New-York tribune., 1875-10-11
CHARGES AGAINST DUNCAN, SHERMAN & CO..


SUIT BROUGHT By THREE OF THE cREDuoRs, WHO
AIIEGR FRAUD-THE MEMBERS OF HE flhN
ARRESTED AND BAIL GIVEN.
The arrest of the members of the firm of
Duncan Sherman & Co., although not unexpected,
caused considerable comment in Wallst on saturday.
The arrest the result of the action of Washington A.
Roebling, Ferdinand W. Roebling, and Charles G'
Roebling, OF the late John A. RoeOng, who nave
begun suit against VIM Butler Duncan, VIM Watts sher
man. and Francis II. Grain composing the firm OF Dun
can Sherman Co. The conplanants set forth that on
July 81 1879 they purchased from Duncan, Sherman
Co bin of exchange, for which they paid Sl,631 10
drawn ON the Union Bank OF London The painihs ask
for judgment for the OF 637 80, and an additional
sum of 10 per cent for damages The affidavit accom-
panying complaint sets forth that the defendants
have pa. twenty years done business under the
name and style Of Duncan, ShermanS CO.; that they
had enjoyed extended reputation as wealthy ana non
orabe bankers that they transacted very large bsi
ness remttanees to Europe and elsewhere that they
were reputed to have capital Of millions; that william
Butler Duncan owned real estate in the cities OF New
York and Newport and elsewhere worth nearly
81 OOO and that this real estate was permitted to
remain Of record unchanged and in the name OF william
Butler Duncan up July 81 1875 that each of the de
PENDANTS lived in princey style and each OF thein was
classcd among the miiOnaires of the United
States and that il reported without con
tradictlon by the defendants that the dowry of
a dauqbtcr OF Mr. Duncan would be 81 100000.
The affidavit further rectes that the banking house OF
Duncan, Sherman Co. daily received large sums OF
money on deposit and bore the appearance of prosper
Gus solvent firm Relying on this apparent soivency
the conplanans purchased the bill of exchange Within
ak days afterward the firm suspended payment and de-
clared themselves hOpelcssy nsOlvent IL is further
alleged that william Butler Duncan about three months
ueyous 10 the failure had conveyed his real estate 10
his father but that the deeds remained in the possession
Of the defendants and were not recorded uhul the
day after their failure; that the liabilities OF
the defendants were, on the day OF the fail-
ure about So 900 OOO and their supposed assets about
81 100000; but the cOmpanants believe that the assets
OF the firm will not realize this sum- that the niin OH
complauau was hOpeessy insovent, and the partners
knew that fact aud that they would not have snthciei
funds in the Union Bank 20 meet and pay the same tDat
the concealment Of the conveyance of his property D!
William Butler duncan TO his father ana me nn%iilng
record the and the fact that the deeds were
recorded at the time named was the pcrpetraGoh OF
complanants that the defendants continued TO do busi-
ness July 2l 1879 that receiving the money OF lhe
a fr,nd mpon the plaintiffs; that the defendants knew
on July 2l 1873, that they had exhausted every means
of relief aud possessed no financial resources WhaeNcr
to cover the large deficiency OF S3,000000 which
then existed that the defendants wilfuy cheated ana
given An affidavit of Edwin A. Alexander, secretary Of
the plantins, alleging fraud is also given ,....
ON those afhdaviIs and complaints, Judge Lawrence
issued order Of arrest hNng ths bail at S2oo rms
West sixtythird-st and VIM j. Staples Of NO 80 Bond
at The order was made retuInable Oh Oct IL Henry
III. Morange for the plantln BARROW, shpman q La
rocque for the defendants.
william Butler Duucan stated that he supposed the
sut was intended tO compel the members Of the firm "
nav the claim full While they might be disposed 70
do that under ordinary circumstance II they were TO DO
il In this case II would simply bring on more such ac
tions Referring 10 the recent withdrawal OF ms propo
sition, he says:
yhdn.y The proposition simply because il not &C
cepted sufficient number OF creditors 10 warrant me IN
carving i out lht gIGgonon WS IN Py & he & al
of Its Withdrawal leaves the matter
before made the proposition 1t now remains
creditors 10 either allow the assignment which has
been udge Shpman stand, TO suggest some
other which may, in their opinion DO 70 the interest
aid the assignee, hes III 10y
pow n realizing the assets.