Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-01-19
Arguments by Counsel.

Douglass on cross-examination.
No. sir" replied the witness.
That's ALL
Arguments by Counsel.
AT this time the proceedings were en-
livened by Justice Pritchard protesting
against the length of time consumed in get
ting the governments witnesses into the
court room after they were called, and by
charge advanced by Attorney Kumler
that Inspector Mayer had been leaving the
court room and coaching the witnesses.
United States Attorney Beach, with spirit,
demanded that the defense should make
sood It's charge or retract. Calmness was
not restored for several minutes.
Ed M. Laughlin, an employe Of the VII
mlnSton Malleable Iron Company was then
called to the stand. He stated that his COM
pany made fasteners by order of D. b.
GroH and was paid for the same by D. b.
Croft. -
What was the cost of manufacture of
each Croft fastener?' Assistant United
states Attorney Taggart inquired.
Attorney Douglass and ATTORNEY Kumler
objected simultaneously, saying that the
question was not competent. The jury was
excused from the court room VIII lie the
point was argued Mr. Taggart disclose
to the court that the government expected
TO follow Mr.. Laughlin with other witnesses
who would make it clear that the price
PAID by the government for each Croft ia s.
tener was s12o and that 40 per cent of
that amount, or 50 cents passed to the de-
PENDANTS other than the Groffs.
In replying to Mr.. Taggart, Attorney
kumler made the declaration among others
that Il conspiracy to sell a Datented ar
ticle cannot exist.
Il am very much against Won on that
proposition" announced Justice Pritchard
Il think your honor VII be yerv much
with me- continued Attorney Kumler,
after this question shall have been fully
jc ic
but not conspiracy"
Attorney Scott Douglass also argued that
the objection to the question should De sus-
tanned.
According to Attorney Scott Douglass
the test of the value of any article, and
particularly Of a patented article is the
benefit the user derives from it. Counsel
added that the defense objected because the
line of inquiry in reference to the cost Of
the Grof fastener SIS a false standard and
Is impossible and not susceptible of proof -
The objection to the question was prompt
~ oVerruied and an excep ton was noted
from the spirit with which the controversy
was discussed it was evident that counsel
considered the matter to be of the utmost
Importance.
Price Of Fasteners.
Mr.. Laughlin stated that the price paid
his company by d. B. Croft was % cents
for complete fastener and 12h cents for
half fastener The witness said he could
not tell who paid the freight aside from
the fact that such was not paid by his
company.
The next witness, Raymond Keables,
stated that he had been associated with
two malleable iron companies that had
made fasteners for d. B. Croft One of the
companies charged - cents at first for
the complete fastener, but later an ar
rangement was made that the price should
be - cents, with a rebate of cents for
prompt payment. The other company
charged p cents, with no stipulation re-
garding date of settlement.
Andrew NJ McBath, chief of division in
the office of the auditor for the Post Office
Department was then called. He identified
a large number of audited accounts of the
free delivery system. and explained the
method of auditing such accounts and pay
ing the same. One of the accounts was
read To the jury. 1t related to an order for
the supplying of Croft fasteners.
AT this point the usual midday recess was
taken.
Several witnesses Were produced by the
government for the purpose of proving that
MIS- LorenZ was in this city in July 1900,
and at other times AS the facts in regard
thereto We're admitted by the defense the
witnesses were not examined.
The first twenty minutes OF the afternoon
session was devoted to the reading to the
jury OF the accounts relating to the pur-
chase of Croft fasteners that had been
Identified by Mr.. McBath.
Bank Accounts.
Mr.. McBath gave way to Mr. John c..
Ecklof, cashier of the Second National
Bank. this city. He said that both Samuel
A. Croft and Diller b. Croft are depositors
in the bank mentioned. He was asked re-
garding the Endorsements on certain treas
ury warrants. The defense admitted that
the Endorsements on the warrants were
those of Diller b. Croft, who signed for the
Croft brothers.
Debit and Credit Items.
After a lengthy debate. or. as 1t was char
acterized. "a bandying of words" the gov
eminent proceeded to prove by Mr. Eckloff
the dates of deposits in the Second National
Bank to the credit of d. B. Croft of the
treasury warrants offered in evidence, and
the fact, that a few days after each de-
post entry, a debit entry of 40 per cent of
the deposit entry appeared. The defense
announced that 1t was willing to admit the
accuracy of the statements the government
was introducing. The examination proceed
ed in detailed manner. however and con-
sumed considerable time.
Columbus Chief of Police Dead.