Morning journal and courier., 1894-02-22
uLuJ DI ILLLunAIn Il,
From ALI Quarters.
CHARGED With FORGERY.
Erastus Wiman of Staten
Island in the Tombs.
ARRIVAL OF THE kelRsARGE MEN.
Many Of Them Were Clad
in Thin Clothing.
Gig SENSATION IN WASHINGTON.
A Commodore Warns PeO-
pie Against His Wife.
GIG SENSATION IN WASHINGTON.
CHARGED WITH MANY CRIME,

|
pie Against His Wife.
CHARGED WITH MANY CRIMES
Erastus WimaD, the Advocate of the
Annexation of Canada; the Builder
OF the Staten Island Rapid Transit
Railroad and Well Known
Throughout the Country, Is Under
| Arrest-He Refused to Give Bail and
Was Committed to the Tombs.
New YORK, Feb. 21.-Erastus Wimsn,
formerly manager for R. q. Dun & Co,
mercantile agency, builder of the Staten
Island Rapid Transit railroad, and prom
inent advocate of the annexation of Can
ada to the Units States, was arrested to-
day charged With embeazlement and forg-
cries amounting to 1928. 900:
| Mr.. Wiman was arrs,ened before Judge
MARITIME in chambers in the general sessions
and committed to the Tombs In default of
$25, 900 bail.
The arrest was made by Detectives Won
| Gerichten and Kelley In the afternoon, at
the Office of Mr.. Wiman's n-in-Iaw, Nor
| man 8. Weller, in the Washington build
ing. No. l Broadway, on bench warrant
issued by Judge MARITIME eoop after the
| grand jury had handed down two indict-
| ments charging Wiman with forgery in
the sc ond degree.
Mr.. Wimsn expressed some surprise at
his arrest, and then asked If there would
| be any opportunity to get bail He said
he ought to have a lawyer, aud would like
| to be represented by counsel. An effort
| was made by friends to get bail late In the
afternoon. but without success. Neither
| did Mr.. Wimsn have counsel when he was
| taken to the general sessions by the detec-
tives. As soon as it was given out that
| Mr.. Wimsn had been arrested Assistant
| District Attorney Lindsey made known
the complaint on which the indictments
were founded. 1t ia ss follows:
"To Hon. J. R. Fsllowe, district sttor-
| ney.-I beg to submit to you for our
official action this complaint of the firm of
R. g. Dun & Co. against Erastus Wimsn
| for the crime of forgery and ask that you
send the same to the grand jury. I have
taken great pains to investigate these
charges for the purpose of satisfying my
| self whether any successful explanation or
| defence of them can be made and think
you will agree with me clearer cases, more
easily proved by reputable witnesses have
| rarely, If ever, been submitted to the
authorities The association known as R.
G Dun & Co. with which the defendant,
Wiman, was connected during tie period
formed on January /, 1889, but Wimsn
had for many years prior to that date had
business relations with Mr.. Dun. Wimsn
was not partner of Mr.. Dun in the ususl
| sense. Under the articles of association
be had no right, title or interest in the
property and good will Of the business or
profits thereof, for while it was agreed
that he should reserve q certain percentage
of the profits, 1t was provided that he
| should receive only such sum for salary
for faithful service rendered, and that the
amount of profit should only be the basis
of determining the amount of salary. 1t was
also provided in the articles of association
that ne should not employ the name of R.
g. Dun & Go. except in the regular bust
ness, and should not use the name of said
association in issuing, making, drawing OF
endorsing any note, bill of exchange, draft
or other obligation, except only in endorse
ments of such papers for the account of
the association. He also had o right to
sign firm checks for firm purposes only.
Gail Mr.. Wiman's relations to Mr.. Dun,
who was the sole owner of the business, its
assets, property of every description, good
WILL huu pISheos Wclo AploEeeu III tuSoo
| papers. Wiman was a sslsried manager
| for Mr.. Dun, with such powers only as the
| contract gave him, with additional power
to draw checks. The property of r. G.
Dun & Co was not his property in any
sense. The moneys Of R. g. Dun & Co.
we're not his moneys in any sense, and the
profits Of R G. Dun & Co. not his profits,
and yet by vsrit us acts of embe zzlement,
through misrepresentation, concealments,
breaches of his agreement, misuse of the
po Hers confded to him and gross usurps
ton of powers with which he was trusted
he succse ded during the years 1888. 1890,
1891. 1892 and up to February, 1898, in
STEALING from Mr. Dun the enormous sum
of 1929, O1s 80.
That sum he owes Mr.. Dun to- day.
| That, in view of his relation to the prop.
erty of Mr.. Dun which Wimsn helped to
manage under the name of R. q. Dun &
Co he is guilty of the crime of having EN-
b, zzled the whole or the greater part of this
eum. have little doubt.
He has committed SO many crimes that
the sci. ction for prosecution is difficult
| bat out of the long list of his offences
| have srlected for presentation to you two
forgeri g and two or more laTc sni-s 30 per
feotly clear, 30 easily established and go in
defepeibls that they will serve the purpos,
of prosecution without reference almost t
other. In February, 1898. R G. Dur
& Co. owed upwards Of ten thou
sand dollars to E. W. Bullinger
Esq, of this city, for material
purchased on tie 9th of F. brusry, 1893
Wiman being in urgent strsifs for none,
/ directed the cashier of R. g. Dun 4 Co. t.
make out a CT eek to the order of Mr.. Bull
niger and instead of transmitting 1t to hin
in part payment Of his account deliberstel
forged the pane of E W. Bullipger ON tn
back of the check and deposited it to hi
own credit in his own bank. The sccoun
! | of Buliinger on the books of the firm wer
debited with that check in the usual cours
, | of time. 1 need hardly say that these act
of Wimsn's were wholly without th
knowledge of Mr.. Dun or of any of his al
sociates in the firm of R. G. Dun Il u
: and that since then they have paid to Nj
= Ballinge. the sum which Mr.. Wiman o
\ the day named appropriated by means G
I forgery to his own use
"a few days before the Bullinger csl
just recited, viz, on the Goth day Of Janr
airy, 1898, Wiman committed another fo
\ gerry under circumstances very similar. o
] that date R G. Dun & Co. owed the Cam,
\ bell Printing Press company the sum
So, $50 for two printing presses. purchase
\ in May, 1892. Wiman procured from Il
I cashier of R. g. Dun & Co. check to IL
order CT Ogden Brewer, treasurer of Il
I Campbell Co, ON the pretext that he d
sired to pay the account. He then wei
4 to the Campbell Co. and telling them thi
r G Dun & Co. were short of fund
\ asked them whether they would like not,
for their account instead OF cash. On N
Bower scquiescipg in his proposition
made two notes covering the amount in b
own name and delivered them to him. E
then forged the nsme of Ogden Browe
treasurer on the check and appropriated
to his use. All of these facts were co
cealed from the knowledge of Mr.. Dun
= any associates, but they subsequently,
4 discovering them, paid the Campbell col
pany the amount of their account. n
= Dun first learned of any of Wiman's Grim
in the latter part of February, 1875
Nsither he nor his assistants in R. G. d.
& 90. had any suspicion Of the extent
= them or of the amount embezzled by bill
That could only be sscertained by . cri
cal examination of their books which b
= recently been completed. But in diecov'
ing some of them Mr.. Dun, immediate
= on the Goth day of February, 1898, tern
mated his contract with Wiman, dismiss
= him from bis employ and has never sc
linn since.
III ION learning that his crimes had be
detected Wimsn offered to transfer to
= Dun certain real estate interests on Stat
T.Iard of douhtful value and Mr. n