haymarket Theatre, will also, it is said, come
iH for considerable legacies, in consequence of
the decease,

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, FRIDAY, OCT. M.

FAGG V. DAY.
This was an action to recover compensation in damages from
the defendant, for negligence in his professional duties.
Mr. ScantE-ri• stated the case.-11e said the defendant,•
who was an attorney, was employed by the plaintiff in a case
Fagg v. Sherwin and another, the executors of Jackson, de-
ceased, the circumstances of which are these :—The plaintiff
purchased a freehold property in St. James's, Clerkenwell, on
the title of which he consulted the defendant. After the
purchase he found it necessary to bring an action against the
lessee in possession (Mr. Jackson, deceased). The case was
brought to trial by the defendant. On the trial, he (Mr.
Scarlett) was Counsel for the defendant, and seeing the hope-
lessness of his case, was willing to offer any terms to Mr.
M'arryatt, who was Counsel for the plaintiff in that action.
—The plaintiff would listen to no terms, and the trial con-
sequently proceeded till they came to prove the will of a
person named Walton, under which the plaintiff claimed his
title. It then appeared there were two wills made by Wal-
ton ; one in 1776, and the other in 1784. The former was
the will which established the title of the plaintiff in his
purchase, and yet the latter was the one produced on the
Which had no reference at all to the property in ques-
tion; in consequence of which the plaintiff was nonsuited,
—thereby incurring all the expencos of that suit, which. was
entirely the result of the defendant's negligence, who should
have known and taken proper means to produce the documents
upon which his case rested. The expences (continued the
Learned Counsel) incurred on that trial was not only the in-
convenience which might be the consequence of the defendant's
negligence, as it was' possible his client might not yet be dis-
possessed f the estate itself, for which he had given a large
sum of money, by the heir at law, if the will of 1776, on which
his title rested, could not be found. The lowest amount of
damages which the plaintiff could claim now, were the costs of
that day, and the expences incurred in the former suit, to'etherb
with the expence of getting the cause again placed on the roll
for trial.
The CHIEF JUSTICE here said, that the defendant should
have taken care to have the proper will produced on the trial,
and therefore recommended an accommodation.
.Mr. SCARLETT said he would consent to take the expences
incurred on the former trial and the present.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the defendant des-
cribed the proper will in the subpoena served on the officer of
Doctors' Commons, but from some cause or other a different
will was sent to his client.
The CHIEF JUSTICE said he should have done more—he
should have seen that the proper will wax sent to him, and
should have produced it on the trial. It was clear the
plain-
tiff's loss was-sustained in consequence of the defendant's ne-
glect.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL then consented to take a ver-
dict for MM. to cover the expense of the former suit and the
present.

LIBEL.—PRICE, GENT. V. PRICE, GENT.
This was an action brought to recover damages for a libel.—
The plaintiff was a solicitor living at Abergaveny, in Wales ;
the defendant was also a solicitor, residing at the same place,
but was also a surveyor and inspector of assessed taxes. The
plaintiff had been assigned attorney for a person of the name of
Meyer, who sued in .firma pauperis, in an action for false im-
prisonment against tile defendant. The plaintiff had occasion
to subpoena a clergyman of the name of Powell, at which the
defendant took offence, and directed his clerk to write the libel
in question, which he signed, and sent to the plaintiff.
The libel was put in and read; it insinuated that the plain-,
tiff had subpcened witnesses, to enhance costs, and 'that he or,
his clerk must speak more than the truth, if he succeeded
against the defendant.
By the oral.evidence, and indeed by, the admission of the de-
fendant's Counsel, it appeared that no one had seen the con-
tents, before Mr. C. Price, the plaintiff, or after the signature
of the defendant, although the letter was sent folded up, with-
out seal or wafer.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE intimated his opinion, that
there was not sufficient evidence of publication to support the
action ; on an indictment no doubt it would do, but to support.
an action on the case, there must be a publication of the libel
after it is written.
Mr. SCARLETT contended, first, that the defendant having
put his name to the paper, was prima facie evidence that he
had originally composed it, and then directed his clerk to copy
it, after which he had signed it; secondly, that the conveyance
of it in an open state was good evidence of publication.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said he thought the parties
should consent to withdraw a juror.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said his client had certainly
written it in a moment of irritation, and he could not defend
his conduct.—lt was agreed to withdraw a juror.

