Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1911-04-11
His Employer Disliked
Publicity Which
Resulted.
MANUFACTURER ENAS
PUT ON STAND TODAY
Effort Made to Discredit Man
Regarded Up to Date as
Star Witness.
rFrom a STAFF Correspondent

JERSEY CITY, April lin a spec
tacular attempt to discredit the testi-
n1ony of the man who has been regard
ed up to date as the star witness in
the probe into the alleged exorbitant
cost of the new Hudson County Court
House. counsel for Architect Hugh
Roberts placed Elamson E. Enas, of
e. Enas Company, manufacturers of
lighting fixtures, on the stand today.
Until the beginning of the present in
vestigation Morris Rosenberg, who was
called to the stand by the probers last
week, was employed by Enas as cost
clerk. Rosenberg made remarkably
fine witness for the investigators, as he
had all the figures anyone could want
at the end of his tongue. and the cross
examiners could not ruff1e him in the
slightest degree.
But Rosenberg, as it developed to-
day, isn't working for Enas any more.
do you know Morris Rosenberg 2"
Mr.. Enas was asked, after he took the
stand, by former Senator William g.
Edwards, of counsel for the defense.
II do"
rs he in your employ?"
He was,' was the laconic reply; and
Enas proceeded to explain that i'm
mediate1y after Rosenberg delivered
himself of the sensational testimony
which eliminated in his declaring light
ing fixtures which had cost the county
$4,000 were worth but $4,000. he had
been discharged. ~ +.
"Merely a Cost Clerk
Rosenberg was employed s7y US
merely as q cost clerk" said Enas. "EIe
knew nothing of final estimates, had
never estimated on big job like this.
He understood the preliminary work Of
manufacture and knew nothing about
selling prices"
While he was being cross-examined
by Judge Carrick. Enas declared that
he did not know Rosenberg had pre-
pared his estimates until he (Rosen-
berg) testified duting the probe, and
he said he had discharged his employee
because the publicity resulting from
the testimony had been distasteful and
his clerks action unwarranted.
Hugh Roberts. the architect under
fire, was next called by the defense.
In striking contrast to his manner of
Friday, when he was numerically
grilled by Robert McCarter, of the in
vestigatc-7 Roberts was calm and
collected. nervousness of the ear
lier inquisit nad apparently left him.
and it was generally believed that the
fact that Mr.. McCarter was not in the
room during the morning had some
thing to do with it.
His wardrobe Explanation.
Roberts proceeded to explain under
the gentle questioning of his counsel
why Gill & Son had charged $3.50 for q
wardrobe measuring 104 inches, ST. 122
for a wardrobe measuring 7S inches
and $S75 for 5S-inch wardrobe. He
Baid that the smaller wardrobes were
much more elaborate and ornate, and
thus were more expensive.
Concerning two oval tables in the
grand jury room, which were under
discussion when Mr.. Roberts was
grilled Friday, the witness said
"Mr. McCarter confused these ta-
bles with two others of entirely differ
ent size and design. 1t was distinctly
stated in the contract that the tables
In the grand jury room were to, be
supplied separately under unit scale
of prices"
Judge Carrick ss-examined the
architect, but failed to unearth any
thing startling.
H. A. Farley, a. manufacturer Of in
terror marble work from Peoria, I'll.
was called to the stand by counsel for
Roberts shortly before the noon inter-
mission. It is likely that the hearing
will be adjourned this afternoon until
Saturday.