Furthermore that confiscation, to begin with, had no practical significance for the entire convent was used by the armed forces as a military hospital.
Q. Do you know what the witness Ersing said about the results of the confiscation?
A. No, no; neither do I know the witness Ersing.
Q. Now, a short question which I wish to be interpolated and which may have importance in another context. Is it correct that duo to the strain of the trial which went on for ten days, you suffered so much that it was very difficult for you to continue conducting the trial until the very end; and at the end you did have a nervous breakdown?
A. On account of the extremely hot weather of June, 1942, the conduct of the trial involved a great physical strain, and on Thursday we had no session on that Catholic holiday. I had broken down completely physically, and the following Friday I was only able to conduct the trial with a very great effort.
Q. Have you finished?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, in this one case we are in the fortunate position to have both the judgment and the indictment available, and it is a very extensive indictment. You have already mentioned the number of pages. Therefore, I should like to use this example to discuss a few matters with which the prosecution has charged you, that is to say the prosecution has charged you with having conducted your trial only on the basis of the indictment. May I assume that you are altogether familiar with the contents of the indictment; is that correct?
A. Yes, you are right.
Q. May I ask you now whether in that indictment only the incriminating factors are mentioned and the evidence as well; or, whether facts which are supposed to be in favor of the defendant are also mentioned -
THE PRESIDENT: Is the indictment in evidence?
DR. BRIEGER: No, your Honor, it is not in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not in evidence.
DR. BRIEGER: For a long time-
THE PRESIDENT: I just wanted to know; if it is, we don't want him to read what is in the written document. Go ahead.
A. Both the incriminating factors as well as the elements in favor of the defendant are contained, are compiled with great care in this indictment. I have here the working files of one of the defense counsel and I can see from this copy that the defense counsel, too, worked mainly on the basis of the indictment, for his copy contains all his notes and some of them are on the margin. Unfortunately, most of his notes have come off, but there was outside a reference to that effect, that is to say, the way the defense counsel worked, and essentially that was always the way the court worked. The indictment is three times the size of the judgment, but I add that nothing like all the punishable offense are mentioned in the judgment as punishable offenses which were mentioned as charges in the indictment.
Q. You mean to say that although the indictment was very extensive, matters were discussed in detail, and you have also explained that by telling us that the trial went on for ten days. May I ask you now, did you only know the indictment, or did you also know some or possibly all the files?
A. I knew all the files; the magistrate, who worked on the files, worked on the files for a fortnight, and then I had the files.
Q. Who was the magistrate who made the report?
A. That was Dr. Azesdorfer, who was Landgerichtsdirector, district court counselor.
Q. Well, then, I needn't ask you any further questions regarding that because I can ask a great many questions of the witness Dr. Azesdorfer May I take it that you have finished with this case?
A. Yes.
Q. I now am going over to the next case, Case 14, the Wirbel case, and. I assume that you have the judgment in the Wirbel case before you, witness.
A. Yes.
Q. I am referring to Exhibit 166, NG-655, in Document Book III-F, page 1, and I should like to tell the Tribunal that my document 69 will have the Exhibit No. 7. This document contains statements which are extracts from an important German publication on penal procedure, penal proceedings. Later on I shall present this document. Witness, the prosecution, I assume, charges you with this: Charges your judgment with violating the principle of ne bis in idem, double jeopardy. A great deal has been said about this. I need only remind you of the testimony of the witness Behl concerning the principle of double jeopardy. To begin with, I would ask you to tell us what that principle of double jeopardy means and I would like also for you to tell us did that judgment violate the principle of double jeopardy. Now, my first question is: Did you, from the threatened point of view, agree with the views which the prosecution witness Behl voiced here?
A. The principle of double jeopardy means that nobody can be legally sentenced twice for the same offense. In the Wirbel case, according to the thorough investigations, no so-called identical offense had been committed. Everything else, as can be seen from the judgment which was presented by the prosecution, the legal view of the special court Stuttgart and which the special court laid down in the judgment are altogether in accordance with the text book by Herr Henkel to which the prosecution itself referred. In this text book a case is mentioned as an example which is similar to the Wirbel case down to the very details.
Q.- I should like to say that in the document which I am going to present, my extracts from Henkel's text book, I should like to say that my extracts begin exactly at the same point where the quotation of the prosecution stops. Witness, I am going over to the next case; that is Case 15, Wolf and others. May I assume that you are familiar with this case which has been discussed here repeatedly.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. I would like to ask a question concerning the Wirbel case. I read from the opinion in that case the following sentence which I should be glad to have you explain. I quote: "It is true that from a legal point of view the same act is concerned."