TILE KING V. TIIOIIOWGOOD.
Mr. 110 I.T stated, that this was an indictment which charged
the defendant with an assault, committed on the person of the
prosecutor, Thomas Feather, who had formerly been the land-
lord of the Guildhall Coffee-house, but had since failed. The
defendant was a Sheriff's officer, a person who had been in the
habit of betting at horse races, at pugilistic combats and cock-
fights. In the month of February last, a prize fight took place
a few miles from London, upon the event of which, the prose-
cutor betted against Thorowgood. The result was favourable
to Mr. nether, and he demanded payment of the bet of Tho-
rowgood, who refused to pay it. It happened that on the 22d
of March, while Feather was sitting in a coffee-house, the de-
fendant entered, and the application was renewed; Thoro.v.
good refusing to comply with the demand, Feather called him
by,,very opprobrious epithets undoubtedly, upon which blows
were returned for words : Mr. Feather received a violent blow
on the nose, which produced a copious torrent of blood ; he
was also struck upon the forehead, which produced a swelling
of so serious a nature, that the prosecutor was prevented from
wearing his hat for some days.
Mr. Thomas Feather, the prosecutor, was called, who
proved the assault in the manner described. He was asked by
defendant's Counsel if he had not said that Thorowgood
was a pickpocket, a receiver of stolen goods, and a person
whom he had traced from the cradle to conviction ?—which he
denied.
The LOUD CHIEF JUSTICE recommended that the defend-
ant should submit to a verdict of Guilty, and the Court would
hereafter determine the quantum of punishment, if the,prose-
cutur should think it worth his _while to move for judgment.
A verdict of Guilty. was recorded by consent.
The prosecutor being called on to pay
.the Jury their feesl
stated he had been very unfortunate, having become a bank-
rupt, and professed his inability to settle with the Jury.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE animadverted in strong terms
upon the prosecutor's imprudence in having been engaged in
gambling speculations, to which, he said, no doubt his mis-
fortunes might be attributed.
COOKE V. HENRY NUGENT. BELL.
This was an action to recover 1501. had and received by the
defendant under curious circumstances.
Mr. SCAIMETT stated the case.—The plaintiff was an en-
graver, living in St. Martin's-lane, and the defendant appeared,
according to his own description, to be a barrister, residing at
No. 1, Royal Terrace, Adelphi. The defendant had acquired
the reputation of being a genealogist. He had displayed consder.
able industry in tracing out pedigrees and heirs to dormant titles.
The plaintiff; who was the nephew of a Mr. Cooke, who died
in 1792, possessed of large property, considered himself en-
titled to inherit the same as heir-at-law. He thought he could
not apply to a better person than Mr. Bell to make out his
title. He accordingly wrote to him at his chambers at the
Adelphi, and detailed his claim, which the defendant (Mr.
Bell) said, he had no doubt of being able to establish. He
thought he could give him a title not only to the estates, but a
Peerage. Mr. Cooke, some time after his application, received
a letter dated Dec. 21i 11121, in substance as follows :
"Sr it—l have reflected on the statement made by your re-
lating to the estates of your deceased uncle, and as Barristers
can not legally bring actions for fees, I have suffered consider-
ably from my inability to tarry on such actions with effect, and
as it will be necessary to make out a pedigree to show your
affinity to-your deceased uncle according to the law of the gene-
alogy of descent, I could not for any sum less than 50/. cdm-
pile a pedigree, and gave such other advices as I could impart
consistently with my professional duties.

