The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-01-08
WITH A RIVAL FIRM
FORT, JOHNSON & HELM WANT AN
INJUNCTION AGAINST A. $. Heller.
Once Prosecuted for Embezzlement,
He Is Now Working Against His
Former Employees.

In the Superior Court yesterday the firm
OF Fort, Johnson & Helm, brokers at the
Union stock yards. brought suit to enjoin
Arthur s. Heizer. employed by competing
firm, from sending out letters and soliciting
business to the injury and disadvantage of
the plaintiffs The court is asked to make
the injunction perpetual. Heller was for
several years in the employ of the original
firm of Fort, johnson e. Co. He retained
his place when, in 1894, Robert F. Helm sue
ceeded to the interests of. Thomas b. and
z. Nathan Wilkinson. of the firm.
In the complaint filed the plaintiffs make
some serious charges against Heller He
was known as the plaintiffs confidential
clerk and cashier, il being his duties TO re-
ceive and handle all moneys for stock sold
by them in the course of their business,
which, il is averred. amounted in sums
ranging in the aggregate from 100000 to
100000 a year. The defendant, it is
charged, in his capacity of confidential man.
became thoroughly acquainted with all the
secrets OF his employers business, and with
the names and addresses OF all their GUS
toners. Heller remained in the employ or
the firm almost continuously from 1888 to
1892. May IA. 1892 it is alleged. the defend
ant disappeared, and it was discovered that
he had embezzled 81, S93 of the firms money,
and to which theft, it is averred. he after
ward. confessed The plaintiffs show that
it was on the intercession of Heizer's par
ents that they reinstated him in his old po-
sition. This was done, they claim. with the
assurance of his father and mother that the
deficit shouldJ be finally paid out of the in
surance upon their lives. Heller returned to
his work, and on the death Of his mother
the money lost by his employers on account
of his act was returned. Relying upon the
promise of Heller that he would conduct
himself in an honest upright manner, the
plaintiffs again gave him Tree access 10
their books and accounts. Then, they aver
taat on May l., 1895, the defendant again
violated the confide noes of his employers by
appropriating to mis- own use the sum or
$2,l52. Ii is alleged he also copied from
their books a list Of their customers, which
1T is charged he has ever since retained
The plaintiffs assert that when they dis
covered the second embezzlement they open
iy accused Heller, and he made no attempt
at denial, but executed a confession in writ
ing. Thereupon William Johnson, acting
for the plaintiffs. fled an affidavit in the
city Police Court, and a warrant was issued
for the arrest of the defendant. The COM
plant alleges that Heizer waived examina-
ton in the Police Court and was bound over
to the grand jury; that on account OF the
intercession of friends the plaintiffs made
settlement with the defendant. with the
consent of the prosecuting authorities or
State BY the terms of the settlement the
plaintiffs received the sum OF 81, 900 in full of
the Indebtedness, and agreed that they
would as far as lay in their power, with
draw all prosecution. Another provision of
the agreement was, ii is alleged, to the
effect that Heller was not to go into the
employment of any other firm engaged in
business at the stock yards. The plaintiffs
say that one of the reasons why they con-
serted to withdraw their prosecution of
Heller was because of the fact that he had
but recently married Tney were actuated,
they say chiefly through sympathy for the
grief and sufferings OF Hezer's young wife.
realizing that IL the case came to trial the
result would probably be a term OF impris
onment in the State penitentiary.
The plaintiffs snow that in consenting to
an adjustment of the unfortunate affair they
endeavored. as far as possible, to protect
their own business, which had been built
cause of this fact they insisted that the de-
PENDANT refrain from connecting himself
with rival firm, knowing, as they claim.
that because of his former knowledge of
their disadvantage and detriment 1t is
charged that Immediately after his dis
charge from the custpdy of the prosecuting
officials Heller. in violation of his agree
ment. took service with another firm, who
are rivals and competitors of the plaintiffs.
The allegation is made, that Heller has
been sending letters to the plaintiffs Gus
toners soliciting them to do business with
These letters, it is eaverred, announce that
the defendant has left the employ of the
plaintiffs, but they neglect to say why the
relations between them were severed. The
plaintiffs believe that Heller will continue
to use the information acquired in their en-
ploy against them, and they show the court
that the injury, to their business cannot be
measured by any monetary value. They
ask that Heller, be perpetually enjoined
from using any information gained while in
their office to their disadvantage and injury