These shall again be posted in such a way that they are obvious and clearly visible."
There appears on the last page of the document that was circulated another note which we shall read.
"Chief Public Prosecutor Dr. LEFFMANN rang up on 27 July, saying that according to a report from the criminal investigation police a case of plundering had taken place, in the course of which 3 French civilian laborers are said to have stolen one camera, a manicure box and various bottles of champagne, during the air raid in the night of 26 to 27 July 1942. The Chamber competent for cases of plundering (Councillor of the District Court of Appeal Wehlen, Councillor of the District Court Haack is ill) was notified immediately, so that it be available for pronouncing sentence on 28 July 1942.
On 28 July 1942, Dr. LEFFMANN reported, that the case requires clarification and cannot be tried immediately." And there follows two additional notes.
"1.) The trial took place on 1 August 1942. Two death sentences were pronounced. Herr Dr. LEFFMANN telephone to Berlin with reference to the extention of the sentences. Written reports were requested.
2.) The Councillor of the Local Court BARTSCH for further handling after his return.
dated Hamburg 3 August 1942" We offer formally in evidence as Exhibit 165 the document NG 530.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: We invite the Court and Defense Counsel to turn now to Document Book F, 3-F.
Before reading from 3-F, we would like to refer again to Document Book 2, on Page 26. This is an excerpt from the Book by Heinrich Henkel, entitled "German Criminal Procedure". It is from Page 438; paragraph heading, "Validity of Double Jeopardy and Breaches cf this Principle". The book was published in Hamburg in 1943. Reading from Pages 440 and 442 of that book:
"A criminal case on which verdict has been passed must not again become the subject of another criminal proceeding. This exclusive effect pertains to the subject of the case, both as regards the crime and the criminal.***According to the findings of the German Supreme Court and to the prevailing theory in accordance with these findings, the effect of be bis in idea includes with the history of the case submitted to the court for verdict. This theory, however, leads to unbearable consequences. In order to avoid these unbearable consequences, some courts recently have permitted the breach of the principle against double jeopardy in exceptional cases where jeopardy of a second trial is necessitated by the 'sound sense cf justice'".
We turn now to the first case in Document Book F, the Document NG 655, which will be Exhibit 166 when formally offered in evidence. This is a case heard before the Special Court for the area of Stuttgart Court of Appeals in Stuttgart. We shall read portions from the opinion verdict. First, from Page 1:
"In the name of the German People:
"Verdict "In the Criminal Case against "1. The unskilled laborer "Hermann Wirbel, married "born on 11 August 1902 in Heusweiler, district Saarbruecken, living at Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt, at Roemerkastell 147, now in penal detention for other offenses at Stuttgart prison pending judicial investigation "2. the driver and member of the Armed Forces "Emil Baumann, married, "born on 4 March 1908 at Stuttgart-Untertuerkheim, living at Stuttgart, Obernitzerstrasse 13, now in detention for other offenses at the Wehrmacht Prison at Bruchsal."
Those two defendants are the ones with whom we are primarily concerned in this case and only incidentally will refer to the others.
We turn now to Page 3 of the English text, which is at the bottom of Page 3 in the German.
I have neglected to point out until this time that the presiding judge at the trial, the President of the Senate, was the defendant Curhorst, as can be seen from referring to the bottom of Page 2 of the English text and the top of Page 3 of the German.
Reading now from the top of Page 3 in the English text:
'1. The defendant Wirbel as a dangerous habitual criminal and parasite is condemned "to death "and to permanent loss of civic rights as an habitual criminal and a parasite for continued participation in crime against Article 4 of the regulation against parasites, together with repeated theft, and for a crime against Article 1 of the war economy decree, including the offenses for which he was condemned by verdict of the Special Court at Stuttgart on 26 August 1941.
"II. The following are also condemned:
"1. The defendant Baumann for continued participation in crime against Paragraph 4 of the regulation concerning parasites, together with theft and for a crime against Article 1 of the regulation concerning war economy, was sentenced to "penal servitude for six years "and to the loss of civic rights for a period of six years, including the prison term of two years to which he had been condemned by verdict of the Special Court, Stuttgart, on 26 August 1941."
