The herald., 1894-06-13
THE WAY OF THE 1RANSGRESSOR
Erastus Wiman on Trial for
Forgery.
Statement of the Case by the Prose-
cutting Attorney.
A General OvsrhauiiDg of the Private
Affairs II. @. Dun 6 Goa Nam
Der OF Witnesses Already
Upon tho stand.


Wiman's trial today Assistant District
Attorney Wellman related that Wiman
went to Bookkeeper Wheeler of R. &.
Dun & Co. and asked him for check
for $4,000, payable to E. W. Bullinger.
Bullinger never got the check, but
Wiman deposited it in his own bank as
q private account. Wellmsn said he
could show Wiman knew Bullinger's
signature and forged it.
General Tracy interrupted; I'VE
concede Wiman wrote the name OF
Bullinger ON the back of this check and
deposited it to his own account. Com
mercisl law justified him in so doing"
Mr.. Wellman then went on to explain
what object Mr.. Wiman had in obtain
ing such comparatively small amounts
as $4,000 by forgery, when he was re-
ceiving from r. G. Dun & Co. 900 q
year. 1t was because. says Mr.. Weslman,
he was at time that in arrears to h. e..
Dun & Co. to the extent Of $1S7 900. Not
that the books of the company showed
this, this was only shown by the in
veetigation of the books for several years
back. Then it was learned that during
of coming to the Office before anyone
else, taking checks which arrived by
mail, endorsing them and putting them
in the bank to his personal account.
When, at the close of the year, the book
keeper told him he could not make the
accounts OF the business balance by
$135, 1000, Mr.. Wiman gave his personal
check for that amount on q bank where
he had money, and told him not to use
it until he (Wiman) told him to do go,
and thus it was for IA month Mr..
Wlman's worthless check covered on
the books his shortage Of $135,000.
The first witness was James Hsrral,
cashier for Dun q Co. He identified the
check in question and said thst he, un-
der the order of MIR. Wiman, who had
come to him and said they must owe
Bullinger some money and that ne had
better draw check for $4,000, which he
did. He also identified the signatures
on the back of the Bullinger check as
that of Mr. Wiman. On cross.examina-
| ton General Tracey tried to show that
Mr.. Wiman had been in the habit OF
drawing nearly all the checks for the
concern.
The next witness was Edward w.
Bullinger, the publisher of a railway
guide.
Bullinger said all his business rela.
tons with r. R. Dun g. Co. had been
done through Mr. Wiman. At the
period under consideration Mr.. Bull
linger said the firm of r. &. Dun & Co.
owed him $150,000. Mr.. Wellman
handed Mr.. Bulinger the $4,000 check
and asked if the signature was his.
Witness said it WAS not; that the writ.
ing was not at all like his own. In
answer to Mr.. Wellman's question the
witness said he had never authorized
Mr. Wiman to use his name on any in
etrument.
Augustus II. Wheeler, public &C.
countant, said that for seven years prior
to February, 1898, he had been book
keeper for Il. G. Dun & Co.
Mr.. Wsllman wanted to know how
MIR. Wiman's account with Dun & Co.
had stood on December 81, 1891.
The witness said there was balance
OF $2,8S6.S2 due Mr.. Wiman; this bal
aHce WAS not found, however, until after
Mr.. Wiman had handed the witness his
check for $4,000. This check Mr..
Wiman told the witness to hold until he
(Wiman) told him to deposit it. To the
witness knowledge the check bad never
been deposited. Mr.. Niman was in the
firms debt to the extent OF $24, 290. "a
AT this time the $l35, 900 check WAS still
in the witness possession. Witness had
never told anyone about the check.
General Tracey brought out the fact
on the book. The whole transaction,
he said, had been perfectly open and
above board. Anyone could have seen
hol hu ba
books. There had been absolutely no
attempt at concsalment.
The witness said Mr.. Dun never looked
at the books, and MIR. Wiman always
transacted the business OF the firm.
Mr.. Wellman asked witness about his
salary, with a view to showing that
Wiman had increased it from $4,000 to
$4,000. General Tracey objected and
| WAS sustained. The witness, however,
stated that he was always under the i'm
preston that it was the firm who had
given him the increase of salary.
Edward Green, an expert accountant
employed by r. 6. Dun & Co., testified
that on March l, 1892, he started to
make an examination of the books of
the company. Mr.. Wellman wanted
witness to tell the amount of money
due r. G. Dun & Co. from Mr.. Wiman,
and which the latter had not charged
himself with.
General Tracey objected and the court
sustained the objection, saying the
question was too general.
Witness said that according to the
books Mr.. Wiman had drawn the
Sl6, 857.G7 between January l and Feb
ruary 5, 1898. although he was only en-
titled to SIG, 00U. General Tracey OBJ.
jected to nearly all questions asked by
Mr.. Wellmsn, and asked that they be
stricken out, on the ground that Mr..
Wiman was a partner in the concern.
The court refused.
The prosecution recalled Mr.. Bullinger
He testified that he had not received
money from either check drawn to his
order by r. G. Dun & Co.
Mr.. Boardman then read to the jury
the letter previously identified by Expert
Adams as that written by Mr. Wimsn.
1t ia dated July1, 1891. and is addressed:
Dear Mr.. Dun" In it Wiman COME .sed
to feeling somewhat chagrined at having
caused Mr.. Dun any diepleasure because
of his overdrawing his accounts $50, 600
in two months. He declare himself
the victim of misplaced confidence, and
closes by saying that he hae already
realized 21,000 on Staten Island real
estate and hopes to pay a large portion
of the indebtedness before the expira-
ton of the month.
n Sure Thing.