New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-12-20

forgery OF an Endorsement on the check OK
the firm Of r. G.. Dun & Co. of which Tor
thirty years Mr.. Wiman had appeared as
partner The check. which for 5000.
was drawn by Wiman. as he had drawn three-
fourths Of all the firms checks. II was mace
payable to E. w. Bullinger, was Endorsed by
Wiman with the payee's name, and with MS
own names written underneath, deposited 10
his own credit Al the trial. which took place
in June 1894, II was conceded that, mao MI.
Dun the head OF the firm, made the FICTITIOUS
Enforcement complained OF and deposited the
check to his own account Ii would not nave oesn
regarded as forgery, because there was large
amount in bank 70 the credit OF the hrnl, ana tne
payee could not possibly have been injured IL
was alleged however. that the articles or associa-
ton between Dun and Wiman placed the latter
in a position different from that OF partner CIV
ing him no proprietary rights In the business vi
its receipts, and hence, though ne mad tne Iisn.,
under the agreement, to sign the name OF the
firm for the legitimate purposes OF the business
he had authority - sign cheek Tor ms IN
dvidual benefit. and II was Forgery 70 PIace
fictitious Endorsement thereupon Had WIman
made the check payable to bearer, as ne couid
have done, or had tie proceeds. even with builE-
gers name on the check been used In the ousi-
ness or had Wimans account with the hrm NOT
been overdrawn, no charge OF forgery could nave
been maintained But. because OF the overdrdi.'
IL was asserted that the Endorsement was iIduu-
uent as tie check depleted the funds y the
firm. which by the prosecution was interpreted
to be the personal property OF MI Dun ana not
the common property Of the firm
Judge Ipgraham admitted these contentious.
though Wiman proved that his overdraft was
not from extravaganza or personal speculation.
hut was the result OF outside enterprises on JOINT
account with Mr. Dun in which the latter had
large interest and from which he had prohted.
and further that the check complained OF was
actually for the use of one of these undertake
.nCs. ,,,
Wide latitude was allowed for the ADMISSION
OF evidence regarding occurrences long anterior
and disconnected with the Endorsement. wnlch,
according 10 General Tracy. Nimans couhsel,
tended TO prejudice his client in the minds OF
the Jury He also earnestly protested against
the practical withdrawal by the Judge from the
Jury of the question of criminal intent Wlman
having by his evidence and letters admitted the
Endorsement, the jury had no recourse put 10
bring in q verdict Of guilty which the foreman;
in great agitation announced with tears ana
with the strongest recommendation 10 mercy
Judge Ingraham, however. sentenced Wlmah
to State Prison for five and a half years FROM
This sentence he was, within brlef period,
temporarily released by Judge Barrett on
certificate of reasonable doubt as TO the reg
ularity Of the proceedings. This carried the
case TO the Supreme Court, which at its General
Term last January affirmed Judge Barr-tts
position and. In an elaborate opinion ny Justice
Van Brunt ordered a new trial. Judge Foliett
dissenting The District-Attorney carried the
case to the Court OF Appeals. which mas now
confirmed the action OF the General Term
II is supposed that the indictment VIII be dis
missed as the District-Attorney announced that
should the decision OF the Court OF Appeals be
favorable to Mr.. Wiman, the case would De
abandoned