We ask the Court to turn new to Page 9 of the English text, which is 12 in the German text:
"B. Offenses committed by Wirbel and Baumann.
"1. Previous history.
"In spring 1941 in the course of police investigations into illegal trading in materials, it was discovered that the defendants Wirbel and Baumann had stolen such goods from the goods sheds of the Stuttgart Main Station and supplied various receivers of stolen goods, particularly to the textile dealer Adolf Mistele. At that time, however, it could only be established that both defendants had together stolen 7 bales of cloth between the beginning of January 1941 and 20 January 1941 and that Wirbel alone stole 5 more bales of cloth till March 1941. An indictment was filed against them, and they were sentenced by the Stuttgart Special Court on 26 August 1941, Wirbel to 4 years penal servitude for a crime against Article 4 of the decree against parasites in connection with repeated theft and in connection with an offense according to Article 1 of the War Economy Decree, and Baumann to 2 years' imprisonment for theft in connection with an offense against article 1 of the War Economy Decree, but not on his character as a parasite. This verdict is legal.
"In September 1941 it appeared that the defendants had committed such thefts of freight goods to a considerable extent for some time and had passed on the stolen property to numerous hitherto unknown receivers of stolen goods, and an indictment is being filed against Wirbel and Baumann.
"II. General facts of the case.
"The following facts were established in the main trial. Wirbel and Baumann had known each other for some time, since the time when they both lived in the Weberstrasse in Stuttgart. In the winter of 1938/39 they met again frequently on the goods station at Stuttgart. Both of them had to take or fetch goods from there for their firms, Baumann by means of trucks. In about February 1939, while they were working in the freight goods sheds, Wirbel first suggested to Baumann that they should steal goods stored there and sell them for their own profit. Baumann agreed to this suggestion, and from then on, the defendants, for the main part together, but occasionally separately, stole bales, chests and parcels from the goods sheds. There was a pause in these thefts while Baumann was absent as a soldier and Wirbel was serving a sentence from March until June 1940 for performing an abortion, but as soon as Bauman in summer 1940 had leave from his unit, where he had also stolen, the thefts were continued in the same way as before. The method of procedure when the defendants worked together, was usually that Baumann removed the objects which seemed worth stealing and put then onto his truck, while Wirbel occupied himself with the railway officials who happened to be in the neighborhood in order to divert them. The last thefts committed by the defendants were those for which they had already served a sentence according to the verdict of 26 August 1941. The damage done by then amounts to at least RM 12,000, according to a close estimate; only a small part of the stolen goods were redeemed."
We will review briefly the thefts committed between certain dates. On page 10, it is noted that thefts 1 to 5 were committed between the months February to September 1939. On Page 11 of the English text, thefts 6 to 14 were committed from the beginning of war until 6 May 1940. Also on the same page, thefts 15 through 19 were committed from July until 9 November 1940.
We turn now to Page 13 in the English text, Page 19 in the German. We read first from the paragraph V, Legal Appreciation.
"1. These thefts which were committed by the defendants Wirbel and Baumann, by the former under the conditions of repetition, have been committed by both defendants on the basis of a uniform and premeditated design which had been devised in order to steal, either in conscious and wilful cooperation or alone, the goods stored in the goods-depot which were worthwhile stealing. This design was not discontinued by the temporary absence of Wirbel who was in prison nor by the absence of Baumann who was in the army, for the immediate resumption of the thefts after the defendants had again appeared in Stuttgart, proves that they never had abandoned that idea. This design doubtlessly did not only comprise the thefts which are now under indictment, but also the thefts punished through the sentence of 26 August 1941, especially because the thefts mentioned under 16. 28. and. 29 as regards time probably belong to the instances on which judgment has already been passed. In the judgment, as the argument proves, the defendants have already been sentenced for repeated offenses. Therefore, the continued question had first of all to be examined whether the objection that it concerned a case which had already been judged, would not preclude a new condemnation. The Special Court has answered this question in the negative according to the newest jurisdiction and conception of the law. It is true that from a legal point of view the same act is concerned; but its actual extent has become much larger and lets the whole affair, not only as to the act itself, but also as regards the offenders, appear in such a different light, that one can no longer speak of one and the same "act", "To 7 thefts and 12 thefts respectively, 30 and 29 further thefts are now added.
