Critchley Hall News
A Little Bit of History - Mr John Critchley
John Critchley was an auctioneer of 29 Towngate, Leyland near Preston. Amongst his papers was the following newspaper report of a case in April 1900 heard in Leyburn County Court (now the first floor of Wrays) and concerning J.R. Hopper & Co. of Askrigg:
AUCTIONEERS AND THEIR CLIENTS
A case was heard at the Leyburn County Court the other day which is of greatest importance to auctioneers, seeing that the decision threatens to revolutionise the honourable calling of a licensed auctioneer. Briefly the facts of the case are as follows:- A farmer residing in the vicinity of Richmond called in the services of an Askrigg auctioneer to dispose of his farm stock for him by public auction. The sale was duly advertised both by bills and advertisements, and the ordinary conditions of sales were read by the auctioneer prior to starting the sale and also posted up. A well known Richmond butcher, now deceased, attended the sale, and purchased sheep and lambs to the extent of over £54 odd, including commission, and removed the stock without paying for it. The auctioneer, however, felt no uneasiness on that score, seeing that the buyer in question was well known. Consequently, as is the custom in that part of Yorkshire, he squared up with the farmer whose stock he had sold, and said he would collect the debt himself from the Richmond butcher.
Next day the auctioneer met the butcher’s son at Richmond Moor Fair, and applied for payment of the £54 debt, but the youth replied that his father carried the cheque-book. Thereupon the auctioneer employs the farmer to collect the debt for him. The farmer calls at the butcher’s house, and sees the gentleman who bought the stock. A cheque in settlement is asked for, but the butcher says his son carries the cheque-book. He, however, proceeds to make a cheque, and gets his wife to write on a sheet of paper that he owes the auctioneer £50. He signs it, and says that if it is presented at the bank in which he does business that cash will be given for it. The auctioneer immediately he gets hold of this document tries to convert it into cash, but fails. Then it leaks out that there is a contra account between the farmer and the butcher, and that the farmer was owing the latter £33 odd, and this contra account is set off when the butchers widow is sued for the £50 due. It seems rather strange that the admission that the butcher gave in writing that he owed the £50 should go for nothing, but His Honour Judge Templar said that although he had no sympathy with the defendant, yet he found the plaintiff was not entitled to better his position any more than the farmer would have done had he sued. The plaintiff, that is, the auctioneer, had paid, it seemed, his money for a man of straw, for such the farmer had proved. He gave the auctioneer a verdict for £16 odd, which had been paid into Court, and which was the difference between the £33 owing by the farmer to the butcher and some £2 he had miscalculated, but he allowed no costs to either side after the £16 had been paid in.
Then the question arises, why did not the butcher and the farmer inform the auctioneer that there was a contra account between them? Had either of them done so, then the auctioneer would have made himself safe, and have paid the debt out of the proceeds of the sale, but as the auctioneer’s solicitor pointed out at the trial, the farmer was allowed six months after he sold his stock to live in a well-furnished house, and thus the auctioneer was defrauded out of his just dues. The upshot of the decision is that in future auctioneers, after they have sold a man’s effects or stock, will have to advertise for his debts before they pay over to their clients the amount the sale realises, or else if the above decision stands good they are clearly liable to creditors by law. – Yorkshire Herald, April 1900