The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1904-02-02
Inventor Samuel Kept
Absolutely No Account
of Anything.
DIDN'T WANT STATEMENT
Other Members of Family
Equally Unconcerned and
Destroyed All Papers.

Samuel A Croft inventor of the fast
ener. was on the stand all of the morn
ing session. except for ten minutes when
his brother, Diller b. Groff, another de-
fendant. testified in the trial of A. w
Machen. the GrofT brothers. and George
Z. and Mrs. Lorenz. on the charge of
conspiracy.
Samuel A. Croft was cross-uuestioned
at great length about the affidavit he
made last April to the inspectors, IN
which he was quoted as saying that no
body but he and his brother had any
interest in the business" He stoutly
maintained that the inspectors did not
ask him II others had an interest in the
business" but IF they had an interest
in the patent"
Lorenz an Employe?
Taking that as a basis he explained
that he answered no" because while
the fasteners 10 postoffices I'm the United
States, he had none in the patent IT
self. which the brothers intended TO ex-
ploit abroad. No amount of questioning
could shake the witness on that point
He also said that he considered the
money paid Lorenz as expenses, and did
not look upon II as an interest in the
business.
The witness admitted that although
Lorenz was paid about $50 co., he did not
know of a single instance in which that
defendant had visited a postmaster and
induced him 10 ask for the fasteners
AS long as The profits came in the wit
ness was satisfied. and did not care how
the orders were obtained. This admis-
sion about not knowing what Lorenz
a - -.
portant, as the defense has claimed that
Lorenz was taken in on an entirely
legitimate basis 10 travel from city to
OF the fastener.
A Remarkable Admission.
remarkable condition of affairs.
which was not explained. was brought
out by the prosecution in regard to
Samuel Groff's income. 1t was shown
that in 1902 he should have received
about 5000 for his share Of the profits
from the fasteners, and in addition had
an income of 81, 0S0 a policeman Yet
for that year the bank deposits of the
witness had been only S3.10O. The wit
ness said he could give no accounting
for the money he ought to have received,
and did not know whether II had been
received at all.
Altogether. the conduct OF Samuel
Groff in business affairs was about the
most remarkable ever set forth on the
witness stand. He said he kept abso-
lutely no accounts of anything: never
asked his brother for a statement; did
not know whether ne was getting his
share of the profits; had no :siaa Of the
amount which his brother claimed 10
have expended as incidental expenses,
ia addition TO the commission paid Lo-
rCnz; did not know how fasteners had
been sold or how the sales were pro-
crossing. and could in no way throw
! light on the apparent discrepancy Of
some 5000 in his 1902 account.
A Family Failing.
As il has also been testified that Dill
Ter b. Croft lid not keep any accounts,
but destroyed the papers as soon as a
| transaction was completed, it seems TO
have been a family failing.
In the time from 1895 to 1893, Diler
Grcff managed the business absolutely
and Samuel does not yet know IL he got
his full share. On the stand today he
EXPRESSED the utmost confidence in his
brother, and said he fully believed he
had received his share. on the whole.
Samuel A Croft made a favorable wit
ence to bookkeeping.
Diller B. Groff's Part.
Duler b. Croft took the stand about
| ten minutes before the noon recess and
| told how he had first become interested
| in his brothers patent and had OBJ
/ tanned a half share in consideration OF
| 500 and agreeing to handle the busi-
/ ness. For the first time since the trial
/ began the gray-haired defendant wore
| a worried look. He was nervous and
uneasy all the morning, particularly
| when the prosecution pointed out the
/ difference between Samuel Groffs share
/ Of the profits in 1892 and his deposits
/ in bank. His face lost that peculiar
! sarcastic smile which has distinguished
/ him day after day.
/ The attendance was not as large as
was expected this morning. but there
J was the usual percentage OF women
/ Mrs. Lorenz sat as usual, among the
defendants. and considering the posi-
ton in which she has been placed foI
four weeks. is bearing up remarkably
! well.
Defiance to Defense.
An incident this morning was the de-
fense's decIination OF an offer by the
Government TO put Inspector Fosnes on
] the stand. He was with Inspector
Thorpe when the statement from sam
uel A. Croft was obtained. and the de,
/ fense frequently commented upon the
failure Of the Government to produce
him. Mr. Conrad promptly said the
prosecution would be glad to put him
/ on the stand at once and allow the de-
| fense the greatest latitude in cross-ex,
| animation.
Mr.. Kumler declined for the defense.
CONTINUED Third Page.)