Previously Wirbel's thefts covered less than 3 months, Baumann's less than 3 weeks. Now it is a question of thefts which cover nearly 2 years. It would be a contradiction of the ideas of justice and the security of the national community if only a purely formal conception of the crime were considered, and the criminal proceedings wore considered as consumed. It is far more a question of a fresh crime, parts of which have already been tried legally while all the remaining parts are to be tried now. As a single continued action covering all details is concerned here, this action can only be judged legally as a whole, and only one punishment can be imposed, to which penalties imposed by the previous sentence will be taken into consideration as far as possible."
We turn now to Page 15 in the English text, which is the beginning of Page 23 of the German.
"VI. Award of punishment.
1. Wirbel. While, according to the evidence of 26 August 1941, the defendant did not appear to be worse than the average war criminal, now, from the result of the facts established against him, there can be no doubt that he is a particularly hardened habitual criminal. In August, it looked as if it were a question of a small number of thefts committed within a certain space of time; now it has been established that the defendant made a good living by a series of robberies committed over a period of 2 years. There is no question of necessity in the case; admittedly it is clear that it was not easy for the defendant to keep his large family, but as in numerous other cases, it should have been possible for the defendant under present conditions if he had worked accordingly. But he preferred, particularly since the outbreak of war, to shirk work on the pretext of illness, and during that time he applied himself to the more comfortable and profitable business of theft. In this way he not only caused considerable material damage, but he also injured the general safety and reliability of goods traffic. He was also the driving and leading force in the thefts and disposing of the goods, and he had a good part of the profit of all the black market deals which developed through his actions.
The defendant is therefore a man, who, while men of his own ago are risking their lives for the Fatherland, he is making the home country unsafe by his criminal activities as a habitual criminal, a parasite of society, and a black-marketeer. There is no room for him in the community of the people; rather more, as an general deterrent for the protection of the community, and to fulfill the need for just atonement WIRBEL should be eliminated immediately and for over from the community of the people. This had to be done in accordance with Article 1, combined with Article 10, Section II of the law for the Amendment of tho Penal Code, of 3 November 1941 (Reichgesetzblatt, Page 549), and also in accordance with Article 3. of the Decree against Parasites of Society. On account of these regulations, tho defendant WIRBEL was sentenced to death and in accordance with Article 32 of tho Penal Code, to permanent loss of civic rights.
In view of the sentence gassed, an explicit order for protective custody was not issued. There was also no possibility of his taking into consideration the penalty inflicted on him by the sentence of 26 August 1941."
2. BAUMANN We had to consider in his favor, that his previous conviction was a long time ago, and that this was tho first time ha had become liable to a heavy penalty.
Also taken into consideration as extenuating circumstances, was the fact that the incentive for the various thefts was provided by WIRBEL, BAUMANN, however, took part in them to the same extent, and in the main received the same advantages from the crime. He also continued to steal when he was in tho army, and misused his leave for the same purpose. The serious damage he had caused, the danger to the safety of goods transport, and. the need for a deterrent for such crimes, all had to be considered as aggravating circumstances. As a parasite of society, he had shown an intensive desire to commit crimes and accordingly he had to be punished. 6 years' penitentiary and loss of civic rights for the same period seemed to be a suitable punishment. The penalty of 2 years' imprisonment inflicted on him by sentence of 26 August 1941, was to be included in this punishment."
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask a question, please? Do you have, without undue inconvenience, the reference to the statute against parasites to which this case refers?
MR. KING: The statute to which the president of the Stuttgart Court referred to here is the one which, I believe I am correct in this, we briefly read this morning appearing on Page 19 of Document Book 2.
With the exception of calling attention to the fact on Page 28 of the English text that this opinion is signed by a representative of Cuhorst -- by an assistant in Cuhorst's absence -- we offer as Exhibit 166 the Document NG-655.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: It has just been pointed out to me that I have misinterpreted the signature at the conclusion of the verdict opinion in NG-655. The opinion is signed by Cuhorst in his capacity as president of the courts and also for an assistant who was absent.
