THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received. Exhibit 571 is received also.
MR. LA FOLLETTf: Mill you make distribution, please?
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q.- Now yesterday you discussed your case No. 40. That is Morvice, or Morvoice, or Morvece. That was the Pole, Bartholomaeus Mroviec.
A.- Bartholomaeus Mroviec.
Q.- Thank you. I do thank you. I wasn't sure how to say that. Did you sentence the five German boys who were associated with this defendant, the Polish defendant?
THE PRESIDENT: In which case?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: It is No. 40 in the Brieger cases, Your Honor -in the Cuhorst cases. I am still unable to pronounce the name.
THE WITNESS: May I answer now?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Oh, yes.
A.- When I discussed that case I said that those German juveniles, whose ages were between 14 and 18, were tried by the Juvenile Court, the Jugendschutzkammer, and not by the Special Court. As Mroviec as well as the juveniles had confessed, I only summoned the two main participants among the juveniles as witnesses, and when examining them I found that they had not only offered any resistance to Mroviec's actions, but that they had actually participated in his actions. I remember that lawyer Dr. Weber, too, in the draft of an affidavit, described the case in the same way. At least I have that draft before me here.
Q.- I have before me -- maybe we have the same thing -- an affidavit of Dr. Weber in which he says: "An especially severe sentence, which was in no way warranted by the facts, was pronounced against the 20 years old Pole, Bartholomaeus Mroviec, a farmhand at Vaihingen/Enns, for whom I had been appointed compulsory counsel for the defense. He had committed a sexual offense against ten boys between the ages of 9 and 18 years of age. The trial proved that this relationship had not been caused by the defendant, but by the German boys, who admitted themselves that the Pole had in the beginning declined to fall in with their suggestion.
The German boys went free, but the Pole was sentenced to five years penitentiary." I didn't understand from your testimony yesterday that the German boys went free in this case. Does Dr. Weber state it correctly?
A.- I have Dr. Weber's affidavit in front of me. Dr. Weber apparently remembers only the trial before the Special Court. The german boys, had not been indicted before the Special Court. They had been indicted before the Penal Chamber which was competent for their case. That they were indicted there I heard at a later date, and I also heard that one of the boys was sent to a reform school.
Q.- Do I understand that the boys were not indicted at the time you tried this Pole?
A.- Three boys were juveniles -
Q.- Were they indicted? If they weren't, I want to pass on.
A.- Only the Pole was indicted before the Special Court, not the boys.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Thank you. Let me have 1470, will you please?
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, while we are waiting let me ask you, in the case to which reference has been made, which was tried in the Ukraine did you in fact take part in the trial, in the decision of that case as a judge?
THE WITNESS: I don't know what that case was called, Your Honor, but at the express appointment by the President, Dr. Funk, I did participate in that trial as an associate judge, and I had all the rights of a judge, but I did not myself write the judgment. I do not know what was the name of the judge who wrote the opinion.
THE PRESIDENT: You have answered my question.
BY MR. LA EOLLETTE:
Q.- You sat on that case in your Party uniform, and not in any judicial robes, isn't that correct?
A.- No. In the Ukraine we didn't wear robes. We only were uniforms.
Q.- Yes. Now, you know the Detective Inspector Max Esterle, residing now at Karlsruhe? Do you know him?
A.- Mr. Prosecutor, I can answer that neither by yes nor by no. I believe that there was a detective inspector in Berlin, but I cannot remember him for certain, for I came across many detective inspectors in the execution of my official duties.
Q Would it help you if I stated that he worked under the Gestapo Chief, Muskei, in Stuttgart?
A That doesn't help me, Mr. Prosecutor, for I don't know whether that detective inspector Esterle worked with the general criminal police or with the political criminal police. He may have been with both police offices.
Q You did know Muskei?
A I saw Muskei once in my life, and that time Muskei had first to be introduced to me, for he didn't know me and I didn't know him. After we had been formally introduced to each other, I never again spoke to Muskei and I never saw him again either, neither in the execution of my official duties nor privately.
Q But you did report the Bieger incident to him - to Muskei did you not, at Stuttgart?
A I didn't know Lopata.
Q There was a Bieger case.
A Yes, Bieger was the name. Yes, I reported on the entire incident and also a draft of a letter which in a changed form was actually dispatched to the address mentioned. That is all I know.