DR. BRIEGER: Your Honor -
THE PRESIDENT: I am asking the witness to explain, if you please.
A.- Your Honor, it is not a case of the same legal -
THE PRESIDENT: I am asking you what you meant by what you said in what I quoted.
A.- Your Honor, I can't find that quotation.
THE PRESIDENT: It is there.
A.- The legal question on it deals with the German text on pages 18 and 19. May be the translation is inaccurate, In the German text of the judgment it says: Therefore, first of all the question had to be examined whether the objection might not be; whether there might not objection against another judgment of legal force because the same had occurred before.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
A.- The special court considering the latest, the most modern legal views denied that from the purely legal point of view it was truly the same offense.
THE PRESIDENT: That is what I asked you about. I merely asked you to explain what you meant by that.
A.- By using those words the judgment means to say that from a purely legal point of view, without referring to the actual extent of the matter, there was an identity of the offense, but -
THE PRESIDENT: Then you mean just what you said there. I think there is no other explanation. Go ahead.
DR. BRIEGER: Before I go over to the next case, may I say this: To point out to the interpreters that I consider their work particularly important. I should like to say now that concerning the Untermarchtal case I noticed a translation error which I considered unpleasant. The witness spoke of the danger of blackouts, and I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal and of the interpreters to the fact that these matters were in no way concerned with air raids and such matters. This was a legal idea, a legal concept from the German penal code which , I believe, had been customary long before there were any airplanes. It means: danger of covering up.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you may go along to another case.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q.- I now am going over to the next case, Case 15, that is to say the case of Wolf and others. I have already told you the Exhibit No. is 168, Document NG-714, Volume III-E, page 27. I assume, witness, that you have the judgment before you. Would you please comment on it?
A.- The main defendants, the Wolf people, were business men, who in the spring of 1939 had acquired a number of Jewish businesses; and they had enriched themselves tremendously. According to the judgment, the defendant Wilhelm Wolf, by the so-called Aryanization had obtained an annual income of 90,000 RM; Karl Wolf 27,000 RM; whereas neither of them possessed anything before. The main defendants, as can be seen from the indictment, black marketed in textiles and. textiles ration coupons of points on a vaste scale.
Q.- Could you tell us how many points were involved?
A.- More than a million and it is mentioned in the judgment.
Q.- How many people could have been supplied for one year with those points?
A.- Oh, people -- the population of a town of ten thousand inhabitants could have been supplied for one year. The judgment here -- I have to photostats before me, comes from the files of the execution of penalty, concerning Fullinger, who was sentenced to eight years in the penitentiary. It is of interest; that in the original I found the costs set out for that sentence of eight years in the penitentiary, and also the costs for transport and executing of the sentence, which on the 29th of June, 1946 came to an end. The costs were a total of 872 RM and 90 pfennigs; and the official in charge, from this judgment of the special court, on the 9th of July, 1946 worked out the costs, that is to say, he worked them out long after the catastrophe and the collapse of Germany. That was not signed, the commutations were not signed evidently because there were two mistakes in the calculations.
Q.- Do you mean to say by that that these sentences which you ordered were executed after the arrival of American troops?
A.- Yes. The sentence was not executed until the end of June, 1946.
Q.- How many years of his term did he spend in prison?
A.- Just about -
Q.- Just approximately -
A.- Approximately three years; the two defendants Wolf were both executed.
Q.- Witness, you mentioned Aryanization. What do you mean by Aryanizations, and do you happen to remember how Aryanizations were carried out.
A.- The two defendants Wolf, in a way of which I know no details, together acquired three Jewish business properties cheaply; I do not know the prices they paid. Apparently party circles were bribed by the two defendants Wolf, for at the trial it was found that the black market goods had in part gone to time party functionaries. As the defendants wolf would not name the people who had been at the back of them, and as the criminal police had instructions from higher authorities to leave the court in doubts, there was an instance at the trial which caused me to make a very unfriendly remark towards the party circles; well, whereupon the Gauleiter for his party and the party disciplinary court in Stuttgart instituted proceedings against me for me to be excluded from the party because they believed I had been injuring the party.
The proceedings against me took place in the presence of the president of the district court of appeal and the matter was tried before the party disciplinary court. For eight hours I defended myself; the proceedings were stopped; and a few weeks later I received a reprimand, with a written statement, the verdict passed by the disciplinary court was placed in my personnel file which has been presented by the prosecution. The pages in question, however, were not submitted by the prosecution.
