Rensselaer Union and Jasper Republican, Volume 8, Number 23, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 24 February 1876 — How a Texas Bank Was Swindled Oat of $10,000. [ARTICLE]

How a Texas Bank Was Swindled Oat of $10,000.

Mb. Phil. E. Chappell, who has just related to us, yesterday, an instance of sharp practice on the part of a trio of thieves, which we think is entitled to preeminence in the line. Immediately over one of the banks in Dallas is the telegraph office, and a few days agotwoof the operators applied for their discharge, received it and left town. On the day following, a well-dressed, business-appearing man appeared at the bank with a check for SIO,OOO on a well-known New York bank-ing-house, and desired it cashed. He brought with him numerous letters of recommendation from parties with whom the bank had business transactions, and, so far as surface indications went, everything was all right. But SIO,OOO wu a considerable sum to pay out, even on the very best documents or recommendation, and the bank officers hesitated, wavered, and finally declined to cash the check. But the stranger was importunate. “Gentlemen,” said he, “I came to Texas to invest this money in cotton. It is very necessary that this check should be cashed, or I wilf be greatly inconvenienced. Suppose you telegraph to New York to this banking-house? Ask them about me; 1 will pay all expenses.” > Nothing could be more plausible than this; nothing sound more honest. So a dispatch was sent, asking about the stranger and the check, and in a short time came the answer, to the effect that it was all right, and the Dallas Bank would confer a favor on the New York firm by accommodating theta -cotton-speculating friend and cashing toe check. Still the bank officers were not satisfied, and the dispatch to New York was duplicated. Again the answer was of a similar tenor, only probably a little more emphasis was added to ft. This was satisfactory and the check was duly cashed. It seems to be the practice of operators to go over their day’s work at night briefly by asking the differenyjoints to which dispatches have been sent, whether they have been received or not. On inquiring of the New York operator whether dispatches 13 and 14 had been received, a negative answer was returned. No such dispatches had come to hand, and consequently no answers could have been sent. It was evident that the bank had been swindled, but how? There was the mystery. The dispatches had been regularly received; they had come from somewhere, but where from could not be known. The cotton speculator had gone with the funds, and the bank officials were at their wits’ ends. In a day or two the mystery was solved. The two telegraph operators, referred to above, had gone a few miles outof Dallas, taken possession of an old shanty by the roadside, attached a battery to the wires, and taken dispatches intended for New York off. They had then sent prearranged answers. The three were confederates, and the operator knew about the time the bogus operators would enter the bank, and when to attach their instruments. It was an adroit scheme, and successfully carried out. The bank has no clue to the swindlers, but has learned a valuably lesson and paid a high price for tuition.— Jefferson City (Mo.) Tribune.