The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1894-02-22
NEW YORK. Feb. 81.

NEW YORK, Feb. 81.
TPRASTUS WIMAN, formerly man
|, ager for r. g. Dun s; Co, mer-
camille agency, builder OF the
u Staten Island Rapid Transit
railroad, ami a prominent advocate OF
the annexation OF Canada to the
United States, was arrested today
charged with forgeries amounting to
$229, 900. Hs was arraigned before
Judge MARITIME, in chambers. in the
general sessions, aud committed to the
tomts in default OF $25, 900 bail. Soon
after the arrest the grand jury handed
down two indictments charging Wi
man with forgery in the second dSgree.
The complaint on which the in
dictments were found is a lengthy
one and sets forth that Wiman
held only q salaried position with
the agency and was unauthorl zsd
to use the money Of the firm
The complaint says that the al
legged forgeries and stealings took place
during the years 1888, 1890. 1891 and
1892. and up to February, 1898 The
specific charges of the many alleged
forceries and embezzlements against
Wiman were two in number Ole is
that he got a check for $4,000 from
the cashier of Dun & Co. on the rerre.
sentation that il was to pay bill due
E. w. Bullinger, of New York, by Dun
& Co. for material purchased. After
getting the check it is alleged that be
forged Bulliuger'5 endorsement on the
back and deposited it to his own credit
=. l. O. (ND anhaannanflv y
paid Mr.. Bullinger his bill
PECULIAR DEAL WITH CAMPBELL co.
The other case charged is that Wi
man got a check for 80. $50 to pay the
account of the Campbell Printing Press
and Manufacturing company. He then
went to the Campbell company, and
telling them that Dun q Co. were short
of funds, asked them whether they
would like notes for their account in
stead of cash. On Mr.. Brewer scquiesc
ing in this proposition. he made two
notes covering the amount, in his own
name and delivered them to him. He
then forged the name of Ogden Brewer,
treasurer, on the back of the check
and appropriated it to his own use.
The complaint goes on to say; Mr..
Dun first learned of any Of Wiman'a
crimes in the latter part Of February,
1893. Mr.. Dun, immediately on the
Goth day of February. 1898, terminated
his contract with Wiman, dismissed
him from his employ and has never
seen him since. On learning that his
crimes had been detected, Wiman Of
fered to transfer to Mr.. Dun certain
real estate interests on Staten Island OF
doubtful value, hut Mr. Dun, learning
that Wiuan was insolvent, refused tC
accept them or 10 receive any prefer
ence over his other creditors Wiman
therefore made formal assignment fol
the benefit of his creditors. but his as
sets have amounted to almost nothing.
DUN AND CO WERE TENDER HEARTED
Mr., Dun did not submit the proof OF
Winan's crime to the authorities on
first discovering them for several rea-
sons. In the first place he was moved
by considerations Of sympathy for Wi
mans family with whom he had been
on terms of friendship for many years,
and the piteous appeals for mercy
which Winan made to him in letter.
There was no signature to the forego
ing complaint. but its authorship is
credited to ex-District Attorney De-
lancy Nicoll.
Mr. Wiman expressed some surprise
at his arrest, and then asked il there
would be an opportunity to get bail
He said he ought to have a lawyer and
would like to be represented by coun
sel An effort was made by friends t
get bail late in the afternoon, bu
without success Neither did Mr.. Wi
man have counsel when taken to tht
general sessions by the detectives.