Q.- Just a moment, an interruption. I therefore asked the prosecution to let me have that verdict from the party disciplinary court, but they told me that they hadn't gotten it. Continue, please, witness.
A.- If I had been excluded from the party, that would in fact have meant that I would have lost my position as a judge.
Q.- Is that the same verdict by the party disciplinary court which is also mentioned in the personnel files of the Reich Ministry of Justice which concerns you?
A.- Yes, that is the same verdict to which reference is made in my personnel file.
Q.- One more question, witness. It is a question which I shall also put to the witness Dr. Azesdorfer. Is it correct that concerning the Wolf prosecution you used or you even coined the term Aryanization, -- hyenas. What do you mean to say by that?
A.- In connection with all such business men, I used that term internally. But that I meant to say that they were people who had acquired property illegally.
Q.- Property that had belonged to Jewish owners, if I understand you correctly.
A.- Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask a question. Was that remark, namely, concerning the Aryanization hyenas, the one to which you referred, which resulted in your trial before the party court?
A.- No, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: What was it you said that resulted in the trial before the party court -- in the course of your trial?
A.- I told the defendant wolf that he was to tell me who had been his black market customers, even though they had uniforms with a great deal of glitter.
Q.- What do you mean a great deal of glitter?
A.- I mean rank, insignia also on the party uniforms. The defendant wolf in a whisper gave the name of a Kreisleiter from Ludwigsburg; I then told, him to say or announce the name loudly so that everybody in the courtroom could hear him, for in the special court there was nothing that was to be kept silent.
THE PRESIDENT: One other question please: The trial which you conducted involved roughly what we call black marketing transactions, did it not?
A. Yes, Your Honor. And it was also a case of large-scale bribery.
THE PRESIDENT: But the trial did not involve any charge against these men on account of the manner in which they participated in profiting from the Aryanization proceedings did it?
A. No.
THE PRESIDENT: Were they ever prosecuted for that?
A. No, they were not prosecuted.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. Witness, in what connection -- another question -- did you as a judge have an opportunity to have the other people who played a part in this matter prosecuted?
A. No.
Q. No, I want to put something right, Witness. You said that this glitter that this brass was also on the Party uniforms, but I assume that you did not refer to the fire department. I assume you meant to say only on Party uniforms. What was it you meant to say?
A. No, there were also some SD officials concerned.
Q. Oh, I see. And now, we will go to the next case: Page 16, App and Kreutle. Concerning the App and Kreutle case, the Witness Berthold Schwarz, on Pages 19456 and 1959 and on Page 2006 made statements. This is a judgment by the Special Court passed when you were the presiding judge on the 5th of May 1943. Do you remember that case? And what are your comments on it?
A. The proceedings against App and Kreutle took place when I was the presiding judge on Wednesday, the 5th of May 1943, at Ulm on the Danube. App and Kreutle and other defendants had carried out robberies in gangs, and they had robbed from goods trucks of the Reichsbahn.
The date for the trial was scheduled after a comparatively short period, for the next Wednesday, the defense counsel were given the indictment, as far as I know, on Monday, the 3rd of May, but the files, on account of disruption of railway traffic, were handed to them only on Tuesday, so that the defense counsel complained to me. As the defense counsel from other places, according to the law, had no claim to have the files brought to them to the place where they lived, and as the indictment was very extensive, the defense counsel did not make any formal complaint, however. The Kreutle case was the first case of robbery on railway property with which I had to deal. About six weeks earlier on an official trial on the railway I myself was robbed. I was called for interrogation by the railway police. At that interrogation the official in charge of the Railway Police Service was present. He complained to me about the railway robberies that were occurring. Only through the information which I received from this old and experienced railway official did I become fully aware of the danger of those robberies which were carried out by gangs in the blackout in Wuerttemberg. Other Special Courts had already pronounced a great many death sentences, and the administrative authorities of the Reichsbahn kept all officials informed about these sentences. The App and Kreutle case seemed to me so serious that at the request of the prosecution I spoke in favor of passing the death sentence. While the clemency proceedings were going on, I was on sick leave. When I returned from my sick leave the judge, who was in charge of reporting on the case, told me that one had decided to favor of supporting the clemency plea; and clemency had been granted to the two defendants. I was quite in agreement with that, for the purpose of a deterrent and the purpose of preventing other crimes had been achieved. And after that case, for a long time, no more serious cases of railway robberies occurred in Wuerttemberg.