" H. N. BELL."
The Lora) CHIEF .TesTrcE.—l take it for 'granted this
Gentleman is not a Barrister.
Mr ScauLt TT continued his statement.—His clienthaving
received the letter, thought the defendant had been employed
examining all the records and charters enrolled since the Con-
!west.' The plaintiff was also impressed with the high-sound-
ing words " according to the law of genealogy and descent;

and not having so. much money, repaired to his friend, Mr.
Woodburn, who accompanied him to the defendant's Cham.
hers, where the defendant again repeated his assurance that
the plaintiff was the heir of -his uncle's property. Mr. W.
then gave him a draft for 501., which,waspaid. On the 4th of
December following the plaintiff received a letter from the de-
fendant to the following effect:—
" Sia—l enclose you the pedigree of Sir Anthony Cooke,
and the demise under which the family estate came to your
uncle's fainilyfind as far down as they are upon record. I
have devoted the whole of my time since the 21st of October'
to your business, and as my time is valuable,you are my
debtor. There are Counsel's fees to be paid, and as want more
money to carry on the war with vigour you must procure
another 1001."
The defendant at the same time furnished an account of
the way in which some of the money had been expended, and
in the account were the following items :
" Attendance on pita friends in the City and various other
places, at least thirty times.
" Attendance at Doctors' Commons to read various
and making extracts from the same, and on Sir G. Nayler,
at
the College of Arms.
" Conversing with him relative to your claim, and procuring
and emblazoning coats of arms, &c.'
Mr. Cooke consulted with his friend, Mr. Woodburn, who
gave him another draft for 1001., which was also paid over to
the defendant, who wrote a letter to Mr. W. to acknowledge
the receipt of the money. He stated at the same time that he
should do all in his power to enable Mr. Cooke to repay him.
He had no doubt the whole freehold estates-of -the deceased
Mr. Cooke would be recovered .by the plaintiff: A few days
after the plaintiff and his friend, Mr. W. called again on the
defendant to ascertain what progress he had made, when,
to their great astonishment,' a porter of imposing aspect, who
stood at the door, told them the defendant was in Ireland, and
was not expected back before March. 'On the defendant's re-
turn the plaintiff and .Mr. W: again waited on him, and asked
what progrFss he had made, to which the defendant replied; I
have examined many records, and the prosecution of. this claim
will cost me more money than I thought. The issue is doubt-
ful, and I think it better to go no further. The plaintiff said,
then give me back my money. This the defendant refused to
do, and in a few days after he furnished the plaintiff with an
account. Mr. Scarlett said, he had heard of curious items in
an apothecaries bill, but the items in the defendant's account
beat all the doctors and apothecaries' charges he had ever seen.
One was—Attending Sir G. Nayler, this day at the College
of Arms, where he shewed me the pedigree of Sir A. Cooke,
but not finding any affinity between him and your uncle, I went
to Doctors' Commons and examined the original will of your
uncle, ordered an exact copy, took a fac-simile of his hand-
, writing, waited on Mr. M'Cloud, read the Gentleman's Maga-
zine, and being much fatigued with this day's labour, I took a
coach home-.-31. 3s.
Attending Mr. Cook, when he stated to me that a Mr. John-
son had a brother in the War-Office, who drew your uncle's
will, and who intimated that he would, for a low faun, state the
contents. Went to the War. Office, could not see Johnson ;
then went to Holborn, and advised Mr. Woodburn to be cau-
tious how he parted with his money to Johnson, 21. 2s. •
The Learned Counsel said he hall read enough to shew the
Jury the nature of this transaction, and, should conclude by
making this observation : the plaintiff would have been much
better off had he given the defendant two guineas for this ad-
vice !—Be cautious how you advance your fnoney tome, •
Mr. Samuel Woodburn examined by Mr. SCARLETT,-
proved the statement.
I The CHIEF JUSTICE.—What object had you in giving this
money to the defendant ?—A. The recovery of Mr. Cooke's
estates.
Q. Did the defendant promise to (To any thing more ?
A. :No.
Mr. SCAELETT.—In the course of your interviews with the
defendant, was any thing said about a Peerage ?—A. Yes ; he
said, there being a Peerage in the family, he should not wonder
if the plaintiff was entitled to it.
Mr. SCARLETT then said, as no Gentleman at the Bar ap-
peared for the defence, and as the tutus lay on the defendant to
shew how the money was expended,, he considered himself en-
titled to a verdict for the whole sum.
CHIEF JUSTICE.—Did you see the defendant on his return
from Ireland ?—.A. Yea, in company with Mr. M'Cloud, who
keeps a Register of Bankruptiecs, and advertises for heirs, are„
in Lombard-street. .;
The CHIEF JUSTICE..—It seems to me a professional man
would, upon hearing the plaintiff's case say, that the time
which had elapsed presented so . may difficulties, that it was
useless to expend money, For my own part, I have no doubt
respecting the transaction, and if the Jury think the defendant
meant to cajole the plaintiff, and that he took no steps in the
business, their verdict must be for the whole sum.
'Mr. SCARLETT said, to save his client from the chance of
having an action brought against him by the defendant for any
services which be might have performed„ he sould consent to
take a verdict for 1001. •
The Jury immediately found a verdict for the plainta--
Damages 1004 Costs 40s.

