The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1894-06-13
New YORK, June 12.
6PHE trial of Erastus Wimau. under
the indictment charging him

6PHE trial of Erastus Wimau. under
the indictment charging him
with forging the endorsement Of
u Il w. Bullinger on check for
$1,000 drawn to the latter's order on
the Chemical bank by r. G. Dun & Co.,
was continued this morning before
Justice Ingraham III the court OF oyer
and terminer. The jury having been
completed yesterday afternoon, the
case of the prosecution was presented
to the jury this morning by Assistant
District Attorney Francis S. Wellman.
Mr.. Wellman began his opening at a
quarter to II o'clock. He said that on
February 81 of this year the grand jury
of,this county, alters careful considera-
ton Of the facts in this Gaze, directed the
district attorney to call Erastus Wiman
to the bar to answer to the charge
of forgery in the second degree.
After explaining to the jury the
legal distinction between forgery in the
frat and in the second degree, he told
them that the indictment under which
Mr.. Wiman was being tried contained
two counts: one charging him with
forging the name of E. ". Bullinger
upon the check Of r. G. Dunn & Co.
issued to Mr.. Bullinger for So. 5.0OO the
second charging him with knowingly
uttered this forged commerc ial paper
HISTORY OF THE DUN AGENCY
Mr. Wellman then skotched the bus
iDess of r. e. Dun g. Co. 1t was
founded by r. G Dun forty or fifty
years ago, and for years had been one
of the leading commercial agencies of
the country. At first it was known un-
der the name of Dun, Barlow & Co. then
as Dun. Wiman & Co., and finally as R.
G. Dun & Co. Why the name Of
Mr. Wiman had been dropped from the
title of the firm he did not feel 1t nee
essary to disclose at this time. For
twenty-five or more years Mr. Wimau
had been connected with the business,
He had entered ii as clerk in u branch
Office in Canada, of which he became
manager, and eventually came to the
central Office in this city, and rose to
be manager of that.
To the outside public, continued Mr.
Wellman, Mr.. Wiman doubtless was
supposed to be u partner, Indeed, r.
q. Dun 81 Co. probably held themselves
out to the public as such. 1t was Ger
tain that Mr.. Wiman had largely the
managership OF the business. Yet in
reality there was absolutely no part
nership at all. Mr. Dun was.
and always had been. the sole owner
of the business. Mr.. Wiman was
timply salaried manager for Mr.. Dun,
and this relation he perfectly under
stood as thoroughly as Mr.. Dun him
self did. II proof of this relationship
and or the nndoubted full knowledge
OF it by Mr.. Wiman, the people would
place in evidence the articles of assoei-
alton under which Mr.. Dun and Mr..
| Wiman did business together. These
articles were redrawn IN 1889, and Were
as precise and uumjstakabie in Ian
guage as it was possible for them tC
be. In these articles it was clearly
stated that Mr.. Wiman's compensation
was salary, and that the amount Of
the profits WAS to form the basis of its
computation. Mr.. Wiman was to re,
ceive 16 per cent. of the net profits
which amounted to between $13, 00(
and $4,000 year
THE ALLEGED FORGERIES.
Mr.. Wiman, continued Mr.. Wellman
had exclusive charge of the printing
aud publishing Of the reference bool
issued by the'sgepcy. Among outsid,
persons who had connections with thi
part Of the business was J. NJ. Fitzger
aid, who supplied about $40, 900 worth o
paper year, and E. w. Bullinger
who furnished tho book called 'Bullen
gers guide, which was sent out will
each copy of the reference book an,
cost between $l5 600 and SIG, 900 yea
All this was 30 exclusively under tn,
control of Mr.. Wiman that nobody els,
in the business knew anything about it
Mr. Wellman then related the cir.
cumstances attending the particular
act for which he WAS indicted. Oh
Feb. G, 1893. Mr.. Wiman went to Mr.
Harral, the cashier of R. G. Dun & Co.
and told him to draw check for $5, 00
on the Chemical National bank to tn,
order of L. w. Bullinger. Mr.
Wiman then signed the name o
h. G. Dun g. Co. to the check
as he had right to do. The
he wrote on the back of the checl
the name of E. W. Bullinger, and
under it. his own name. The chez
did not 90 to Mr.. Bullinger nor di
rectly to the Chemical bank. 1t wen
to the Central National bank. where i
was deposited to the private account o
Mr.. Wiman. To show Mr.. Wiman'
knowledge that lie was uttering
forged check, the prosecution woul
prove that he had been uttering forge,
checks for year
SaRToRiS-D AFFAIR.