As Exhibit No. 167 we would like to introduce a.t this time the Document NG-571, which is to be found on page 29 of the English text, Document Book III-F, and on page 48 cf the German text. This is a sworn affidavit: "I , Otto Kleinknecht, legal assistant to a lawyer, residing at Heilbronn, Solothurnerstrasse 29, hereby declare under oath: I was born on 12 June 1901 in Stuttbart. I passed my second state examination in the Winter of 1927/28. In January 1928, I became assessor in the public prosecution's office in Stuttgart, where I remained until the collapse in the spring of 1945, with the exception cf one; year which I spent working as assessor at the local Court of Stuttgart. Around May 1941, I was transferred by Senior Prosecutor LINK to Division I of the public prosecution office in Stuttgart, which at the same time was the prosecution's office cf the Special Court. I had to deal almost exclusively with cases of crimes against war economy. I have been a member cf the NSDAP since 1933.
I would like to state the following about CUHORST who was then the presiding Judge of the Special Court.
I thought it objectionable that CUHORST, whom I had known already as assessor, was pressing for a post as presiding judge cf the Special Court in spite cf the fact that he was lacking the judicial qualities for such a high position. Doubtlessly he was promoted so quickly only because he was an old and active Party member. I could not say to whom he owed his quick promotion.
CUHORST must be reproached with the following:
He had a cynical way of conducting trials, which must have aroused, even in people not unjustly sentenced, a feeling that they had been wronged. The way CUHORST conducted a trial was unworthy from a human point of view. He often interrupted defendants, cut short their statements and frequently treated the case only on the basis of the indictment, without having the necessary knowledge cf the documents. This used to enrage us public prosecutors and it induced me and my colleagues to prepare the inquiry and the indictment in as detailed a manner as possible. His attitude towards the defense can best be inferred from the fact that even in long and very complicate 1130 complicated war economy cases, he used to hand ever to the defense counsel documents, often consisting cf several hundred paces only a short time before the main trial took place.
Under these circumstances, the defense was nothing but a farce. Above all, I had the impression that CUHORST would not, under any circumstances, postpone summons just because the defense counsel did not have sufficient knowledge of the documents. I, personally considered this attitude cf his, about which defense counsels often complained to me, as an inadmissible restriction of the defense.
If the Special Court in Stuttgart was hated and feared by the population cf the whole district, this was entirely due to the above descried attitude of CUHORST.
If, right from the beginning, CUHORST had formed, a certain opinion about a case, it was very difficult to change his mind. No assistant judge or public prosecutor would dare to contradict him in view of his autocratic manner; in any case it was impossible to prevail against him.
In 1943, I believe, I was public prosecutor in the big case cf black market slaughtering involving MUNZ and others. It was the gravest case cf this kind thus far presented in a Wuertemberg Court. The main defendant, MUNZ, had many previous convictions. During the deliberations, CUHORST told me in unmistakable terms that he intended to condemn MUNZ to death. I am, in principle, cf the opinion that an offense against economic regulations was not punishable by death; therefore I demanded a recess after the evidence had been presented. I got in touch with Senior Public Prosecutor LINK and told him about CUHORT's intention. Then while I was present, LINK get in touch with another Public Prosecutor and with the Chief Public Prosecutor. It was necessary that three Senior Public Prosecutors and myself go to the judges room cf the Special Court, where we succeeded in dissuading CUHORST from the death sentence, only after a tenacious argument.
There can be no doubt that CUHORST was a fanatical National Socialist. He was determined to achieve National Socialist aims, by moans of his sentences. In this he was not accessible to humane sentiments. If anywhere at ell the Fuehrer principle was carried cut rigidly, it was at the Special In the principal criminal case against Hermann WIRBEL I participated as Public Prosecutor during the trial, and helped to draft the indictment.