Q. Did you ask Muskei, as the director of this Gestapo in Stuttgart, to reprehend Bieger and state that you would give evidence against him for listening to a London transmitter in late 1944 or '45?
A Well, there were two incidents involved, and one can see that from the Prosecution documents. The affiant Bieger had listened to foreign radio stations, and a polite letter from me was sent to the affiant asking him to stop listening, because I would be held responsible. That polite letter was submitted together with the files
Q Yes. Now, don't you recall talking to Esterle about this case, and that you said that he stated to you that there would probably be a miscarriage of justice, and that you answered that you felt more sure of this case than ever and that you would give testimony and see that Bieger was convicted?
Don't you remember Esterle now, who was the secretary at Stuttgart of the Gestapo?
A Concerning my letter in connection with the second incident, on the day I left for Norway in the beginning of January 1945, a criminal official of the Gestapo came to see me and received my statements which culminated in this. I personally attached no importance to having a. big case made out of it. I merely wanted that such incidents, which for me were extremely embarrassing, be stopped by the police. The official then told me that first he would have to study the case. He couldn't say what attitude the police would adopt. The official took down a brief record, and all the rest you should be able to gather from that record.
Q The Prosecution offers NG-1470 as Prosecution's Exhibit 572.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q When did you meet Muskei?
A I met him at a public meeting. As far as I remember, it was still in 1943, and I think it was at the Liederhalle - at the concert hall - in Stuttgart. The official who introduced Muskei to me was Dr. Till, the Ministerial Director. I can't tell you exactly what the date was.
Q He was the Chief of the Secret Police at Stuttgart and had been since 1940, had he not?
A I can't tell you when Muskei became the Chief of the Gestapo office at Stuttgart. As far as I recollect, Muskei cane to Stuttgart early in 1941 or 1942, but I can't give you any details.
Q But you still are of the opinion that when you went to try the case at Untermarchtal, you did not know at that time that Muskei had signed and delivered a confiscation ordinance against the convent Untermarchtal prior to the time that you conducted that trial? You're still positive of that?
A Mr. Prosecutor, two matters are involved here, and I was only able to gather those matters from the judgment in the Untermarchtal case. First, at a very early phase of the prosecution proceedings, the property of the convent was confiscated and at the same time the Wehrmacht began to use most of it as a military hospital. A trustee was appointed to be in charge of the confiscated property. He was a civil servant, but I can't remember his name. At a later date, the convent at Untermarchtal, by an order from the Gestapo, was finally confiscated. That, as far as I remember, I heard only in the course of the trial, and I heard it either from the prosecutor or from the defense counsel, together with whom I had lunch every day. Who told me, and in what way he told me, I don't know. At any rate, after the indictment had been filed, we thoroughly examined the question as to whether in this case the Untermarchtal convent might be co-responsible under criminal law. The result of that examination was negative, and we had the prosecution informed that such a measure on the part of the court was out of the question. After the trial at Untermarchtal, I told an old schoolmate of mine that the confiscation of the convent had been quite unnecessary and that the facts had not justified it. The authorities who had confiscated the convent should have waited until the court had passed this judgment.
Q If Your Honor please, the Prosecution would like to offer as Prosecution's Exhibit 573, NG-2169. We will have to later supply the Court with the English copies, but I would like very much to introduce this, because it is the celebrated trial by the Party court of the defendant which I want him to be assured we want in evidence, too. The Prosecution offers the exhibit on the condition that it will furnish the English.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit will be received upon the condition that English copies will be supplied.
BY MR. LAFOLLETTE:
A. The Prosecution, asks to have exhibit NG-2288 now marked for identification at this time as Exhibit 574, and I send the exhibit to the witness.
A. What is it you want me to do, Mr. Prosecutor?
Q. Will will ask you in just a minute. You see some small pictures and some enlargements. The small pictures were taken by you or were in your possession, were they not? The small ones?
A. It is possible, but I ought to have the negatives, if they had been there to , but I suppose that these are the proper prints of the originals of my negatives.