Q. May it please the Court, I am now coming to the next case -the Fussen case, which has already been discussed in great detail by the Prosecution, and, therefore, it is necessary for us, too, to go into great detail.
THE PRESIDENT: Just ask your questions; you needn't apologize at all just say it; proceed without preliminaries.
Q. I am now coming to Case 17, the Fussen case. That case concerns a clergyman, and the Witness Schwarz on Page 1984, 1995, 2023, and 2030 described the case. Is your memory identical with that of the Witness Schwarz? May I ask you first whether it was Eberhard or Berthold Schwarz?
A. It was Berthold Schwarz. My recollection is to a far extent identical with what he said. Fussen was at first a member of an order, and afterwards he became a clergyman, no longer a member of an order. He continued to commit serious sexual crimes. However, the Special Court at Stuttgart, at a trial which lasted three days, in the Spring of 1940 sentenced him only to three years in prison, the time he spent in detention pending trial to be deducted. The Oberreichsanwalt, the Chief Reich Prosecutor of the Reich Supreme Court, made the nullity plea. The judgment was revoked, and a Special Court at Frankfurt sentenced Fussen on the basis of the same facts which had been available to the Special Court at Stuttgart, to a penitentiary term of eight years. I cannot recall further details of the case.
Q. Did the question of safety custody become acute in the Fussen case?
A. No.
Q. Because of the fact that the public is admitted to this Courtroom I do not want to ask you about any details concerning this case, but will you please refer to the Articles of the German Legal Code?
A. It was attempted rape, "Beischlaferschleichung," and similar things.
Q. Did they refer to several females?
A. No, to one female.
Q. Can I go over to the next case, Case 18, the Keppler case? In the Keppler case, at a trial on the 28th of January 1943 in Stuttgart the Court was supposed to have arrived at a judgment after one hour. May I ask you to comment on this case?
A. The Keppler case was tried on Thursday, the 28th of January 1943, in the morning at eight o'clock, and it was at Stuttgart. Keppler was a man who had been sentenced to a great many penitentiary terms already. He had murdered a police official by shooting at him from a close distance. He confessed fully. The death sentence was mandatory under the law. The defense counsel who had been appointed by the Court, as well as I myself, had to ask the Defendant Keppler repeatedly to say something about his offense. Keppler only said a few words. The medical expert gave his opinion. The blood-stained clothes of the victim were on the bench. The judgment was announced after fifteen minutes. As to what had to be the wording of the judgment in this case, that was a foregone conclusion for everybody, and the judgment was carried out.
Q. Case 19-- the Witness Eberhard Schwarz spoke about the Kettlitz case. Do you know anything about the Kettlitz case? What was the judgment in that case?
A. Bruno Kettlitz, in March, 1942, was sentenced to a penitentiary for a term of ten years because he was a dangerous blackmarketeer. For the first time the Prosecution in this case had asked for the death sentenced in the case of a blackmarketeer. After a long consultation the judgment was decided upon. The judge, who had written the report, District Court Counselor ---
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess until this afternoon at 1:30.
(The Court Recessed at 12:15)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 2 September 1947) HERMANN CUHORST - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats.
Military Tribunal 3 is again in session.
DR. BRIEGER:
Your Honor, May I continue examining my client? I am now coming to the so-called Mannheim Case; that is Case No. 20 on my list. I should like to start by drawing the attention of the Tribunal to this point: When the Prosecution submitted the first document in connection with this case I objected because, in our opinion, Cuhorst is not indicted in connection with his work at the Senate, but exclusively for his work with the Special Court. The Tribunal, Judge Marshall presiding at the time took the view that Senate cases too were to be presented as far as they contributed to completing the picture of the person of the defendant as a judge. I am pleased to call that view my own, and I am now going to discuss the case itself.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q Witness, the witness Berthold Schwarz made detailed statements-see transcript pages 1991, 2024, 2028, and 2068-- concerning a case which was dealt with by the District Court of Appeal at Stuttgart on the 2nd of October 1942, the case of Fritz and others. Can you supplement Schwarz's statements?
May I point out that on my list of cases I have also entered the other defendants? I did that for a very definite reason. In the transcript the case is sometimes referred to as the Meuschwandter case and then sometimes as the Jatzek case, and I entered the other names to make identification easier. We are also concerned with the Mannheim case.
Well Witness?