According to present conceptions, I believe that the trial should have been stopped in view of the prior sentence of the Special Court against WIRBEL. In any case, it would have been more correct under the given circumstances, if CUHORST had not pronounced a death sentence. But it was obvious that CUHORST flatly disregarded certain judicial objections, putting WIRBEL once more on trial, for the same offense; by giving him the heaviest punishment, he added another death sentence to his debit. I am firmly convinced that CUHORST had no twinges of conscience about the considerable number of death sentences passed by him.
These statements are the whole truth, they were made without any coercion I have read, signed and declared under oath. Signed: Otto Kleinknecht, 10 January 1947."
We offer as Exhibit 167 the Document NG-571.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: At this time Mr. Wooleyhan will continue reading from the Document Book III-E.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Turning to page 15 in book III-E, we find Document NG714. This document is a case record setting forth the opinion of the Stuttgart Special Court. "Sentence in the joint criminal cases against Wilhelm Wolf, merchant; Karl Wolf, merchant; Eberhard Pfullinger, merchant; and Pia Wolf, married; for crimes against the war economy and other offenses; the Special Court for the district of the Provincial Court of Appeal Stuttgart at the session of 5 and 6 October 1943 at which were present the President of the Senate **horst, as chairman, "and other associate judges and clerks whose names we well not read." After trial passed these sentences: The defendant Wilhelm Wolf received 800,000 textile coupons from the unfaithful employee of the economic office in Stuttgart, Josef Dollinger, by bribing him and procured textiles without handing over the required 250,000 coupons. The defendant Karl Wolf received from Wilhelm Wolf 350,000 stolen coupons, some in the form of material and coupon checks and embezzled 150,000 RM.
The defendant Eberhard Pfullinger received from Dollinger and Wilhelm Wolf 120,000 coupons and acquired textiles without coupons. Wilhelm and Karl Wolf as well as Pfullinger used the illegally acquired coupons for barter blackmarket business and to hoard goods. As parasites of society and offenders against the war economy, Wilhelm and Karl Wolf are sentenced to death."
Skipping now to page 17 of the English text, to paragraph B. "Facts: 1. Previous history. The former co-defendant Josef Dollinger was employed from the beginning of the war at the Stuttgart Economic Office and mainly worked in the textile coupons office. Besides other functions deriving from government authority, he received clothing coupons, surrendered by the Stuttgart textile shops, counted them, made out receipts and then passed them on for destruction. From the summer of 1940 until the spring of 1943 Dollinger abused his position to appropriate more than three million coupons. At least one million of these coupons he brought back into circulation by handing them over to numerous Stuttgart business men. From some cf his customers he obtained presents in money, as well as in kind. Dollinger died on 2 October 1943 while in detention pending trial."
Skipping to Roman numeral II: "The main customer for the embezzled coupons was the defendant Wilhelm Wolf. He continuously received coupons from Dollinger, at first probably at the latter's request, beginning at the latest in June 1942, probably at an earlier date, and he used them until March 1943, for the largest part for his own firm, Wolf and Pfullinger."
Skipping to the bottom cf the paragraph: "After deducting the number cf coupons from the surrendered ration points the firm Wolf and Pfullinger has handed in at least 740,000 points more than could have been lawfully been at their disposal."
Skipping to page 19 of the English book, paragraph number 2: "The defendant Wilhelm Wolf not only made considerable gains by using the coupons received from Dollinger, but also by obtaining large quantities of rationed textile goods for which he did not surrender coupons. The defendant could not deny that he obtained from the firm of Adolf Bueche, from whom he was always buying goods, textile goods to the total value of 213,000 coupons, which he never surrendered, though the goods had been supplied against coupons.
As he paid a 10% premium on the material, as will be seen later on, his assertion that he wanted to pay his coupon debt later, can not be believed. Wolf also received rationed textiles from other firms, partly by mistake, up to a value of 63,000 coupons, without surrendering coupons and then sold them against coupons. Thereby he made a gain of a total of 276,000 coupons."
"3. What happened to this illegal cupon fortune of more than 1 million cupons? The defense was in tic main based upon the assertion, apart from giving a much lower figure of cupons, that he increased his stocks considerably because he considered it of importance always to lave material at hand for the population."
Skipping now to page 23 of the document and I will read from the better of paragraph Roman III, Karl Wolf. The findings of the Court here arc long, elaborate and factual, and of no particular relevance to the continuous picture of what happened in the case from reading it. The whole thing, of course, will be offered in evidence.
