Stockton Herald, South Durham and Cleveland Advertiser. — 1876-08-26 (Stockton-on-Tees, Cleveland, England)

SINGULAR CHARGE AGAINST ALFRED STOKES.  At Worship-street Police Court on Saturday, Alfred Phibip Stekee, deserlded as a brnshmsker, of 34. Baltei's-row, Whitachapel, appeared to a summons charging him with having obtained goofs by fraud from Edmund Martin, also a brnshmaker, of 73, New-road, Whit tchapel.—Mr Abbott, in opening tie case, said that the defendant was the person Stokes, chief witness in the Waiew right murder case. He mentioned the fact of the defendant's comiection with the case, as from the part he took in the detection of the murder this transaction arose. The goods were obtained by the defendant, who, after the close of the criminal trial, entered into business as a brushmaker with a Mr Vanstsies in liakeee-• ow, Whit chapel. On the 9th of June he represented to the complainant that he had a balance of £145 odd on deposit at the City Bank, of Ludgate Hill branch, the money 'wing, he alleged, the proceeds of a subscription raised kr him after the Wainwright case. Upon the faith of that reprasentation he received goods on the 9th of Jane to the amount of £3O lie 61, and a bill was drawn at two mouths. Thet was dishonoured, and the complainant found, that inttead of £145 the defendant bait only £1 11: 6d. Since these prdceedings he bad been served with a notice of bankruptcy by the defendant and his partner, and he found that a bill of tale had been given by the defendant on his furniture, Tie camplainant was then called, and said he was a corn merchant, of New-road, Whitechape. Mr Abbott: Are you a brush maker? , Witness: No; I carried on the business to get rid of the brushes. Mr Hicks: What brushes?  The brushes made by Wainwright. It was his business ; but when he failed i lent him money, and after bis arrest I carried it on. Wainwright and his man (defendant) were both in my employment, but this man left me.  Mr Cooke: Wainwright was foreman, and his man under him ?—Yes, air. _ .  At this point a question of jurisdiction arose, the magistrate being informed that the complainant's place was out of the district of the court, but eventusully Mr Cooke decided to hear the case, and the complainant proceeded with his evidence, bearing out his solicitar's statement, as to false pretence alleged and the delivery of the goods. He added that he was aware that a public subscription for Stokes was raised, and therefore he believed his statement that he bad a balance in the bank, but the defendant said belhad to give notice before he could witbwraw it. Within the past week he had received a notice of the defendant's bankruptcy, and learned that there was a bill of sale on his goods. Mr Cooke asked when the notice in bankruptcy was received, and then it at peared that it was received before the summons was taken out.  The complainant was cross•examined by Mr Hicks, and he said that his business was that of a corn dealer, but he was acting as trustee of the Wainwright business. Vaustries was employed by him as well as Wainwright and Stokes. He discharged VAistries, but not Stokes. The latter went  into business on hi s own account with Vaustries. Witness had had no words with Stokes, and never told him that he would do his best to ruin him because he (Stokes) had given up his (complainant's) best frimd. Witness had done his best to assist Wainwright after his premises were burned down and bankruT.tcy followed. He lent him money up to the time of his arrest.  Mr flicks was proceeding with other questions ac to the connection of the parties and tbe Wainwright affa.r, when he was stopped by Mr Cooke. Eventually the proceedings were acjourned 'pending the bankruptcy proceedings, Mr Cooke remarking that at present it did nut bok as if the defendant's et ttemeat, now charged as a false pretence, bad been relied upon by the complainant, as he had taken a bill at two months.