The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-06-13

Wife to Death.
New York, June 12.-In Erastus Wi
mans trial. today, Assistant District
Attorney Wellman related how Wlman
went to Bookkeeper Wheeler of R. G.
/ Dun & Co., and asked him for a check
for $1,000 payable to E. w. Bullinger.
! Bullinger never got the check, but
Wiman deposited it in his own bank to
his private account. Wellman said he
could show that Wiman knew Bull
! fingers signature was forged
General Tracy interrupted, eve con-
cede that Wiman wrote the name of
Bullinger on the back of his check and
deposited it to his own account. The
commercial law justified him in SO
DOING
Mr. Wellman then went on to ex-
plain that the object Mr.. Wiman had
in obtaining such comparatively small
amounts as So, 900 by forgery, when he
was receiving from r. G. Dun & Co.
$4,000 a year.
ct was because" said Mr.. Wellman,
che was at that time in arrears to R.
G. Dun & Co. to the extent of $751; 900.
Not that the books of the business
showed this; this was only shown by
the investigation of the books for sew
eral years back. Then it was learned
that during these years Mr.. Wiman
had been in the habit of coming to the
Office before any one 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 bookkeeper told him he
could not make the accounts of the
business balance by S195, 900, Mr.. Wi
man gave his personal check for that
amount on a bank where he had
money and told him not to use it until
he WimaD told him to do SO. and
thus it was for fourteen months Mr..
Wiman's worthless check covered on
the books his shortage of $135,000."
The Check For $4,000.
I The first witness was James Harral,
cashier for r. G. Dun & Co. He. iden--
tilted the check in question and said
that Mr.. Wiman had come to him and
said they must owe Bullinger some
dough and that he had better draw
check for $1,000, which he did. He also
identified the signatures on the back
of the Bullinger check as that of Mr.
Wiman
On cross-examination, General Tracy
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.
Mr. Bullinger said all his business re-
lations with R. G. Dun e Co. had been
through Mr.. Wiman. At the period
under consideration Mr.. Bullinger said
the firm of r. G Dun & Co. owed him
S150000. Mr.. Wellman handed Mr.. Bull
linger the S., 900 check and asked if the
signature was mis- Witness said it
was not; that the writing 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 to any instrument.
Augustus H. Wheeler, a public ac-
countant, said that for seven years
prior to February. 1893. he had been
book-keeper for r. G. Dun & Co. Mr..
Wellman wanted to know how Mr.. VII
mans account with r. G. Dun &
Company had stood on December 81.
1891
The witness said there was a balance
| of S2,SS6.82 due Mr. Wi.man. This bal
ance was not found, however until
after Mr.. Wiman had handed witness
his check for $4,000. This check, Mr.
Wiman told the witness to hold until
he (Wimam told him to deposit it. To
the witness knowledge the check had
never been deposited Mr.. Wiman
was in the firms debt to the extent of
$24,290.54. AT this time the S135,000
check was still in the witness possess
sion. Witness had never told anyone
about the check.
Tracy Insists it Was All Right.
General Tracy brought out the fact
that the S135, 900 check had been entered
on the books. The whole transaction,
he said, was perfectly open and was
above board. Any one could have seen
book. There had been absolutely no
attempt at concealment made. The
witness said Mr.. Qua never looked at
the books and Mr.. Wiman always
transacted all the business of the firm.
Mr.. Wellman asked witness about his
salary with view to showing that
Wiman had increased it from $4,000 to
$4,0 900.
General Tracy objected and was sus-
tanned.
Witness, however stated that he was
always under the impression it was the
firm which had given him the increase
of salary.
Edward Green. an expert account
ant employed by r. G.. Dun & Co. testi-
W
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 Tracy objected and the court
sustained the objection, saving the
question was too general.
Witness said that, according to the
books, Mr.. Winaan had drawn the S16,
1916 between January i and February
., 1898. although he was only entitled to
ST, 900.
General Tracy objected to nearly all
questions asked by Mr.. Wellman, and
asked that they be stricken out on the
grounds that Mr. Wiman was a part
ner in the concern. The court refused.
The prosecution recalled Mr.. Bullin-
the letter previously identified by Ex-
ceived money or either check drawn
to his order by R. G. Dun & Co.
Mr. Boardman then read to the jury
the letter previously identified by ex-
pert Ames. as that written by Mr.. VII
man 1t is dated July l, 1891, and is.
addressed:
Dear Mr.. Dun:'-
In it Mr. Wiman confessed to feeling
somewhat chagrined at having caused
Mr.. Dun any displeasure because of his
Dver-draw;ng his accounts 100000 in
two months. He declared himself the
x,iatiy71 IF Y,asSY,laoa1 oonfidepaa nj