Q. Yes. Well, I don't have the negatives.
DR. BRIEGER: If I am correctly informed, we are now concerned with the judgment by the Gau Disciplinary office on Cuhorst. I object against the submission of this judgment. I have thought for a long time that the prosecution had that judgment and therefore through the formal channels I asked the prosecution for that judgment. However, they refused to let me have it and they said that they haven't got it.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Now I have to get into a discussion of fact with my friend, Dr. Brieger. I don't think his objection is valid, I am advised that he is mistaken in his understanding. We did not say that we did not have it; we said that it was being processed and we did not have it in our room so that we could deliver it to him. Evidence of the fact that it is being processed is the fact that we still haven't been able to get the translation, although we were advised that the translation had been made. Certainly, I can't see how in any way he can be harmed. If he wants to offer it as his exhibit, we will then have it also as the Prosecution's exhibit. I have no objection, for the record can show that we both offer it.
DR. BRIEGER: I shall try, during the afternoon recess, to get the information from my office. At the moment, I cannot say whether what was said to me was that it was not available.
But if that is what was said to me, then I would not have drawn the conclusion that the difficulties were only of a technical nature and that they would only be temporary. I believe that if ones uses the English word, one is bound to draw the conclusion that the prosecution did not have the judgment in their possession.
THE PRESIDENT: Let me ask you: for what purpose did you ask to receive the judgment?
DR. BRIDGER: It was of importance to me to have the judgment so that I could make my decisions, particularly in connection with my examination of my client, Mr. Cuhorst. In other words, I wanted to have that judgment so that I could think matters over quietly and so that I would have an opportunity to discuss these matters with my client before --without any preparation, they were going to be let loose here.
THE PRESIDENT: Then were you under the impression, or are you under the impression, that the document had matters which were of probative value in this case?
DR. BRIEGER: Your Honor, it is very difficult for me to judge that without having seen the judgment, and particularly from that point of view it was that I wanted to see it.
THE PRESIDENT: You both want the judgment. The judgment appears to be available within a reasonable time. You may both inspect it, and you may both inquire of the witness concerning it, after you have inspected it. That is all you asked for in the first place.
DR. BRIEGER: I should like to make a suggestion to the Tribunal. I think that suggestion, would satisfy both parties. All I want to do is to discuss these matters with my client and I should prefer it if Mr. La Follette would postpone his questions on that judgment until after the afternoon recess.
THE PRESIDENT: No. Mr. La Follette may propound questions concerning it now if he has it there. You may examine it thereafter, confer with your client, and then ask any questions which you find necessary to ask of your client.
You can do it tomorrow morning.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: He will have the first opportunity, Your Honor. It's in German. I can't ask him anything about it. I can't read it that well.
THE PRESIDENT: You have the German copy here?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: All that has been distributed are German. The original is in German. I don't have the English, your Honor. That is, I don't have the English yet.
THE PRESIDENT: Give Dr. Brieger the German copies and let him study it.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I have given him German copies and he can have the original. I think all Dr. Brieger wants to do is to complain a little bit now , and I am surprised at that.
THE PRESIDENT: We regret that there has been a delay. The delay is now cured by the delivery of the document.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Will you turn to the picture marked 16 on the back of it. I now have some for distribution, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You are referring to Exhibit for identification, 574, is that correct?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: That is correct, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: I refer to No. 16. Several, I think, must be of the same film.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. Yes, I want the fourth one that you have. The picture is of signs. From your original prints, rather than the original plate or film, do you recall that those are pictures of signs of Jewish firms in Leipzig in 1933?
A. That is film No. 16 and some of the prints I have here--
Q. It's the sixth one here.
A. And the photo is taken in Leipzig. I had taken some character istic photos of the city of Leipzig and --- the originals are a lot better, they are really a lot better, you know --- I also took photos of those rather characteristic signs which the furriers in Leipzig put up.
As we all know, Leipzig is the center of the fur trade in all of Europe. You can see here on these photos a collection probably of Jewish and non-Jewish fur dealers, such as these films displayed their signs, of their shops in Leipzig. The number which you ask me to read out gives the following names -- I am reading from top to bottom: Luettig and Company, furriers; Haffner, Mosar and Company, furriers; Mois Eskanazi, Import and Export, firm; Sigmund Leibstein, Brussels; Albert Hirschfeld and Fritz Rosenzweig, furriers; I. H. Beck, Import and Export; Theodor Tsamisis, Specialist on Persian goods.
