The Express.
London, England, 1853-12-01 00:00:00

BOW-STREET.

James Thompson, grocer, lately carrying on business in
Calthorpe-street, Gray's inn-road, and Hunter-street, ap-
peared before Mr. Jardine, upon a summons, charging him
with wilful and deliberate perjury.
The history of this case is rather remarkable. Oa the
22nd of April last Thompson was placed in the felon's
dock at Bow-street, charged with stealing a picture said to
be worth 6001., but really valueless, being • miserable
imitation of a small Corregio. The person who owned the
picture and preferred the charge was a Mrs. Combs Bur-
roughs, who had described herself as a relation of Mr.
Combe, the magistrate, and stated that the picture was a
gift from "one of the Courtenays." It turned out that
she had made a bargain with Thompson that if he could
get GOOl. for it he was to have 501. for his trouble, and so,
one day, the two started off together in a cab (Thompson
paying the fare) in quest of a purchaser at the West-end.
They waited on all the most eminent pictare-dealers—the
best judges—without getting a single offer, and, after
wasting a whole day in this manner, Thompson began to
suspect that he had been imposed upon. Consequently he
left Mrs. Burroughs, mounted an omnibus in Oxford-street,
and returned home, retaining possession of the pic-
ture " for expenses," and as security for a small
amount of grocery which he had allowed to accu-
mulate upon the strength of the lady's "distin-
guished connexions" in Devonshire. Repeated demands
were made upon Thompson to deliver back the picture, and
finding all other means unavailing, Mrs. Burroughs, with
her husband and sister, proceeded to the police-station, and
charged him with having stolen it in Oxford-street. They
were accompanied back to Thompson's house by police-
constable Thomas Earl, 96 E., but Thompson, who was
shutting up his shop, declined to have anything to say to
them, and shut his door in their laces. Earl went back to
the Clerkenwell station and appears to have erroneously
reported that " Thompson had escaped from his custody"—
probably fearing the censure of his inspector for not having
taken him, or acting perhaps upon the advice of Mrs. Bur-
roughs. At the station he was desired "to watch the
house" all night; brt, apparently without any instructions
whatever, he procured the assistance of three other con-
stables, and at three o'clock in the morning, surrounded
Thompson's house, back and front, knocked him up from
his bed and took him into custody. The charge was taken
by Inspector Hardy, who heard all the circumstances
related, and the offer of Thompson to go and fetch the pic-
ture (which Ir, did under the escort of three policemen),
and yet still retained him in custody—subsequently trans-
ferring him to the George-street station, E. division,
and thence to Bow-street, where he was examined and dis-
charged.
Thompson then preferred a complaint against Earl, la-
specter Hardy, and three other officers. fur having illegally
apprehended and detained him; and after hearing the eel.
deice on both sides at great length, Mr. Jardine committed
the constable Earl for one month, and fined Inspector
Hardy 101., at the same time acquitting the latter of
having authorised Thompson's arrest, his only fault being
that he had detained Thompson in custody after he had
explained the whole matter and given up the property.
Earl was sent to prison, and was further dismissed from the
torce by the Police Commissioners; but /Inspector Hardy
appealed against the decision of Mr. Jardine, and was suc-

eessful—the costs, amounting to about eight times the
penalty, being eventually allowed out of her hlsjesty's
treasury.
After these proceedings an action was brought against
Thompson by Mrs. Burroughs, and Thompson became a
petitioner in the Insolvent Debtors Court, where, in the
presence of Earl, and the whole family of Burroughs (who
had never ceased to pursue him), he swore that his real
name was " Charles Sears." Earl immediately reported
this filet to his solicitor, Mr. Lewis, who applied to Mr.
Jardine, on his behalf, or a summons against Thompson to
answer the charge of perjury, and this was served upon
him immediately upon his discharge from Portugal-street.
Earl now proceeded to support the charge, by stating
what he had heard in the Insolvent Debtors' Court, and
by denying some of the statements made by Thompson
when the case was originally before the court. Ile added
that lie had lost his situation in the police, besides having
endured the month's imprisonment, and he called Inspector
Hardy, the three constables who assisted in the arrest of
Thompson Mr., Mrs., and Miss Burroughs, as witnesses to
confirm Its ev:denco. They were ail examined by Mr.
Lewis, and cross•examined by Thompson ; Mr. Metcalfe,
the barrister, attending to watch the proceedings for Mn.
Burroughs.
Mr. Burnaby, the chief clerk, was also examined as to ,
the accuracy of his notes of the various examinations which-
had taken place, the particulars of which have been already
published.
Mr. Jardine then gave his decision. He said he had
given every possible attention to the facts disclosed in these
proceedings, teem time to time, as they had come before
him, and he did not see the slightest ground for the con-
clusion that Thompson had committed perjury. Nearly
every statement he had made had been confirmed by the
evidence on the other side. They ditlivied from him iu no
material point, and he could not avoid expressing his opi-
nion that these proceedings against him were disgraceful in
the extreme. The whole ease exhibited the most blunder-
ing and scandalous mismanagement on the part of the pn- :
lice that he had ever experienced. It would be both
ab-
surd and unjust to commit a man to take his trial for per-
jury because he had carried on business in two different
names, and he (Mr. Jardine) should certainly decline to do
anything of the sort. The summons, therefore, was dis-
missed.
. . .

•
Directly Thompson hid lett the court an extraordinary
scene occurred. The Burroughs family rushed upon him
with savage ferocity. Mui Burroughs spat in his face,
pulled his hair, and struck him in the faoe, and the police
had hardly dragged her from him when her father pounced
upon Thompson in much the same style,giving him two blows

in the feee, c'xtlienginl him to fight man. In
e &of c,'..:efice of 'this disturb ore an. the putiet. rcturr.ed to the
c re t Isursoughs and his doti3hter were charged with
the Rbo`. e matetits.

_
eon stEed that the defendants followed his into
street, atusseJ him in tk • usnat filthy I invitee, and a+-
wilted him in the manner described at) ,re. Nu cue cauld
imagine the life which he had led through these people.
The evidence as to the assault having been confirmed by
the police,
The defendant Burroughs began condactiug himself in a
violent and disorderly manner—abusing the complainant
and his witnesses, and declaring his anxiety to have a stand-
up tight with Thompson in the bcdy of the court.
Mr. Jardine said the male defendant was a stupid, ill-
conducted fellow ; and, like the police, had been very
badly advised throughout. His behaviour now was of
the wont description. Both the defendants must pay
a fine of 51. each for the assault, or go to prison for six
weeks ; in addition to which they mu,t find two sureties of
201. each, besides their own recognisanoes in 401. each, to
keep the peace towards Thompson for six months.
Burroughs here renewed his threats of personal vengeance
against Thompson. After he was locked up Mr. Jardine
had the daughter placed before him again, and told her
that as she was no doubt acting under the influence of her
father in the matter, he would waive the bail in her case ;
but she must pay the fine or go to prison.
The defendants either could not or would not pay the
penalties, and were consequently sent to prison.