The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-02-22
THE CHARGES.
Letter by Dun's Attorney on Which
the Indictments We're BASED.


NEW YORK, Feb. 21-One of the charges
against Winan is for forging an indorse-
ment of Il. w. Bulinger to a check for
5000, which was drawn to Builinger's or
der by r. G. Dun & Co. The other charge
is for forging the Endorsement of Ogden
Brewer to a check. also drawn by r. G.
Dun & Co., for $3.50. The checks were
forged, respectively on Jan. 20, 1893, and
Feb. 6, 1893. Wiman was arrested by De-
tectives from the district attorneys office
The warrants were executed at Wiman's
office. He was perfectly cool and collected
when the detectives placed him under ar
rest, and he at once proceeded with them
to the district attorneys office From
thence he was taken before Judge MARITIME
He was accompanied by his son-in-law,
Norman S. Walker. Wiman said that Gen.
b. f. Tracey was his counsel and that he
had been in consultation with him nearly
all the afternoon. He was not, he said
prepared to give bail at once. and, in de-
fault he was taken to the Tombs
The first intimation of any charge against
Wiman was in the form of letter received
at the district attorneys office on the 10th
inst. This letter, given out. is unsigned
but IS said to have come from Mr. Dun's
Attorney Delaney Nicholl The witnesses
who went before the grand jury to-day
were II. d. Douglas, E. w. Bullinger, Og-
den Brewer and the cashier of r. G. Dun
& Co. The counts in the indictments re-
late to forgery and the uttering of forged
checks. which were drawn on the Second
National Bank, where Wiman had no ac-
count. The offense is punishable with not
more than ten years for each of the in
dictmentS.
THE ATTORNEYS LETTER.
Following is copy OF the letter addressed
to the district attorney. which sets forth
the nature of the complaint in detail
"Sir-I beg TO submit to you for official
Dun q Co against Erastus Wiman for
the crime Of forgery, and ask that you send
the same to the present grand jury. L have
charges for the purpose Of satisfying my
self whether any successful explanation or
defense of them could De made, and trust
you will agree with me that clearer cases
more easily proved by reputable witnesses
have rarely, If ever, been submitted to the
authorities.
'"The association known as the firm of
r. @. Dun * Co, with which the defend
ant. Wiman, was connected during the
period covering the act complained Of was
formed on Jan l. 1889, but Wman had for
many years prior to that date had busi-
ness relations with Mr.. Dun. Wiman was
not q partner or Mr.. DUN IN the usual
sense In the articles of the association he
had no right, title or interest in the prom
erty and good will of the business and
profits thereof For while it was agreed
that he should receive annually a sum equal
to a certain percentage Of the profits. it
was especially provided in the articles re-
ferred TO that such sum should be paid TO
l him only by Mr.. Dun as salary for faithful
service rendered. and that the amount OF
profit should only afford the basis Of de-
termining the amount Of his salary
ut was also provided In the articles OF
the association that ne should not employ
the name Of II. c. Dun * Co for any pur-
pose. except regular and proper business
of the said mercantile agency, and that ne
should not use said name in making sisn-
ing. drawing or indorsing any note bill os
exchange, draft or other obligations, except
only Endorsement of such papers for the
purpose OF deposit or collection for the ac-
count OF the association. He also had the
right TO sign firm checks for firm purposes
only. All of Mr.. Wiman's relations TO Mr.
Dun, who was the sole owner OF the bust
ness. its assets and property of every de-