The second photo , which also shows the signs of firms, contains other names.
DR. BRIEGER: Mr. La Follette, may I ask you whether you are presenting those from the point of view of war crimes or crimes against humanity ?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I would say, Your Honor, that I think it is relevant to show the interest of this defendant in the purposes of the Nazi Party prior to the time when he went on the bench, and to that extent it's relevant either as against crimes against humanity which he committed in his decisions and also war crimes. Therefore, I am offering it on both counts to the affidavit. I have heard no objection.
DR. BRIEGER: I object.
THE PRESIDENT: If I understand your purpose, it is to show that by reason of the fact that the witness took pictures of certain events or of certain objects, that those pictures are of probative value to show his guilt upon the charges in the indictment.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Correct, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I think they should be rejected.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I'd like to expand that a little. I think they show the frame of mind with which this defendant acted on the bench, the motives with which he acted, and I think that has relevency to the issues in this case.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is sustained
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I would like to go on to the second pictures in here. They are not all the same kind, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, The objection will be sustained as to the two which have thus far discussed.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: The second picture showing the Jewish firm in Leipzig -
DR. BRIEGER: Mr. Lafollette, may I -
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Just a minute please, I will make a very quick offer and then Dr. Brieger can make his objection. You will find here on the back of the pictures the number 103.
A 103.
Q Yes, 103. A group of men sitting around a table in the inside of a room, and then 103, a long row of either full or empty bottles -I can't tell from this print; they are also in 103. I will ask you whether you recall whether those were taken in 1940 the last of October or the first of November.
A These photos were taken at a club evening of the special court club. The interior I took myself. The originals are quite clear and they are good photographs from the technical point of view, and there nobody could imagine that I perhaps was not quite sober at that club either. The other two photographs show members of the special court and in the center there is the prosecution witness, the Prosecutor Dr. Berthold Schwarz. That club evening was attended by about sixteen or eighteen people, and we did not abstain from liquor that evening I brought eighteen bottles of wine which were consumed; that would amount to one bottle per head.
Q How about the food? How much food -
THE PRESIDENT: I think we are going into a elemental state; restrainingly; I think it is a waste of our time. You offer these exhibits or any of them?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I offer only those now that I am talking about.
THE PRESIDENT: Any objection?
DR. BRIEGER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Objection sustained.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: May I continued as the exhibit having been marked for identification. We will go on to the next exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be marked for identification -- offered and rejected.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: The Prosecution offers for identification as Prosecution's Exhibit 573 the Exhibit 2320 and I ask that it be distributed.
THE PRESIDENT:NG-2320?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Right, Your Honor. On the English copy, Your Honors, the date has been a misprint at the top; it should be 1940, not 1943. May 23, 1940; it is correct on the German copy I am advised.
Q I will ask you, witness, whether or not that isn't a correct copy of a letter which you wrote to the president of the Court of Appeals of Stuttgart explaining a remark which you had made about the Archbishop Groeber of Freiburg, at the request of the Oberlandsgerichtspresident that you make some formal apology; is that correct?
A Mr. Prosecutor, this letter comes from my personnel file, and I have already stated that in these personnel files, as far as they as they have been submitted by the prosecution, several documents are missing as for example, this one, and the judgment by the party disciplinary court. Therefore, this letter belongs to the other documents which have already been introduced and which deal with this case. They come from my personnel file. The matters in which I myself had gone too far had this outcome. The Reich Minister expressed his disaproval to me and everybody concerned was satisfied with that.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: The Prosecution offers as Prosecution Exhibit 575 document NG-2320.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
Q I want to talk to you about the Pitra case just a minute -I am sorry, Your Honor, I though I had the book marked. First, I think you said yesterday that in the Pitra case there was no death sentence passed by you because you didn't remember that a nullity plea was filed. Could not the Pitra case have been opened by a motion to reopen the proceedings as well as by a nullity plea?
A I don't believe so because we would have heard of it if a motion for reopening of trial had been made, and I am sure I would have heard of that, for we would have heard if the penal chamber in a retrial had dealt with the case. I only remember the trial of 12th August; I remember the file note, I remember how long the trial lasted; I remember who was the defense counsel; and I also remember some general circumstances which made me draw the conclusions which in fact I did draw. I also know from the statements under oath, from a lawyer's office that a death sentence had not yet been issued by the 12th August 1942.