A In the Mannheim case there were 11 defendants, and all were Germans. They were charged with preparation for high treason. The witness Berthold Schwarz described the case quite correctly. In particular he gave a correct account of the scene which occurred at the end of the proceedings in the Judge's chamber, when I made violent reproaches to the witness Schwarz, who was then the representative of the Prosecutor General, on account of the heavy sentence for which he had asked, because in the case of all 11 defendants, he had asked for the death sentence, according to instructions. In the case of six defendants, prison sentences, and in the case of five defendants, death sentences were passed. The case was a very serious one, but the heavy sentences for which the prosecution had asked were in no way justified.
Q Do you want to mention any details about the high treason activities of the defendants?
A It was a large Bilshevik sabotage group, which had been at work in Mannheim factories. Some of the offenders had already been convicted by the People's Court. The other 11 defendants were passed on, by the Chief Reich Prosecutor, to the General Public Prosecutor for indictment with the District Court of Appeal.
I should like to add that the case, which was tried by the District Court of Appeals at Stuttgart, was tried in some time after Undersecretary Schlegelberger was there.
Q Do you still remember anything about the contents of the illegal leaflets and pamphlets which the defendants had spread?
A No.
Q And now I want to ask you this, witness. As far as I know, several quarters, here in the courtroom, have particularly charged you, with having sentenced an aged woman to death and I believe she was over 62, Frau Wagner. What were the special reasons which caused you to sentence that woman to death, quite apart from the fact that as I have said, she was an elderly woman?
A Frau Wagner was one of the main participants. She had several previous convictions, and was a Communist functionary.
As far as I know, in 1935 or 1936 she had made a statement of loyalty and was living quite undisturbed and in comfortable conditions in Mannheim. In 1941 she became the focal point of the Mannhein Group. The trial took place in the middle of 1942. That is to say--I have to correct myself--it was held on the 21st and the 22nd of October, 1942.
Q Concerning the person of the defendant Jatzek, do you remember anything about him? I am asking you, because I shall ask detailed questions of a witness whom I shall call.
A Sometime after the trial I heard, indirectly, that Jatzek had confessed only to part of his offense, and that, after the judgment had been passed, it had been discovered that Jatzek had played a much larger part than the Penal Senat had found. However, that was information which I had received outside of my official duties and it no longer had any influence upon the case.
Q May I now go over to the next case? Case 21, the Mattes case. Do you remember anything of that case, which was also tried before the District Court of Appeal? Did the District Court of Appeal, under your presidency, deal with many such cases where the death sentence was passed?
A On Friday I stated that the First Penal Senat at the District Court of Appeal at Stuttgart, from 1937 until 1944, passed seven or eight death sentences. The defendant Mattes, for preparation for high treason had been sentenced by the Penal Senat to a term of medium length at a penitentiary.
He was serving his sentence at the Ludwigsburg Penitentiary, and there again he formed a cell. That cell did communistic work of undermining for which Mattes was serving his term. Therefore Mattes was again indicted for preparation for high treason and, as it was impossible to find extenuating circumstances, he had to be sentenced to death.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not sure that I understood you. Was this second for which he was tried one that was committed in the prison?
THE WITNESS: Yes; he was committed that second offense in the prison. In the Prison he set up a communist cell, a Communist group.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
JUDGE HARDING: Who was the presiding judge of the Penal Senat?
THE WITNESS: I was the presiding judge, Your Honor. I tried the Mattes case at the penitentiary in Ludwigsburg.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q Now the next case, case 22. The Paetzold case, of 26 October 1942, was dealt with by the witness Ebergard Schwarz on page 2293 of the record. Do you remember anything about that case?
A The Paetzold case was tried while I was the presiding judge, and it was tried on Monday, the 26th of October, 1942, at Stuttgart. I no longer remember the facts of the case, but I can recollect about the trial.
While the defense counsel was making his second plea, the defendant fainted. When, two or three minutes later, he had not yet recovered I had a recess called and I had a physician summoned. Only after Paetzold had been revived was the plea continued. It is possible that the defendant Paetzold, for some minutes, was in the courtroom in a state of semi-faint, until I noticed what was happening. That occurrence-something which happens fairly frequently--did not have any influence on the trial.
Q May I now go over to the next case?
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you a question with reference to the Mattes case? What was the nationality of the defendant in case 21?
THE WITNESS: Mattes was a Reich German. He had been born in Stuttgart, as far as I know.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q Case 23 in the Schmidt case. This case had been discussed on record pages 1941, 1971, 2021, and 2325 by the witnesses. The testimony of the witnesses does not show clearly what the details of the case were. May I ask you, therefore, to comment on the case?
