New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-07-13
MIR. WIMAN GETS A STAY.
IT is GRANTED BY JUSTICE BARRETT


legality of the conviction of Erasius Wiman on
the charge Of forgery on his recent trial before
Justice Ingraham in the Court OF oyer ana Ter
miner.
A Tribune reporter Mr. Wiman at the Toomos
shortly after the decision announced the de-
fendant annea red cheerful and hopeful He looked
well as he paced the prison yard and came 10 the
gate TO receive callers. He was dressed IN COM
Portable summer suit, consisting OF Diack seiSe
coat and trousers and double breasted "hl'e vest
On his head he wore a black silk skull cap MS
checks were rudy. and he greeted all VINO caHed
on him with the same coriiality with which he re-
ceived visitors his office at No. broadway. lie
expressed pleasure at the decision OF justice h"i
rett Mr. Clark of his counsel Tracy Boardhah
g. Plat, had iust left him. He had no expectation
-, ,oa,nc the Torobs prison tonight, but was hope
fully waiting the decision Of Justice Barrett on me
question OF bail pending the appeal to the General
Term
THE QUESTION OF BAIL
A reporter saw Mr. Clark at his once IN inc
Mills Building subsequently, and the statement was
made that the release OF Mr.. Wiman depended upon
the decision of Justice Barrett as 10 whether the ue
PENDANT would be admitted to bail pending the APP
neal and decision by the Court Of Appeals. 1t Is
the belief of lawyers that Justice Barrett VIII dc-
cept ball. though possibly in view OF CONVECTION
for larger amount than the S2o"" depoSl'eu i"S'
February which secured Mr. Wiman's release az
that time.
Mr. Wiman is IN constant receipt OF letters ana
kilograms Of sympathy and prior to O'Clock he mad
received many messages OF congratulatiOn on the
granting OF the stay.
JUSTICE BARRETTS DECISION
This is Justice Barretts decision in full
The defendant was indicted for forging the name
5000 made by r. G, Dun Co. and payabie 10 Mr,
1H Wa b STa the n defendant doTse the name
OF Bullinger upon the check with intent 10 Geiraur
Dun or his partners. All questions as to whsther
the Endorsement made with intent to detraud
Wiman's own bank were substantlaiY eN cluutu
apparent when consider that the Court charged
the following propositions -. oh.o, ~. cha 10.
PENDANT in the Central National Iank was not an
nssr gnr Sr ,ha the uy Found that the de-
PENDANT had reason believe and honestly ala be-
loss or injury by the use Of his name"
Second IF the jury n md at eb aT W 2eShn BANK aG
he raj reason = believe and did believe that II wouli
De paid by the Chemical Bank As it was in tact
paid by such bank. the act of depostlng the check
in the Central National Bank did not constitute the
the Central National Bank, within the meaning Of
Section 52l OF the Penal Code.
undisPuied. That is, the defendant had good reason
to believe and did M p9 sN n a ne Sneck
There was no question whatever in his mind or as
ca BUN q o or WITH regard to the
balance to their credit in the Chemical Bank: For
the belief that Bullinger could not be subjected to
pecuniary loss. and that the Central Bank would not
THE POINT OF INTEREST
Thus the put to the jury upon the single
question which pervaded the trial-namely, the in
tent TO defraud r. G. Dun q CO. Unless. therefore.
the unauthorized Endorsement Of the check made
with intent to defraud X. G. Dun & Co., the de-
PENDANT indeed the Court repeatedly charged.
was entitled TO an acquittal II was essential 10
show, that the drawing of the check with
intent to defraud the firm, but that the act OF in
intent The defendant was. in fact author
Sed TO- draw firm checks and an a6nss OF tnat
sttute forgery. 1t might we'll be a fraud upon the
crime Of forgery To constitute forgery the fraud
must be applicable. not solely 70 the drawing of the
criminal intent must have relation 10 the latter, not
merely to the former.
the frandulent purpose Of thereby eeetng The
;a bbsIllhFsS
hO nit In fact given As for %
falsely reported that 1t had been obtained, then If
thority ' had BEEN given "f Would not be forgery
8 though such authority were really wanting Why?
regard to the signature Under such circumstances.
the criminal intent to misappropriate Dun CO.
the Endorsement
RELEVANT ISSUE.
1t would seem to follow that the intent with
which the Endorsement made. a relevant
ISSUE and that the defendant could only be con-
yicted in case the jury were satisfied Of the de-
then TWO issues. First. was the writing Of
Songh BY hgnse undr ali H"f h
circumstances. criminal: Second. was such writ
The court recognized the relevancy and i'm
portance of this first issue. This proposition was
distinctly charged
II the jury shall md that Wiman believed that
paper he had legal authority to use the name Of
ha the check Ss should be p and to
name on the back of the check. such Endorsement
This proposition wss CHARGED after the case had
s P a9a CHARGE se @ e dE
judge declined 10 permit me Defendants counsel
stances upon which the proposition was predcated.
At this point in his argument, the counsel was
the argument with regard to which the inerruption
occurred was for the purpose OF leading up to a
and which he intended to ask the court TO charge.
WAS men hee words sSs ask HoRo
charge the jury If the defendant believed that
authority to make this check and indorse it as he
did the crime is not forgery ..r .o,,.o ;.
and counsel excepted. Then. gentlemen, If His
Honor goes to that length IT does not render this
laying down what believed TO be the general rule
vail ioH in ali Commercial circles for the purpose
establishing the second proposition that whether
M %%an @ t %
made his Endorsement in the belief Of his legal
authority to do So then there was no criminal In
tent. and he could not be convicted OF forgery
Now I understand His Honor to say that he Will
not charge this proposition, and therefore, pass
TO the next proposition.
RECEDED FROM THE POSITION.
It is apparent that the learned judge ultimately
Yeceded from the position thus taken This. how
ever was but a moment before the retirement
OF the jury and was not accompanied by distinct
withdrawal OF the ruling made during the summing
opened and counsel permitted to resume his adj
dress at the point where he was checked
The propositions differed slightly In FORM but
not at all in substance. There is no doubt that
upon the evidence the defendant never INTENDED