The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-10-15
DUNCAN, SHERMAN & co.
ARREST OF THREE MEMBERS OF THE FIRM ON
CHARGE OF FRAUD.
New York Times, Oct. 9.

On Wednesday last, in the Supreme Court
before Judge Lawrence, an order of arrest
was granted against William Butler Duncan,
William Watts Sherman and Francis Fl. Grain,
of the late banking firm of Duncan, Sherman
& Co., On the complaint of Washington A.
Roebling, Ferdinand w. Roebling and Chas
G. Roebling, who charge the late banking
firm with fraud. Mr.. Washington A. Roebling,
one of the plaintiffs, is the well-known engi-
neer of the East River Bridge, and the suit is
brought by his attorney, MIR. Henry II.
Morange, Of Wall street.
In the sworn statement of Mr.. Ferdinand
w. Roebling he states that the plaintiffs are
copartners in trade, doing business under the
firm name of John A. Roebling's Sons; that
the defendants had widespread reputation
as wealthy and honorable bankers; that they
were reported as having a capital invested in
their business of millions; that William But
Ter Duncan, one of the defendants, owned real
estate to an amount reaching ST, OOO GOO; and
that such real estate was permitted to remain
of record unchanged up to the 9th of July,
1875; that the defendants lived in princely
STYLE and that it was reported, without
contradiction by the defendants that
the dowry Of William Butler Duncan's
daughter would be S1,0O0,000 that
the defendants large and hitherto honorable
course of dealing and their high standing in
the community excited the confidence of the
plaintiffs and caused them to have faith in
their solvency, and on this faith and conf
dence they paid on the 2lst of July to the de-
PENDANTS the sum Of S1,637 rs, and with said
sum purchased of the said defendants their
sight draft or bill of exchange for the sum of
e296 IS sterling on the Union Bank of Lon
don, and payable to the order of Richard
johnson & Nephew. Mr.. Roebling next
states that the draft was dishonored, and that
| within six days from its purchase the defend
ants declared themselves hopelessly insolvent.
He states further that William Butler
Duncan had about three months previous
to the failure conveyed his real estate to his
father, but that the deeds remained in his
possession, and were not recorded until the
day after the failure. As to the assets, Mr..
Roe5ling believes that they will not realize
the sum of 50, 900, 600, as stated by the defend
ant, and he charges that they knew of their
insolvency when they sold aud delivered II
him the bill of exchange, and that they well
knew that the same would be dishoncred. Mr..
Roeblirg also charges the defendants with the
perpetralion of fraud in not at once recording
the conveyance OF the real estate to MIR. Dun can,
ST., and he also charges tina they were guilty OF
fraud in selling him the bill OF exchange, as
they we'll knew on that day they had exhausted
every avenue of relief and possessed no fnan-
eial resources whatever to cover the deficiency
which existed in their assets. In conclusion,
Mr. Roebliug charges that all OF the defend
ants, knowing the true state of their affairs,
continued after the 21st of J1ly to impose up
on the public by doing business as usual, and
that they were guilty Of fraudulent conceal