The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1876-12-23 00:00:00

SERIOUS CHARGE AGAINST A
BUTCHER.

At the Police Court, on Saturday last, before
Colonel Fletcher, James Thomas Lashford, butcher,
Hagley Street, Stourbridge, was charged with hav-
ing at the parish of Hagley, he being a bankrupt,
did unlawfully, within four months of the 3rd of
July, by false representations, obtain from Ben-
jamin Wooldridge, one cow, with intent to de-
fraud him.
Mr. Perry appeared to prosecute, and Mr.
Collis defended. _ _ _

Mr. Benjamin Wooldridge said he was an auc-
tioneer practising at Stourbridge. On the 3rd
July, 1876, he held a stock sale at Hagley. De-
fendant attended trce sale and bought 10 sheep
and four lambs, amounting to £3O 19s. They
were knocked down to him. Later in the sale he
bid for a cow, No. 5. It was knocked down at

£2O 12s 61. Immediately upon its being .knocked
down, defendant said "Put it down to I'. Lash-
ford, it is for my father." He did not pay for the
cow before it left the ground. The entry in
the book produced was made by witness at the
time. Defendant's name was James Thomas
Lashford. He (witness) let defendant remove the
cow without paying for it upon the strength of the
representation that it was being bought for his
father. The cow still remained unpaid for. A
copy of the conditions produced was posted up in
! the sale yard. In consequence of a communica,-
tion from defendant's father about a fortnight
after the sale witness went to defendant and said to
him "flow about that cow." Defendant said
"My father did not have it. I will pay for
it." _

Cross-examined: I don't think there was any-
one by when he said that. Defendant first came
to my sales in June last year. On the 3rd of
April last he made his largest purchase £34 is.
He bought them under the conditions of sale and
I allowed him to take them away without paying
for them on that day. On the 11th of May he pur-
chased stock amounting to £3O 12s 6d; on the
10th June, .t 23 15s. I cannot say whether the
stock purchased on the 7th February, amounting
to £27 12 6d, was for father or son. On the 24th
June I sold defendant stock amounting to ,R,27
12s 6d. On the 21st February there was a bill of
.210 15s for Lashford, but I cannot tell whether
that was paid by father or son. On March 6th,
£l6 7s 6d and another item, £lO 4s, £26 us 6d.
That was paid for by defendant. On the 13th
March he bought a cow for £l.B is 6d and he
Paid for it on Maich 27th. He also bought other
stock and paid for it. I believe the bills were
always made out to the defendant in the same
way. They might have been made out as Mil
Lashford or Mr. Lashford, jun., or sometiire 3to
Mr. James Lashford. I always allowed him to
remove his goods before payment. I cannot ftj
whether the father and son employed t;_e s.me
dro.rer. Nearly all the Stourbridge mat is sent
to
Iby
knockedS onyu rbr
el ibdtughwe,e
cow
a
idiaov‘ droverven b a
been
defendant
dui named
ne
atsy was Guest.sosnt n
Ineegs
wh_tn defendant has owed me money, I sent the
bill to defendant. I saw defendant about a
e f night after the sale and he said' "My father
did not have it and I will pay for it." I instruc-
ted my solicitors to apply to defendant for the
money he ?wed and an execution was levied on
his goods in consequeuce. I heard that he filed
his petition that day.
Mr. Thomas %.Itiliian4 Wooldridge, son 01
.copi:_

7. • 4 . 1

1
-1