Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-10-18
MACHEN AND OTHERS
Argumentin Court Of Appeals
Today.
APPELLANTS COUNSEL
POINT OUT CERTAIN ALLEGED
ERRORS OF LAW.
Grouped and Classified So That Cog
nate Questions May Be Con-
sidered Together.

An audience larger in numbers than on
any other occasion for several years past,
was in the room of the Court of Appeals
shortly after 10 o'clock this morning when
arguments were begun on the motion of
August w. Machen, George E. Lorenz, Dill
Ter 3. Croft and Samuel A. Croft that the
judgment of Criminal Court No. /, sentenc-
ing each of them to penitentiary imprison-
ment for two years and to pay fine of
$4,000, after conviction on a charge of con-
spring to defraud the United States in
connection with the Post Office Department
frauds, should be reversed and a new trial
ordered The arguments will be in progress
until noon next Thursday. In court today
were Messrs. Douglass and Douglass and
Conrad H. Syme, attorneys for August w.
Machen; Mr.. Samuel Maddox, attorney for
Diler B. Croft and Samuel A. Croft, and Mr..
John F. Kumler of Toledo. Ohio, attorney
for George E. LOrenZ. The prosecution was
represented by Mr.. Morgan H. Beach,
United States attorney for the District of
Columbia; Mr.. Charles A. Keigwin, assist
ant United States attorney for the District
of Columbia, and Major Holmes Conrad,
special counsel for the government.
Appellants Argued Today.
The appellants had the day to themselves,
Attorneys Charles A. Douglass and Samuel
Maddox addressing the court in the order
named. The governments legal represent
atives will submit their replies tomorrow.
Attorney Kumler will have the floor from
10 o'clock until noon Thursday. Samuel A.
Croft the inventor of the Croft letter box
fastener, was the only one of the appel
lantS in court today.
In substance. the charge against the up
pellants was that the 10Th of June, 1900, to-
gether with Martha j. Lorenz. wife of Geo.
E. LorenZ, they unlawfully conspired to-
gether to defraud the United States In the
following manner. That Machen should
recommend to the first assistant postmaster
general the purchase of large number Of
Croft fasteners at the price of $1.25 for
each of such complete fasteners, and at the
price of SIPS for each two of such half
fasteners. and should procure the same to
be paid for by the United States al the
price mentioned: and that Diller B. Croft
and Samuel A. Croft should. from such
payments. retain and keep for their use go
per centum Of the proceeds thereof, and
should pay to George E. LorenZ and Martha
j. LorenZ or to either Of them. to be con-
verted, appropriated and applied to the use
OF them and Machen, 40 per centum of any
such payment made by the United States
for fasteners.
At the close of the evidence on the part
of the government the attorney for Mrs.
Lorenz moved the court to direct verdict
iii her favor for want of sufficient evidence
against her to warrant conviction, which
motion was granted, and verdict of not
guilty was rendered by the jury as to Mrs
LorenZ
Errors of Law Complained Of.
Many errors of law are complained of by
the appellants, and they have been grouped
and classified so that cognate questions
could be discussed together.
The first, second, fourteenth, fifteenth.
sixteenth and thirtieth assignments of error
relate to questions of law raised by the de-
eli nfc Of how
to do with the contentious of the defendants
as to what constitutes fraud under the
pleadings and evidence in the cause The
third and fourth assignments of error raise
the question as to the legal right Of the de-
PENDANTS to have the court require the
prosecution to elect upon which one of the
twelve counts of the indictment the defend
ants should be tried
By the fifth assignment of error the de-
PENDANTS complain that they were each de-
prived of their rightful number of peremp-
tory challenges in the empaneling of the
jury. 1t was the contention Of the defend
ants On the trial of the cause and it is also
asserted in the Court of Appeals that under
the Constitution and laws of the United
States they were each entitled to ten per-
emptory challenges. The trial court ruled
that the five defendants were collectively
entitled to only ten peremptory challenges.
The defendants, by their seventh assign
ment of error, complain that the trial court
erred in admitting irrelevant testimony cal
culated to cloud the issue and to mislead
dHu pISJuUlCc the jury against lnGm, There
are quite a number of instances of this
character to which exception was taken
The eighth assignment charges error on
the part of the trial judge in admitting in
evidence sundry letters, papers and other
writings without showing that Machen or
any of his codefendants had signed or ini-
tailed them or had any knowledge Of their
existence or contents or had any connection
Herewith.
An Important Question.
The ninth assignment of error raises what
counsel consider the important and funda-
mental question-whether or not declara-
lions and acts of one or more of the defend
ants can be properly and legally admitted
in evidence against all the defendants with
out preliminary prima facie proof outside
of the existence of the conspiracy itself.
By the tenth assignment 1t is complained
that the trial judge erred in refusing TO
allow the defendants to interrogate George
e. Lorenz with reference to the circum-
stances of his meeting with Machen on the
lake trip in August, 1895, and also with
reference to the names of the persons who
constituted the party on the trip, and who
invited Machen and Lorenz to accompany
the party.
The eleventh assignment charges that the
court committed error of law In refusing to
allow the defendants to interrogate Miss
Liebhart within the proper and legal limits
o. cross-examination. By the twelfth as
signment 1t is averred that the court erred
In admitting in evidence the sworn state
nent of Diller B. Croft taken by Post Office