The Sun.
London, England, 1835-11-23 00:00:00

THAMES- OFFICE.

James Wright and Thomas Field, watermen, were
charged with stealing a portmanteau from on board the
Columbine steamer, containing property valued at 1001.,
belonging to Philip Akerman, Esq., and James Sanders, a
chandler's shopkeeper, was charged with receiving a portion
of the stolen articles.

The prisoners Field and Wright assisted in conveying
the portmanteau on board the steamer, where it was seen
safely deposited ; but after Mr. Akerman had arrived at
Hamburgh he could not find it. Information was sent up
to London, and Fogg and Evans, of this office, proceeded
to make inquiries. They ascertained, on a visit to Sanders's
house, in Back Church-lane, that various articles belonging
to Mr. Akerman had been purchased by him. Wright
was seen standing near Sanders's house, and on searching
him several duplicates were found for various other articles
which bad been deposited in the portmanteau. Field was
afterwards taken into custody, and several witnesses proved
that they were seen coming ashore at the. Custom House
about an hour after the steamer had sailed, and that they
both went the same night to the theatre attired in new
clothing.
Several pawnbrokers produced various articles of linen
and other wearing apparel which had been pledged the day
after the robbery.

On the part of Sanders it was contended that there was
no case against him ; but

The Magistrates thought otherwise, and all the prisoners
were committed for trial.

Q UEEN- SQUARE.

James Allen, alias lames Abbott, who has for some time
past been proprietor of the Deptford Theatre, was on Sa-
turday brought before Messrs. GREGORIE and BURREL, for
re-examination on a charge of embezzlement, preferred
against him by Messrs. Sherwood, Prett, and Sharpe, Par-
liamentary agents, resident in Parliament-street.
It appeared by the evidence of Mr. Sherwood that the
prisoner had been in the emplopment of the firm, as princi-
pal clerk for some time. On the 13th of June, he gave
him 'a check for 171. ss. lid. on Messrs. Drummonds,
drawn by witness on behalf of the firm, to pay to the ac-
count of their law stationers. Shortly afterwards he ab-
sented himself from their employment, and information
which led to his apprehension was given at the station-house
of the A division.
Charles Otway, police constable, 42 A, deposed to ap-
prehending the prisoner, on Thursday evening last, at the
Deptford Theatre, of which establishment he was sole ma-
nager, under the name of James Abbott.
The prisoner declined saying anything in his defence, but
appealed to the Magistrates to remand him to a future day,
in order that he might have an opportunity of employing a
professional adviser on his behalf.
Mr. GREGORIE said that he would have sufficient time
between the present and his trial to consult with one, and
he should not object to his perusing the depositions.
The prisoner was then committed, and the parties bound
over to prosecute.
Mr. Prett stated that the firm had two other cases of
embezzlement against him, both more extensive than the
present, but they could not be gone into now, in conse-
quence of the parties not being in attendance.
It was stated that the prisoner, immediately on abscond-
ing, had become proprietor of the theatre at Deptford,
which has lately been fitted up at a great expense, and
under his management with great success. He was appre-
hended by Otway during the performance, and was obliged
to apologise to the audience for his non-appearance before
them that evening. The prisoner then transferred the ma-

nagement to a Mr. Hughes, a party connected with the
theatre, and was conveyed direct to London and lodged in
safe custody.

CHANCERY COURT.-SATURDAY.

SHAW V. RHODES.

Sir W. HORNE said there were some peculiar circum-
stances connected with this case which rendered it necessary
for him to ask their Lordships to put it in the paper of re-
hearings. The whole matter had been very fully argued
before Lord Brougham, and his Lordship gave judgment in
it ; but unfortunately the minutes of that judgment were in
such a form that they could not be shaped into any decree
to which that Court could give effect.
Mr. BEAMES, for the other side, admitted there was a
difficulty with respect to the minutes; but he thought the
Court might so construe these minutes as to render them
available without putting the parties to the expense of
having the whole matter re-argued.
Sir C. PEPYS said that this interference of the Court
with respect to the minutes of the Lord Chancellor must
depend solely on the consent of both parties ; without that
consent the Court could exercise no discretion in the
matter.

Sir W. HORNE observed that all agreement between the
parties was out of the question. The question could only
be settled by a re-hearing of all the points at issue.
After some discussion it was at length arranged that the
case should be re-heard before Sir C. Pepys and Sir J. Bo-
sanquet on Monday week, and not before the Vice-Chan-
cellor, whose judgment is appealed against. ,