Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-11-22
ONLY AN OPTION.

Outlining the Defense in the Brewery Syn
dicate Suit-How the Value of the Lutz
Plant Was Estimated-Going to London
to Raise Money.
The big brewery case of D. Lutz s. Son
against George Crawford was continued in
the United States Circuit Court yesterday
The only witness for the prosecution ves-
terday was j. j. O'Reilly, who testified
that in 1889 he made an estimate of the
plaintiffs plant and placed it at 500, 600,
and it was, in his opinion, worth that much
now.
Mr. Ferguson opened his side of the
case, stating the line of defense he intended
to present He said: "The jury will find
that there never was an acceptance. We
will show that there was no deposit on the
acceptance which was agreed upon, and un-
less they can show that there was, the case
falls through. We propose to show that in
the question of damages there was none;
that the plaintiffs have not suffered; there
was no contract and if the jury believes our
witnesses, the bottom of the plaintiffs case
drops.
George Crawford, the defendant, stated
that previous to 1890 he had no connection
with the brewing business, but was engaged
in gold and silver mining, with his Office in
the Lewis block this city. Inanswer to
questions as to how he came in contact with
d. LutZ & Son, the witness said he went
with Mr.. McCsbe TO see Mr.. Lutz at his
brewery. He met Mr. LutZ who showed
him around. Anthony Lutz came to see
him atterward and the scheme of the syndi-
cate was explained. Owners of breweries
came to see Mr.. Crawford, and options we're
offered and discussed.
The witness told them he would see what
could be done. He told them he expected
TO GO to London, but denied that Mr..
Elliott attended to his business in his ab-
serce. Mr.. Lutz made up the valuation on
the plant, estimating tie real estate outside
of the brewery proper After the contract
was signed the witness told Mr.. Lutz he
was going to London to see what could be
done there. He told Mr.. Lutz he would
take no option that would not expire the
same date, and November 80 was fixed upon
for the option. He denied telling Mr..
Lutz that he would instruct Mr.. Elliott to
sign papers, but did tell him that he ex-
pected to communicate with Mr.. Elliott.
A number of letters and cablegrams were
offered and objected to. There was consid-
cradle discussion over the matter, and Mr..
Ferguson gained most of the points
Mr.. Elliott testified that shortly before
lne optlon expired StrauD q MOTIFS, the
real estate agents, who represented another
English syndicate, called on him and repre-
sented that cablegram had been received
from London stating that money had been
deposited there for an option on American
breweries, and wanted him to accept
the option for Crawford. He told
them that he had no authority
to sign Crawford's name, but they said il
was all right, that Crawford was interested
in the money raised in London, and that
they would guarantee no harm would come
to Elliott if he signed the acceptance. With
this assurance, he put Crawford's name to
the acceptance. When he advised Craw-
ford of what he had done, the latter re pu-
dated the facts alleged by Straub & Nor
ris, and said he knew of no money having
been deposited