Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-02-01

General Wynnc that precise question, in
reference to himself interjected Attorney
c. A. Douglas.
The witness said he earned his salary
principally by running back and forth be-
tween his house and the Post Office Depart
ment.
Reference was made to the mutilated let
ter, addressed to Lorenz and signed IS. A.
Croft, offered in evidence last Friday. The
witness said he mailed the letter to LorenZ
IN 1873. and first saw it since the date of
mailing about three or four weeks ago.
TIE latter part of August 1901. the Croft
, brothers received warrant in pawn ent for
fasteners for $3,301.2J A check was then
sent to Mr.. Lorenz for 81 271 Mr. Beach
wanted to know how the latter amount was
determined. The witness could not tell.
Wouldn't your accounts show?" asked
Mr.. Beach.
No. SIR replied the witness
This closed the cross-eXamination of Dill
Ter +. Croft.
Another Witness Called.
The redirect examination of the witness
was brief and unimportant. Then Samuel
A Croft, inventor Of the Croft fastener
took .he stand.
Mr. Croft said he is nearly ffty-seven
years of age, has been a member of the
metropolitan police force for rineteen years
has been a resident of. this city for more
than twenty years. He told how he Glanced
to invent the fastener. This informa ton
had been impaired by several of the pre-
ceding witnesses.
According to Mr. Croft he first started to
work on the fastener about the year 1885
MY wife finally complained that I was
dreaming about letter box fasteners"
added the witness
1894, and the witness transferred a half
interest therein to his brother Diller B.
Croft. As early as 1893, the witness said
he showed models of the fastener to the
officials of the local city post office and
placed one in the Swing room at the
Union building The witness did this he
explained, for the purpose of getting the
officials and carriers interested in the in
vention. At the instance of Superintendent
Bell of the local city delivery the witness
addressed communication to Mr. Machen
as the result of which two letter boxes
We're ordered to be turned over to the wit
ness for experimental purposes.
Before Mr.. Machen came to this city the
witness had discussed the merits of the
fastener with Mr.. Marche of the free deliv-
cry bureau, now deceased. The witness
had never discussed the fastener with Mr..
Machen. He first saw Machen in 1S95
While the witness was taking down a pat
ent fastener Mr.. Machen remarked that
the fastener was too tight
At this point the usual midday recess was
taken.
Date of First Order for Fasteners.
AT the opening of the afternoon session
the defense devoted it's energies to showing
by Samuel A. Croft that through his per-
sonal representations the first order for
GroH fasteners was given by the depart
ment. That was long prior to the time the
Croft Brothers first met George E. Lorenz.
The witness next told of his first meeting
with Mr.. LorenZ, his testimony agreeing in
that respect with the opening statement to
the jury by Attorney Maddox.
Justice Ashley Gould listened to the prO-
ceedings for half an hour or more this fore
noon, occupying seat beside Justice
Pritchard on the bench.
Attorney Holmes Conrad was present at
this afternoons session. AT the very start
he objected to the manner in which Attor-
ney Douglass questioned Samuel A. Croft
we want to proceed decently and In
ORDER Mr. Conrad said, replying to sally
of counsel for defense. Justice Pritchard
upheld Mr.. Conrad's objection.
Elder M. Croft.
Mr.. Samuel A. Croft made a good appear
ance on the witness stand. He is upward
Of fifty years old, and has been a police
man in Washington for a number of years.
He has rudy complexion, gray hair and
mustache, the latter of which gives him a
look of semi-fierceness. Today he wore a
ministerial collar and a small black crayat
tied in a bow.
ed the questions propounded by Mr.. Doug
lass in voice that could be heard dis
tinctly in every part of the court room. In
variably in referring to his patent, he called
1T device instead of device" This
caused some laughter, but the witness
seemed to take no notice of 1t.
A sensational feature of this afternoons
session was Samuel A. Groff's positive dec
the trial began of the affidavit he signed in
the presence Of Inspectors Fosnes and
Thorpe last summer, and which bears his
own signature, contained many things he
never said.
Attorney Douglass read from the afl-
davit, and Mr.. Croft often answered:
81 never said anything of the kind
1t is understood that Diller B. Croft will
follow his brother on the witness stand,
and that George E. Lorenz and his wife,
Martha ]. Lorenz, will follow him in turn.
Refused to Sell Interest.
Samuel A. Croft said he made 1t plain to
his brother that he would never sell an in
terest in the patent on the Gron fastener.
He would, however, give a half interest in
the profits derived from the sale of the
fasteners for use on letter boxes only, in
the United States. The witness stated that
until the present case was inaugurated he
had not seen George e. Lorenz since their
first few meetings in 1895.
Mr.. Groff, continuing, said he never
signed a partnership agreement with Mr..
Lorenz. He never saw the alleged agree
ment referred to in the mutilated letter
offered in evidence and signed by the
witness.
The attention of Mr.. Croft was next d.
rected to the visit to him last April of
Post Office Inspectors Fosnes and Thorpe
and the statement prepared by them that
he signed on that occasion.
The witness denied that he said to the in
sPectors-"Nobodyb but my brother and my
self is directly or indirectly interested in
the fasteners" What he did say, stated
| Mr.. Croft was that nobody but his brother
and himself was directly or indirectly in
| terested in the patent. The statement
| signed by the witness did not embrace one
| sixth of what was said. he asserted on the
| occasion of the visit Of the inspectors to
| his residence.
| Attorney Douglass requested Samuel A.
| Croft TO say, under oath, whether he was
| aware. when the partnership agreement
| was made, that LorenZ was acquainted
| with Machen or any other official of the
| Post Office Department. The answer was
| emphatically In the negative.
| Samuel A. Croft was then examined re-
| garding his meeting with inspectors
| aver and Mckee at police headquarters
! the morning of May last, and of going
| thence to the residence of Diller B. Croft
| On reaching the latters Office the wit
ness, so he testified, was ordered out OF