The Sun.
London, England, 1834-10-16 00:00:00

BOW-STREET.

THE EXTENSIVE EMBEZZLEMENT AT GLASGOW.--,-YeS-
terday Thomas Rae, the young man charged with embezz-
ling moneys to the amount of upwards of 1,0001., the pro-
perty of Alston, Mather, and Co., merchants, at Glasgow,
in whose employment he was as clerk, was again brought up.
It appears that upon, the apprehension of the prisoner in
London, information of that fact was sent to Mr.• Miller,
the chief-officer of Glasgow (or Messenger-at-Arms, as be is
there called) at Liverpool, whither he had gone in search of
the delinquent. Mr. Miller came immediately to London,
and upon seeing the prisoner in the prison to which he had
been remanded, he recognized him as the man whom he
sought. A second man, named Robert Burgess, who ac-
companied the prisoner in his flight, and who is said to have
instigated him to commit the robberies, is yet at large, and
is supposed to be in possession of about 300/., part of the
produce of the other's delinquency. He is described as
having the appearance of a gamekeeper, and is stated to
have lost the sight of one eye. On the search of the pri-
soner by Ellis when he apprehended him, a receipt for 50/.,
which he had paid for his passage out to Sydney in a vessel
which was to sail on the following day, was found. Ellis
happened accidentally to have had occasion to make inqui-.
ries respecting some persons who had gone out in the same
ship on a former voyage, and he proceeded to question the
prisoner upon the subject, when he prevaricated so much
that the officer had no doubt on his mind that he was the
person he suspected him to be. He was in consequence of
this at once taken into custody, and admitted his guilt.
The prisoner, who appeared to be perfectly indifferent,
was remanded until Saturday.
CURIOUS QUESTION UNDER THE NEW POOR LAWS
BILL.—Mr. Earl, one of the officers of St. Martin's parish,
introduced to the Magistrates a young woman, named Eliza
Thomas, who had an infant in her arms, and said he was in-
structed to apply for an order of affiliation against the re-
puted father of the child, but it was under curious circum-
stances, to which he begged their Worships' attention. The
Bill for the Amendment of the Poor Laws passed on the
14th of August, and the child was born at a quarter before
four o'clock on the morning of that day. A question had
been raised amongst the parish officers whether, as the sta-
tute was not retrospective in its enactments in cases of bas-
tardy, and as it was well known that the Act could not have
passed until the afternoon of that day, the father was or was
not liable to be sued for the maintenance of the child.
Mr. HALLS referred to the Act, and said that the words
were " from and after the passing of this Act," and as the
child was born at an early hour on the morning of that day,
and the Bill was not actually passed until the afternoon, it
could not be said to have been born " after the passing of
this Act." He therefore, was of opinion that the father
was liable for the maintenance of the child.

Mr. MiNsuuLL said his opinion was quite different from
that of his worthy colleague, for it was a well-known maxim
in law that there was no fraction of a day. The Act was
passed on the 14th of August, and a child born at any hour
of that day must be considered as coming within the provi-
sions of the law. The worthy Magistrate read from several
high law authorities passages in support of his view of the
question.

After rather a lengthened conversation, the Magistrates
observed that the question was one of much importance,
and required further consideration ; and they ordered the
case to be postponed until Wednesday next.