The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1904-01-27
Wife Ignorant of Drafts
and Checks Forward
ed Machen.
BAD DAY FOR DEFENSE
Cross Examination Of Mr..
Mayer Fails to Shake
His Testimony.

Evidence against the Lorenzes was
the feature this morning in the trial OF
George Z. and Mrs. Lorenz. A y. Ma
chen. and the Croft Brothers. on the
charge OF conspiring to charge the Gov
eminent an excessive price tor Groff
letteI-box fasteners.
Paul y Williams. postoffice inspector,
testified TO the visit he and Inspector
J. r. Farrell made to the Lorenz home
in Toledo last spring. and the interview
they had with Mrs Lorenz. She said
she knew nothing OF large amounts OF
money. in the form Of checSs from
D. B. Grof. deposited TO her credit.
and also said she knew nothing of the
large drafts and checks forwarded Ma
chen and signed in her name. The evi-
dence of the inspector was positive that
she denied knowledge Of the cneel6s ard
drafts she sent Machen. although they
bore her signature
''Didn't Know Gross."
LOrenz. when seen by the inspectors
on the same day. was uncomniauicative.
He said the checks he received were
his personal business. At first. he said
he did not know the Groffs. but when
pressed on the point positively declined
TO discuss IT, He was told the Govern
ment had vast deal OF evidence con-
oerning the receipt by him of remit
tances from Diiier B. Groff. but he per-
sistently refused to offer any explana-
tion. He also preserved silence when
asked about the checks ne hai for
warded to MacheH.
The testimony of Inspector Williams
was the first which aimed directly at the
Lorenzes, and was strong in its nature
He was an excellent witness preserving
a calm deIneanor ana explaining in de-
tail each step in the transactions.
interviewed Separately.
John F. Kumler the Toledo attorney,
cross-examined Mr.. Williams. who free
~ admitted thar he had not only Inter-
viewed the Lorenzes separately. but
that he had taken precautions 10 pre-
vent them from communicating between
the interviews. Mr. Kumler INDUCED in
much discussion on that point, trying
TO make it appear that the two inspec-
tors had taken unfair advantage OF 4
womans ignorance in going TO see her
before they saw her husband. and Ia
seeing her alone instead OF with her hus-
band.
The inspector said exp@Ssiency required
that they be interviewed before they had
a chance to communicate. He had heard
tAAnA AAAo- A-DLCAAG WIS a NOllA4l pGLAElA-
ly able TO take care Of herself. and had
found such TO be the case.
In Favor of Lorenz.
It was brought out on the cross-exam-
inatioa that none OF the checks or drafts
from Diller b. Grofr we're made cut in
favor OF Mrs. Lorenz. but We're in favor
of her husband. and by him were de-
posted 10 her credit
manner if the inspector had gone be-
fore the Federal grand jury and asked
for the indictment of Mrs Lorenz,
when none Of the checks We're sent to
her. He replied that when ne went be-
fore the grand jury that fact was not
known. Witness said all he gave TO
the grand jury was a narrative of the
conversation with Mrs Lorenz. He did
not ask for her Indictment Judge
Kumler intimated that he would try TO
impeach the witness.
Couldn't Shake Testimony.
Cross-examination Of Walter s. Mayer.
the inspector on the stand yesterday ar
ternoon. was continued this morning.
but produced nothing OF Importance. He
could not be shaken in his main tssli-
mony, and the discrepancies br Jught out
were of a minor nature. He persisted
that the Groffs said they did not know
the Lorenzes-
The attendance was large. and inter
est ran high while Inspector Williams
was narrating his conversation with the
Lorenzes. The evidence was not at all
TO the liking of the defendants and
they gave the closest attention to what
was said. IL was thought the case OF
the GoveTnmer.t would be closed before
this. but as the cross-examinations are
becoming more and more severe. lt
hardly seems probable that the defenss
viii begin TO offer testimony before
Saturday. If shen.