The morning call., 1894-06-15
PERCENTAGE OF PROFITS CUT.

NEW YORK, June 1.-THE testimony
for the defense in the case Of Wiman. on
trial for forgery, was closed this after
noon, and the case is expected to go to
the jury at the close of to-morrow's ses-
sion. The defendant himself was on the
stand most of the time and made many
admissions under cross examination Of
the repeated use of funds belonging to r.
G. Dun & Co. These were called over
drafts by the witness, and be produced
letter written by himself 10 Dun jan
nary IA, 1898. in which letter Wi man
explained his financial condition at length
aud informed Dun that if he had held %
per cent of the profits in January. 1889,
instead of II per cent. the additional in
crease to him would have covered the over
drafts. 1t was January l, 1889. that the
agreement between Dun, Wiman. King
and Douglass was made. in accordance
with which Mr.. Wiman was to get II per
cent of the yearly profits, instead of 20
per cent, which he had hitherto received.
The letter was introduced to show more
clearly that Dun knew all about Wiman's
overdrafts. General Tracey tried to show
that Dun, by arresting Wiman, prevented
q financial move on Wiman's part which
his difficulties.
Judge Ingraham ruled out all the Ques-
tons, saying that they had no bearing on
the alleged forged check in the suit.
Wellman then arose to cross-eXamine
the witness. He began by getting Wiman
TO say that he had been the brains Of R. g.
Dun & Co.
why is it, them" said Wellman, "that
of all the business in which you have been
interested, the business of r. G. Dun s.
Co. has been a success, while the others
were total wrecks?"
Perhaps because 1 was better suited
TO the mercantile business than any other"
Wellman's questions caused Wiman to
brace up and retort with vigor. Wellman
referred to the statements of profits of r.
G. Dun q Co., submitted by General
Tracey earlier in the morning. The sta te-
ment showed that in 1885 the profits were
S345, 7S0 They increased steadily until in
1892 they were S525, 900. The total from
1885 to 1892 inclusive was S3,316,5OO
In reply TO Wellman, the defendant ad-
mitted several instances in which he had
written and telegraphed to the firms
agents urging quick remittances on one
pretext or another, and then had applied
the money to his own use.
Thurber, the we'll known wholesale
grocer; Robert Z. Kimball, stockbroker;
F. S. CANON, superintendent of the Staten
Island Rapid Transit Company; j. ).
WtthrOw. president of the Industrial In
stitute of Toronto, Canada, and Dennis
Stafford of Staten Island, testified to
Wfman's high reputation for honesty and
integrity, after which General Tracey said:
"Tnis our case"
Bulllnger was then recalled by Wsllman,
who asked him: as it true that you were
in the habit of loaning money!"
"It was not" answered Bullinger.
''Did you ever lend any money to Wi
man? '
''Once only" said he.
THAT'S ALL" said Wellman, triumph
antly.
Dun was then called to the stand to tell
the circumstances of the $40, 600 note and
the 100000. He asserted he knew moth
ing about these until they were called to
his attention by his associates. Before
this he thought Wiman's overdraft
amounted to only S24.0OO.
Dun admitted knowing that Wiman had
oVerdrawn his accounts for the last two or
three years, but never suspected that the
amounts involved was so large Dun de-
nied that the prosecution was prompted
by any fear of Wiman. as intimated by
Boardman in his opening address to the
jury.
when the time comes to charge the
jury said Justice Iugraham, 81 shall tell
you then that Dun would not have done
his duty as a citizen had he not aided in
the prosecution OF Wiman."
At this point the court was adjourned
until tomorrow. Judge Ingraham said he
should limit each side to ninety minutes
in their addresses to the jury. 1.-THE case
must go to the jury before night" said he.