Evening star., 1942-07-02

made until the proper authority
was given" the witness said.
He told Mr.. Cawood the same
thing the following day, he con-
tinued.
The defense is contending that
the tires which the Government
charges were new and were sold in
violation Of the rationing orders
actually we're change overs turned
in by car owners for other types,
and that the Cawood inspection
mark was authority for the sale.
This mark, in yellow crayon, con-
sisted of an "O.K.-JM.C.." and
from the testimony of James E.
Clements, motor vehicle inspector.
the defense developed the cir
cumstance of the marking.
Questioned by Defense.
Mr.. Clements under questioning
by Henry I. Quinn, defense attorney,
said that Mr.. Cawood marked the
tires, and he described the marking.
He also identified the marking on
one tire taken from a large pile in
the courtroom.
Did you and he confer on the
tires?" counsel asked.
The witness said yes.
Were any rejected?'
Yes" the witness responded.
Under cross examination by Mr..
Lasky, Mr.. Clements said he did not
know exactly how many tires had
been rejected.
Mr.. Clements said that he
guessed" that approximately a
thousand" tires were examined.
Later, he conceded that he was "just
guessing" on this figure when Mr..
Lasky confronted him with his
grand jury testimony, where he said
that the inspections totaled about
400.
Had No Interference.
He also said that the purpose OF
the inspection was to determine
whether the tires had been run
thousand miles.
did Mr.. Hundley interfere with
you?" Mr.. Quinn asked.
mo, sir. He was up there once
and asked us how we were making
out" the witness responded.
Mr.. Clements said that Mr..
Hundley took him and Mr.. Cawood
to the room where the tires marked
were stored with others, but that an
employe whom he did not know
pointed out the tires that were to
be inspected
The witness was also asked II he
remembered inspecting any tires
that had a mutiliated manufac-
turer's mark across the tire. He
did not remember any tires Of that
sort.
Earlier, Edward H. Schneider, Mr..
Hundley's stockman, had declared
that no tires of that sort were in
the Hundley supplies. Some Of the
tires which the Government has in
troduced in testimony carry these
defaced labels. They were seized
from the Diamond Service Co., a
! taXicab concern. The Government
alleges that they had been sold by
Mr.. Hundley.
Mr.. Schneider, who originally had
been called as the first Government
witness, was brought back today as
the first defense witness as defense
presentation started. On his or
iginal appearance on the stand, he
assumed full responsibility for the
compilation of certain records
which the Government charges
were falsified At one point in his
testimony. Mr.. Lasky sought to
point out a seeming discrepancy
between the testimony the witness
gave before jury and that which
he offered today.
you can't impeach a witness by
his grand jury testimony--it may
only be used to refresh the memory
of the witness" Justice T. Alan
Goldsborough broke in.
Heatedly, the witness interjected: |:
st testified last week that I was q
minister of the gospel. I don't think
that this man should imply that I
lied. 1 wouldn't lie for all the money
that Mr.. Hundley nor all the au-
thority that Mr.. Lasky has"
The Government rested yesterday
afternoon after spending two days
in presentation of its case. A mo-
ton for directed verdict was over
ruled by Justice T. Alan Colds
borough.
nssu4,ag1lIlpaa(ll'sIr1u10YA