Reading from the last portion of this paragraph on Karl Wolf:
"It was not even possible to make an approximate estimate of all these business deals, as one could only go by a few documents and the defendants own admissions. It suffices however, in considering judgment, that the following deals and transactions ware established, and they constitute only part of the whole business."
Then follows a detailed description of a series of business deals engaged in by the defendant Karl Wolf.
Reading now from page 26 of the English version, paragraph "C" , entitled "Legal Appreciation":
"Considering tie actions, of the 3 defendants, no further explanations arc needed to show that they violated Article 1, Section 1 and 2 and 1a of the bar Economics Order and committed an offense against Article 1 of the Consumption Regulation Penal Order in several respects. Furthermore in coincidence herewith, everyone of them is guilty of concealing goods within the meaning of Article 259 and 260 of the Penal Code, as they accepted the cupons, embezzled by Dollinger from Karl Wolf, supposing them to have illegally acquired to derive profit from them.
Wilhelm Wolf and Pfullinger rewarded Dollinger for the supply of cupons. They know about his work at the economics office which made his an official within the meaning of the Penal Code and they rewarded him for violating his official duty. It does not natter in this connection that Dollinger was obviously determined in any case to carry cut transactions of this kind, for the rewards ho could expect for the future meant at least an incentive to him to continue his activities."
Skipping to the bottom part of that paragraph.
"All these transactions of the defendants in part constitute continued collaboration, partly natural collaboration. Those actions were only possible for the defendants because of tho market situation created by the War. They abused this situation in the worst manner for more selfishness are therefore obviously parasites of society within the meaning of Article ...."
I cannot read that. If I way interpolate for a moment.
This means that the defendants are obviously parasites of society within tho meaning of tho Article, blank, against public enemies which was introduced into evidence previously.
Skipping to page 27, paragraph "E", Award of Punishment:
"Wilhelm Wolf removed cupons of textile goods, corresponding to the yearly allocation for 10,000 people. By doing so, he endangered public supplies on a scale hitherto unknown. He bribed an official, provided his suppliers with black market goods and made other barter dealings; he got cupons by paying a premium, destroyed business records, falsified balance sheets, did cash deals without keeping records, and all that for tho solo purpose of enlarging his business, to car as much as possible and to live well. And that in a period when the German people are engaged in the hardest struggle for their existence and his compatriots give their property and their life in the defense of their country.
Furthermore decent business people must be protected against a competitor working with suck dirty methods; corruption of this kind is especially dangerous for public moral and a behavior as that exhibited by the defendant Wilhelm Wolf causes mistrust and unrest among the population. The defendant, although ho has no previous convictions, is therefore a parasite of society in the true sense of tho word, as atonement for his deeds as well as to safeguard decent business moral, and especially in tho interest of the German people in its fight for freedom, the defendant Wilhelm Wolf could only receive one sentence; the death penalty.
"Almost tho some goes for the defendant Karl Wolf. Although he had loss to do with the embezzled points, ho was the main profiteer of his brother's transactions. Above all, his is a case of particularly objectionable black marketing and he profiteered in money and goods. For him, too, the death penalty is the only just punishment."
Skipping to the lost page of the Court's opinion, we find tint it is signed by Cuhorst and two associate Judges. Certified, Stuttgart, 14 October 1943.
The Prosecution offers Exhibit No. 168, Document NG 714in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence We will take the usual morning recess at this time.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please find their scats. The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Continuing in Document Book 3-E with Document NG-718, which is on page 30 of the English book. Document 718 is another case record setting forth the opinion of the Special Court in Stuttgart:
" IN THE NAME OF THE GERMAN PEOPLE:
VERDICT "In the case against the merchant Paul Staudenmaier.
