The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1894-02-22


NEw YoRE, Fob. 2l.-Erastus Wiman,
the well known capitalist and railroad
magnnte, was arrested on q bench war
rant this afternoon on two charges OF
forgery. lIo was brought into tho
judgo's chambers in the general sessions
building at o'clock, and in default Of
$4,000 bail was committed to the Tombs
by Judge MARITIME.
Two indictments were found against
Mr.. Wiman by the grand jury to-day.
They areforforging and uttering checks.
Each indictment contains two counts.
The total amount involved in Mr.. Wi:
mans alleged forgeries is $229,OOO. Tho
complainant against him is Il. &. Dun,
president OF the Mercantile Agency Az
ISOLATION. OF Sl4 Broadway.
THE CHARGES.
One OF the charge against Wiman is
for forging an endorsement OF E. W.
Bullingcr to a check for 5000 which
was drawn to Bullinger's order by r.
G. Dun & Co. Another charge is for
forging the endorsement OF Ogden
Brewer to check, also drawn by K. &.
Dun & Co., tor 81, 1880. Tho checks wero
forged respectively on January 20. 1898,
and February 9, 1898. Wiman was ar
rested by detectives from tho district
attorneys Office. Tho warrants were
executed at Wiman's office. uo was
perfectly cool and collected when the
detectves placed him under arrest and
he at once proceeded with them to tho
district attorneys office. From thence
he was taken before Judge MARITIME in
chamber general sessions. He was ac-
conpauicd by his son-in-law, Norman
s. Walker. Wiman said that Gen. B.
+. Tracy was his counsel, and that he
had been In consultation with him
nearly all the afternoon. He was not,
he said, prepared to give bail at once,
and in default he was taken to the
Tomhs.
Tho first intimation OF any charges
against Wiman was in the form OF let
ter received at tho district attorneys
Office on the 10th instant. This letter,
as given out, is unsigned. but is said TO
have como from Mr.. Dun's attorney,
who is supposed to be ey-District At
torney Delaney Nicholl. The witnesses
who went before the grand jury to-day
were r. D. Douglas, L. W. Bullnger,
Ogden Browor and the cashier OF K. G.
Dun & Company.
WI,
The counts in tho indictments relate
to forgery and the utterug OF forged
chocSs, which were drawn on the Sec
ond National Bank, where Wiman had
no account.
The ohense Ia punishable with not
moro than ten years for each OF the in
dic:mcnts.
Tho letter to tho district attorney
goes into detail how the forgeries were
committed. Among other things it
7 says: THE association known ls tho
firm OF X. G. Dun & Company, with
which tho defendant, Wiman, was con-
ncctcd during the period covering tho
act complained OF, was formed January
!, 1850, but Wiman had for many years
prior saa: duto had business rela-
tions with Alr. Dun. Wiman was no,
htlHcE III lHt uSull sense.
''ln the articles OF the association he
had no right, title, or interest in tho
property and good will of the business
and profits thereof, for while it was
agreed that he should receive annually
q sum equal to certain percentage OF
the profits, it was especially provided
in tho articles referred to that such cum
should be paid TO him only by MIR. Dun
for faithful service rendered, and that
the amount OF profit should only afford
tho basia OF determining tho amount of
his salary. llo also had the right to
sign hrm checks for firm purposes only.
ONLY sALARIED MANAGER.
AN Of Mr.. Wimau's relations to Mr..
Dun. who was tho solo owner OF tho
business, its asseta and property OF
every description, good will and profits,
were expressed in these papers.
"wiman was salaried manpgef for
Mr.. Dun with such powers only as the
contract gave him with additional power
to drawn checks. The property OF r,
G. Dun & Co. was not his property in
any sense, the monies OF Il, G, Dun K
y. w. nSiS NV AAS AlOIllcS III INV sense,
and the profits OF L. G.. Dun & Co. wero
not his profits in any sense. And vel,
by various acts OF embezzIement,
through Misrepresentation, conceal.
ments, breaches OF his agreement, mis-.
use OF tho powers conlided to him, and
gross usurpation Of powers with which
he was not trusted, hc succeeded dur
ing the years lSSS, 1890, 1891, 1902 and
up the February 1898 in stealing from
: Mr.. Dun the enormous sum oi $2229, ,OlS 90.
That sum ho owes Mr.. Dun to-day.
''rhat in view OF his relation to tho
property OF Mr.. Dun, which Wiman
helped TO manage under the name OF r,
&. Dun & Company, ho is guilty OF the
crimo Of having embezzled the whole or
greater part OF this sum, have little
doubt.
''He has committed SO many crimes
that selection for prosecutions is difficult,
Out OF the long list OF his offences, I
have aeleCted for presentation 10 you
two forgeries, and two or moro larce.