OREEN.FIELD V. BREEDS AND ANOTHER.
This was an action to recover of the defendant, a carrier,
belonging to the firm of Horn and Co., of the Golden Cross,
Charing-cross 501., the value of a portmanteau committed to
their care, and lost on its passage down to Hastings by one of
tlreir coaches. It appeared that %Ir. Greenfield, intending to
pass two other months at Hastings, with his family, packed up
a quantity of clothes among other things, and sent the trunk by
his servant over night to the Golden Cross Inn, with his name
on it, as well as on other packages. Next morning, on taking
his nut, this trunk was at first lashed to the roof of the coach,
but the coachman thinking it insecure, had it removed into the
boot. On the coach's arrival at Hastings, the trunk was disco-
vered to be lost.
Mr. Gu RNEY said this was the plaintiff's case, and he sought
to recover the value of the portmanteau's contents—namely, 501.
%Ir. ScArti.E,TT relied, on behalf of the. defendant, on one
of the printed tickets, usually delivered with parcels from the
coach offices, and in which they decline responsibility fir the
loss of any parcel above the value of 51., unless specifically de-
•
sq,mated as of superior value, and paid for accordingly.
Ilrooksbank proved the packing of the goods, and the,
delivery of the trunk. He was of opinion that the clothes were
worth 501. Soon after the loss was discovered, he waited on
Mr. Greenfield's behalf on the defendant ; and he promised to
make every exertion to find the property.
The LORD CHIEF 'JUSTICE was clearly of opinion, that
here the carrier was liable, especially by reason of his Orsonal
appearance in the matter. As to the receipt which had been
put in,, containing the sort of notice it did, the very fact of his
appearing in Court put him out of the benefit of all provisions
of the kind. He had voluntarily surrendered the law of that
contract, if it was law, and submitted to the award of the law
of the land, which would decidedly hold him responsible.
With regard to the value of the goods, that must be a questioq
, for the Jury, who would find a verdict for the plaintiff subject
to such consideration.
. Verdict for the plaintiff-251., and 40s. costs.

WESTMINSTER SESSIONS.
You THFUL DlVRA,VlTY—Yesterday James Thatcher,
aged 16, and Chas. Moore, aged only 14, the latter of whom
was tried at the last Old Bailey Sesssions, convicted, and
sentenced to be imprisoned one month and well whipped, were
indicted for stealing from the shop of Mr. Thos. Kelly, book.
seller, of Holywell-street, Strand,,a volume of Pope and War-
burton's Dunciad, &c. his properiy. The prisoners were seen
to take the work from the window and followed, when the pro.'
perty was found on the elder prisoner. They were both well
known to the Police Officers, and the Jury found them Guilty.
The CIiAIRMAI,T, in passing sentence, said, the only course
that could be pursued to save them from an ignominious death,
was to send them out of the country, and orderea them to be
transported for seven years.
George Kelly was convicted of an indecent assault upon a boy
about Bor 9 years old. The prisoner had been a private in the
3d Guards, from which he was discharged, after he was in cus-
tody for this offence, receiving, however, a good character. for
the time he had served in the regAnent.—The Court, therefore,
only sentenced him to four monthie solitary confirrement.
Joseph Dean was put to the bar, on..an indictment, fharging,
him with assaulting a little. Girl, only. nine years of age, the
daughter of a person in Whose how the- prisoner lodged. An
attempt was made to prove an alibi; but it failed, and the Jury
found him Guilty. The Court sentenced him to he imprisoned
four months; the first month solitary confinement. ,
Thomas Bates,, a man of decent appearancecbetween .9 and
60 years of age, a grandfather, was found guilty of having
committed acts of the most shocking indecency towards three
female children at different times since the Ist of May, 1821.