"The Special Court for the District Court of Appeal, Stuttgart Area at its session of 8 February 1944 in Ulm, those taking part were President of the Senate Cuhorst as Chairman" and associate judges whose names we not read "has found"--
"The defendant as Ortsgruppenleiter of the NSV --" The Prosecution interpolates here to explain that for our purposes here the "NSV" may be described as a National Socialistic Welfare Organization which existed to collect contributions from party members for various welfare projects. NSV. --- "The defendant, as Ortsgruppenleiter of the NSV, stole from the collection boxes ---"
DR. KOESSE: May it please the Tribunal, the explanation just given by the Prosecutor about the NSV is not quite correct. The NSV, National Socialist Peoples Welfare Organization collected contributions from all Germans without paying any attention as to whether they were party members or not.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: --"stole from collection boxes and in this way embezzled at least 6,500-RM.
"As a parasite of the people he is therefore condemned to death.
"He forfeits his honor forever.
"He bears the costs of the proceedings.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Skipping to the next page, second paragraph on pate 31 of the English:
"On 7 September 1936, the accused, who had only been convicted of minor traffic offenses, was condemned by the Local Court Rottweil for two frauds, one in connection with the purchase of watches and parts in Switzerland, to two months' imprisonment and a fine of 3,000 Reichnarks. The defendant served the sentence and time in lieu of tho fine until 10 April 1937."
Skipping to the next paragraph, "without divulging his previous convictions, the defendant became a member of the National Socialist Party on 1 May 1941, membership number 8,849,865. In October 1941 the defendant became Ortsgruppenamtsleiter and local leader for the Winterhilfe in the group Heidenheim-Schlossberg. He was given keys for tho group office for tho collect on boxes.
"In tho middle of April 1942, shortly after a street collection the defendant found 5-6 collection boxes in tho office of the local group, they had arrived late and had not been emptied. The accused, who already at that time toyed with the idea of appropriating tho contents of these boxes, first placed them among the emptied boxes, so as to make sure that the cashier Spaeth and chief Administrator Bauch would not miss the 5 or 6 boxes which arrived late.
"After about two weeks the defendant thought the air was clear and he emptied tho boxes with his key, they contained about 250 Reichmarks, collection money.
"The defendant kept the stolen money for some time in a filing cabinet with sliding doors in his office because he still thought that tho money might be missed.
"But as the late boxes were not specially marked on the list of the boxes which were distributed, but were entered as not collected, tho options of the defendant were not noticed.
"After weeks of waiting the defendant became confident and repeated this procedure at each street collection from June 1942 until 24 October 1943. Since tho winter 1942-43, he also took money from boxes which had been handed in at the proper time on Sunday or Monday mornings at the office. The boxes were opened and counted only on Monday evenings, the defendant however, arrived before the tellers opened the boxes with the correct key or undid the badly closed seals.
From these boxes the accused took only paper money.
"For the street collection on 24 October 1943 the defendant distributed the boxes Number 162 to 165 to the firm Parul Hartmann without entering them on the list. 261,85 Reichmarks was collected in those boxes.
"By mistake the boxes were delivered to another local group where tho accused collected them himself, opened the lead seals and appropriated the entire contents. This last punishable action of the defendant was found out when the management of the office was checked by the witness, district cashier leader Voelmle. After a brief denial, tho accused admitted everything.
"The defendant stated that ho took about 6,500 Reichmarks from tho collection boxes and that he invested the greater part of tho money in banks and post savings accounts and shares in a cooperative company."
Skipping the next sentence, "In his defense the accused stated the following:
"He did not commit these offenses from necessity and must have acted thus because he was kleptomaniac. He had already had this impulse on earlier occasions when he stole money from his relatives.
"There are no indications that the defendant was of weak or even unsound mind. The method of carrying out the deed alone is incompatible with tho alleged tendency to kleptomania. When stealing from the collection boxes in 1942, the defendant was able to wait many weeks until he finally decided to appropriate the money. Those who steal due to a diseased mind, do not wait weeks for security's sake, but act at any possible opportunity.
Skipping to tho next page, 33. "The stree collections for the War Winterhilfe and the German Red Cross are war institutions, but also tho circumstances whereby owing to tho war, the supervision of the collections was extremely difficult, which the defendant well knew. He who offends so severely against the War Winterhilfe and the German Red Cross and plunders collection boxes over a long period, acts as a parasite of the people under Article 4 of the law against public enemies."