Q Did Dr. Brieger submit to you, as quickly as he received them, German copies of the prosecution's document books? You don't have to answer it unless you wish to, but did he as a fact give you those books -- you remember -- did you look at them?
A Mr. Prosecutor, I don't know what books you are referring to.
Q I am referring to the German copies of the prosecution's document books. Did you see them as soon as your attorney got them -just as a general matter?
A The documents which the Prosecution introduced against me I saw I think all of those, both in German and in the English version; it is possible that just one or two of the documents may have escaped my notice.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I think this court will take judicial notice of its own record.
I would like to point out that the Document NG-485, Exhibit 209, which is the affidavit of Eberhard Schwarz, was introduced on the 2nd of April, 1947 by my record; also that the witness Schwartz was produced and testified upon Eberhard Schwarz upon direct examination on the 17th of April, 1947 -- if I said 1945 before, I mean 1947 -
DR. BRIEGER: The passages from the transcript I have already mentioned to the Tribunal. -
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If your Honors please, we have about a minute. There is a matter in this transcript that I would like to ask the witness about, and I haven't found it. If we might recess now -
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess for fifteen minutes.
(a recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: One matter has been called to our attention which may be disposed of at this time. It arises out of the fact that it was necessary, as counsel knows, to declare a mistrial in the case against the Defendant Engert.
In view of the fact that Engert is no longer involved in this particular trial, it becomes our duty to make an order setting aside the appointment of counsel Dr. Link as attorney for the former Defendant Engert. I will not read the order which is being signed at this time because it is of minor importance, but the record may snow that a portion of the order provides that by reason of the possibility that the Defendant Engert may hereafter be tried on the same indictment involved in this case, it is ordered that Dr. Heinrich Link may, at his own option, have the privilege of an unofficial observer and, as such, may continue at his potion to take his place at the counsel table in the courtroom of Tribunal III. That is a matter purely for his convenience if his relationship with the Defendant Engert seems to require it. His official connection is terminated.
BY MR. LAFOLLETTE:
Q. Did you discuss the Petra Case and the Defendant Eberhard Schwarz' affidavit with your attorney before he came here and took the stand? Dr. Brieger, do you remember?
A. Naturally, I did discuss that matter with Dr. Brieger and we found that the witness, Dr. Eberhard Schwarz, in the Petra Case was not quite sure of himself when he gave his testimony. That is shown in the affidavit and the relevant passages in the transcript. The witness Schwarz no longer remembered and that is Quite under standable, whether in that case clemency had been granted or whether a second judgment was passed or whatever else had happened.
Q. I am referring to the cross examination now by Dr. Brieger on the 17th of April. You were present in the courtroom while Dr. Brieger was cross examining Eberhard Schwarz, were you not?
THE PRESIDENT: The record shows that he was present.
BY MR. LAFOLLETTE:
Q. Witness, do you know anything about--here was a series of questions asked Eberhard Schwarz by Brieger and answers) "QUESTION:
Witness, do you know anything about Cuhorst's attitude to the pardon?"
That was the pardon for Pitra.
"ANSWER: No, I know nothing about that. I never saw his opinion on pardon pleas.
"QUESTION: Witness, do you know that on account of the regulations even in force at that time in the case of every pardon, the judge who had passed the sentence had to ask about his views?
"ANSWER: Yes, I do know that."
I will ask you whether or not now you say I believe that you knew nothing about the pardon for Pitra, that he was only sentenced to eight years.
A. Mr. Prosecutor, when he Pitra case was discussed my own investigations hadn't yet got to that point where I had the dates available which I have at my disposal now.
According to the documentary evidence which I have now and in particular since I have had a look at certain files, I can say with absolute certainty that in the Pitra Case clemency was not granted but from the very beginning a prison sentence was passed. I remember the case now, and I remember it the same way as the affiant of the defense. That is all I can say about the Pitra Case.
