London Legal Letter. jection. pointed his finger at Mr. Machen, and referring in scathing terms to the rela tion which that defendant's salary bore to his bank account. It was dramatic when Mr. Conrad, in open court, apologized to Mr. Machen. It was extremely amusing when one of the attorneys for the defense (in whose mental pronunciation of the term "crossexamination" undue emphasis is laid upon the word "cross") said to one of the Postoffice inspectors: "Vhy didn't you come to see me instead of going to my clients?" And the witness replied : "Well, Mr. , I had not the honor of your acquaintance at that time, and, in fact, was not aware of your existence." It was amusing when this same attorney, in cross-examining another inspector said: "Mr. , how is it that your memory is not so clear as to unimportant matters, and so defective as to others?" "Well, sir," replied the witness, "the only way I can account for it is that I can't re member things that never happened."
191
The greatest latitude has been allowed the defendants. The opening statements of two of the attorneys for the defense bore striking resemblances to closing arguments. The questions put to the defendants and their witnesses on direct examination have been frequently palpably leading, the testimony frequently pure and unadulterated hearsay, and yet the government has usually re mained silent. No acquaintance or correspondence with Machen and complete ignorance of the plans and methods of Lorenze, vir, is the defense of the Groffs; similar ignorance, coupled with a total absence of feminine curiosity as to her husband's affairs, is the defence of Mrs. Lorenze; a preexisting indebtedness on the part of Lorenze to Machen, and the absence of any agreement or understanding between them in regard to the Groff patent, is their defence. Before this article goes to print the ver dict of the jury will have been recorded. ANDREW Y. BRADLEY.
LONDON LEGAL LETTER. THE tragic and pathetic end of Wrhitaker Wright's cases illustrate the inexorable way in which the law is administered in Eng land. Probably in no other country, cer tainly not in the United States, would it have been possible i'or a trial to have been con ducted with so great despatch and with so little regard to the pressure of influence and monied associations. The fact that Whitaker Wright was arrested in New York and detained for some months there, dur ing which time an application for his release on bail was heard in the Supreme Court of the United States, gives to his case an inter national interest and points the moral of the story of contrast in criminal procedure in the two countries. Mr. Wright had been
FEBRUARY, 1904. a successful financier in America, and was a conspicuous and influential dealer in finan cial corporations in this country. He or ganized in London permanent and subsidiary companies with a total capitalization of over fifty millions of dollars. Some of these com panies paid back to their shareholders five 4imes the invested capital, and nearly all of them were so successful that their shares were for a long period quoted above par. Owing to transactions upon the stock" ex change, he incurred the enmity of a bear group of dealers, who undoubtedly deter mined to punish him individually and to wreck his companies. In the end they suc ceeded, helped by a declining market and the result of the war in South Africa and the