A. In that case a certain Michael Schmidt and several other offenders had been indicted. The trial was held in Stuttgart, and I was presiding judge. The defense counsel for Michel Schmidt was the attorney who has appeared here as a witness, Julius Diessem, from Stuttgart. The defense counsel for the co-defendants, who were the receivers, was attorney Stoeck from Stuttgart.
The defendant Michael Schmidt, who was an elderly man and who had seen several previous, convictions for minor offenses, was an auxiliary worker at the field post collecting center in Stuttgart. He had stolen sixty or a hundred field post consignments, and the contents, which usually were tobacco, he had either consumed himself or passed on to receivers. The latter fact alone reveals that this was not a case of stealing just for his own consumption, petty theft, because a person who commits such petty theft Consumes the objects he has stolon, and that on the spot. That is the legal criterion of such an offense.
The defense of the defendant Schmidt was conducted approximately in the way in which the witness Diessem has described it here, and the incident which occurred between the defense counsel and myself did take place in the way in which the witness Berthold- Schwarz described it here.
I approached the President of the Lawyers' Chamber and, at the beginning of February 1933, in a letter, he told Lawyer Diessem that he would refrain from taking any further stops, but Diessem, for the time being, was not to appear before the Special Court and the Penal Senat. At that time Lawyer Diessem had also had incidents with the President of the Second Penal Senat. Lawyer Diessem stayed away from his work only for a few weeks. On the 24th of March, 1943, he was defense counsel in the Stiegler case in Ulm. I remember that on that day I had lunch in Ulm with Lawyer Diessem, and during lunch we discussed the incident over the Schmidt case and we came to an understanding about it.
Q. Witness, may I ask you to give us a few more details? My first question is this. Was Michael Schmidt a German or a foreigner?
A. He was a German citizen.
Q. Was he executed, or was clemency exercised?
A. As far as I know, the sentence was carried out.
Q. I now ask you, did he alone steal the cigarettes and appropriate them, or did he also take the letters and other messages from the relatives at home to their people at the front?
A. He destroyed the letters because he couldn't put them to any use.
Q. The latter fact, that he had also destroyed these letters, and those to the fighting troops at the front--was that considered an aggravating circumstance?
A. The prevailing legislation was that those facts had to be considered as aggravating circumstance?
A. The prevailing legislation was that those facts had to be considered as aggravating circumstances.
Q. The witness Diessem has emphasized here repeatedly that it was a trivial offense because, as far as he remembered, cigarettes only cost four pfennigs. As you say, this offense occurred in time of war. Must one bear in mind that cigarettes were rationed at the time, or does it also hit the economic front?
A. One could not take into consideration the economic aspect. Tobacco was a rarity, and the wives of the recipients and the mothers of the recipients, in most cases, had saved these cigarettes from their own rations.
Q. Do you also want to say that those women sometimes had to queue up for hours outside tobacco shops to get hold of a few cigarettes for their relatives at the front?
THE PRESIDENT: We are not concerned about that. Pass on to something else please.
DR. BRIEGER: Yes.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. I now come to the next case, case 24. On the 29th of November, 1942, the Special Court at Stuttgart passed the only death sentence a against a black-market slaughterer. That was the case of Soell and others. Diessem, who was the defense counsel in that case, spoke about the case on pages 2318, 2336, and 2333 in the record. What were the circumstances of that case?
A. The case against Johann Soell and Pauline Ziegler was described by the witness Diessem correctly as far as the main points go. Both, together, had acquired more than ten thousand kilograms of meat by Black market slaughtering. The prosecution asked for the death sentence on both defendants. The Special Court sentenced the defendant Soell to death. The defendant Pauline Ziegler, who was defended by Lawyer Engelhern, however, was not sentenced to death.
That case of black-market slaughtering was the most serious case in my experience. If one worked out the weights according to the live animal; one arrived at the figure of 50 head of cattle, at 500 kilogramweight each; that is, if you refer to the live animal.
Q. The witness Schwarz, at the time, said that Soell had already retired from business, that he was a man over 60, and that therefore it was no longer to be suspected that, after the case had been dealt with, he would once again start his activity as a black-market slaughterer. Do you think that fact is relevant; and why did you pass the death sentence in spite of it?
A. Soell's offense was unusually dangerous. For a long time he couldn't be found. The case was only discovered when Soell had moved to Upper Bavaria with his spoils. In view of the extent to which he had engaged in black-market slaughtering, one could not take his age into account at all.