Q. Now, in the Togni case where there was a pardon, I think you said that you had assisted in obtaining that pardon; isn't it a fact that the pardon had to be granted and you agreed to it because of the pressure of the Foreign Office of the Reich?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, the Foreign Office of the Reich was in no way interested in the trial against Louisa Togni. I found, and the judge who wrote the report also found, and the witness Rimilin more or less said that hero in his testimony, that in that case the court, at its own initiative, made a clemency plea.
It is quite possible that in that case, in accordance with the directives some of which have been introduced by the Prosecution, in the clemency proceedings of the Reich Ministry of Justice, the Foreign Office did play a part. When I was interrogated here, one of the interrogators -- I believe it was Mr. Einstein --- told me something like it too, but I don't know.
Q. Do you know a man who was a yound man around your court in Stuttgart by the name of Hans Laducinski?
A. No. It is possible that that was the name of a defendant.
Q. No. That was the name of a young assessor who was present at your court and who states that several times between January and June, 1943, in his presence you made the statement, when leaving the judges: chamber to go to the bench: "Now we will go to the slaughter bench. " I think you testified that you were positive you never made that statement at any time when you went to sit upon the bench as a judge.
Are you still positive?
A. Mr. Prosecutor, I still maintain that at the special court there was never a young man employed, a young man by the name of Hans Laducinski. The special court did not employ Referendars or assessors nor did any one of my section have such a striking name. Whether at the Prosecution perhaps there was a young man of that name I don't know; but certainly I would have noticed that name with the Prosecution if he had been there. In our judges' room or on the way from the judges' room to the courtroom a man of the name Hans Laducinski was never present. This is the first time I heard that name and my assumption is, therefore, that perhaps he was a defendant.
Q He worked at a civil senate of the Oberlandsgericht, Herr Cuhorst, and I will ask you whether or not you ever stated to the Public Prosecutor, Dr. Bogenrieder, when you passed him on the way to the courtroom or the courthouse: "Today we will again supply you with heads," during the time between January and June, 1943.
A The case of Laducinski can now be considered as finished and we are now concerned with the senior public prosecutor Bogenrieter with whom I often did discuss my cases because he was the deputy department chief of the political criminal division of the prosecution.
Q We seem to be -- go on.
A (Continuing) In the form in which you have just put that question to me, Dr. Bogenrieter. For the rest, I came to the courthouse so early that the public prosecutors as a rule hadn't arrived yet; and before the trial, as a rule, I talked very little with the prosecutors because they did not change their clothes in the judges' chamber but went to the courtroom straight from their own offices. Nor do I know -
THE PRESIDENT: I think you have completely answered the question. It was a very brief question. The answer was "No".
MR. LAFOLLETTE: The Prosecution now wishes to distribute the German NG-854 which is Exhibit 568 and the English NG-2169, which is the Party Trial.
BY MR. LAFOLLETTE:
Q Did you know Dr. Karl Quint?
A Dr. Klemm? I think that he was an attorney.
Q Dr. Karl Quint?
A Kling? I am not familiar with that name. I ought to have some documentary basis to recall that name.
Q I'll do the best I can, let me spell it for you, will you? Q-U-I-N-T, Quint.
A Quint?.
Q Yes.
A I don't recall that name.
Q He didn't go to the Ukraine with you? Do you know him now as a friend of Karl who is a personnel referent in Stuttgart? Does that help you any?
A That does not helt me. As far as I know I went to the Ukraine all alone. I came back all by myself. It is possible that I met somebody some acquaintance either on the way out or on the way back, but I cannot remember Dr. Karl Quint.
Q You don't know him as an official of the Ministry of the Eastern Administration of Justice?
A On my trip to the Ukraine I stayed in Berlin for a short time and at the Reich Ministry for the occupied eastern territories I received my travel orders. As far as I remember the competent official was Ministerial Councellor Dr. Wilhelmi. As to whether I spoke to any other people, I can't tell you now. I was only there for a short time and when I had got my papers together for my trip I took the next fast train via Koenigsberg to the place where I had been assigned and the file concerning this matter have been introduced.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I have no further questions.
DR. BRIEGER: May I continue the redirect examination of my client, Herr Cuhorst?
THE PRESIDENT: I should like to ask him one general question before the redirect.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Did you in either of the courts where you presided, try any cases which were based upon the Law for the Protection of German Blood and Honor?
A No, Your Honor, in Stuttgart all such cases were tried by the Penal Chamber of the District Court.