THE PRESIDENT: It is obvious that counsel has been unduly leading his witness by asking questions which suggest the answer. You may restate your question and we will rule on it.
DR. BRIEGER: In this connection I want to say the following: I was told that if I have before me an incriminating witness who has given an affidavit for the Prosecution and I have called him as my own witness, that then I am afforded the opportunity to ask the witness for the purpose of correction and clarification. I am told that this was the practice, the permanent practice, before the International Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: We need no argument about it. The Court has merely suggested to you that you ask a question without leading tho witness. When you ask it we will rule upon it.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. In your affidavit of 23 November 1946 you have stated that Cuhorst in all sensational and show trials presided over the session himself. By "sensational and show trials" do you mean'to say that Cuhorst wanted to have a large audience, that he invited prominent Party leaders to the sessions, and that he selected under these points of view a large court room for an important trial?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I object, Your Honor, for the reason that the question is still leading in form, but primarily I object for the reason that there is contained in this question a direct quotation from the affidavit of this witness, which is certainly cross examination. If this witness wants to give testimony contrary to that which he gave before, he may give it, but not with reference to the specific statements he made in that affidavit. This, again, also calls for the answer.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will ask the witness a question. Without reference to your affidavit you may state now whether or not Cuhorst conducted what counsel referred to as "Schauprozess" in his Court, and whether he invited dignitaries to attend the trials.
THE WITNESS: Nothing is known to me about the fact that Cuhorst had invited important personalities, dignitaries, especially high officials of the Party. I only know of two cases where one could speak of show trials, Schauprozosse. That is the one case in Ulm. I was not there, but I happen to know about it. At that time thefts were committed on the railways by employees of the railway, and because that was so desired by the Reichministry of Justice, they were tried where they had occurred, that was on the railroad station in the marshalling yards and the warehouse of the railroad station of Ulm. And second case was near Siegmaringen. At that time, as far as I am informed, a man had stolen large amounts of food from the mess and used it for himself, and in order to demonstrate to the workers that man was not protected by the Special Court, the trial was actually conducted in the plant. Those are the two cases of which I know that they were called , Schauprozosse, show trials.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. In your affidavit where you mention --
THE PRESIDENT: You can ask him any questions with reference to the facts in which you are interested,
DR. BRIEGER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: --- but you needn't refer to the affidavit, in view of counsel's objection.
DR. BRIEGER: Yes, Your Honor.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. In your affidavit -
THE PRESIDENT: Objection sustained.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. In your affidavit --
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I object, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Objection sustained.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. Please describe the case Stiegler.
A. The case Stiegler --- Stiegler was a German soldier who, by the military court of his division, was transferred to the Civilian Administration of Justice for trial and sentence. He was indicted for largescale racketeering. I do not know the details because I was not the reporting judge. Stiegler was a ruthless racketeer whom one could call a black marketeer today. His wife was a co-defendant. The trial took place in Ulm. Whether Stiegler had a criminal record I don't know any more. He was a clerk in this company and the impression was made that his racketeer activities had exerted a very bad influence on his comrades. The charges, as far as I still remember, were for fraud committed as a public enemy. It was a very serious case, and after an extensive trial and deliberation the death sentence was pronounced according to the demand made by the Public Prosecutor.
Q. And did Cuhorst in the Habrechthaus, wherein the case Bieger took place, have any function which authorized him to issue directives?
A. Cuhorst, from 1933, was chairman of the section Swabia which, in the end, had 6,000 members. In 1935 the Habrechthaus was built, and in the Habrechthaus an honorary care taker was appointed who was a member of the committee of the section. First of all, Cuhorst, of course, as chairman of the section, was authorized supervisor. He had the main responsibility for the entire club. The Fuehrer principle was in the statute, and he not only had the right but also the duty to see to it that everything was going in order, at the Habrecht lodge.
Q. Was Cuhorst responsible from the point of view of penal law to see that in the houses of the club no criminal acts were committed, according to the Law then existing?
A. Well, during the war one could think only of offenses against the war economy decrees, that is to say, to distribute food without getting ration points or, for instance that no tax offenses or evasions should take place.
In other words, one could say that Cuhorst in the final analysis was also responsible under criminal law, in case he would have neglected his duty to supervise.
Q. Were broadcast offenses also among the delicts where he as the landlord would have had a responsibility before the law?
A. A responsibility under criminal law according to the broadcast decree would have existed if he happened to be present at the time. Of course, while he was in Stuttgart and not at the Habrechthaus and in his absence, anything like that happened, then in my opinion he could not be reproached for it, but while he was present, of course, it was his duty.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you tell us very briefly what this house was? We don't understand it. What club or house are you talking about?
THE WITNESS: The section Snabia owned in the mountains of the Bavarian or Austrian Alps six so-called mountain lodges, which had the total value of more than one million Reichsmarks. In 1934, the border between Austria and Germany was closed because of the Delfuss affair and now the Stuttgart members of the section Snabia decided at the nearest ski region to establish a mountain lodge.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we back at the Alpine Club again?
TIE WITNESS: Yes.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q Witness, the President doesn't want you to speak about that. The Court is not interested in the Alpine Club; only the two cases Bieger and Renz.
A The Habrecht Haus belonged to the German and Austrian Alpine Club, Wurttemberg section; it was one hour and a half from Stuttgart.
Q Therefore I'd like to speak directly about the case Bieger. Do you happen to know about the affidavit that Bieger made out? What can you say about it?
A Bieger, as far as I heard, at that time with his wife and child went to the Habrecht Haus because in Stuttgart his apartment was bombed out. Bieger, from about September 1944 until January or February of the following year was at the Habrecht Haus. I, myself, during that time was not up there. At the end. of November, Cuhorst bade farewell to the members of the Special Court in Stuttgart because on the first of December he became a soldier in Tuebingen. At the end of November allegedly Bieger had listened to the broadcasting station at London in the big room. Whether Cuhorst told me about that when he left, I no longer remember. It is possible. I saw Cuhorst twice after that: on the 13 January and on the 20 January when he actually left. I should like to assume that it is possible since during those days one also discussed the case Bieger.
I do not remember any details because at that time the case didn't seem important enough to me.
Q I am interested in a few details. Was Bieger a friend of Cuhorst?
A I do not happen to know that Cuhorst knew Bieger before. I did not know Bieger before and Cuhorst lived also in the Habrecht House during that time with his life and child. But I don't think they became friends during that time.
Q Could Cuhorst expect that on the basis of bis denouncement to the Gestapo, the Gestapo chief Muskei, himself, would handle the case?
A For that, today I cannot find any reason because I did not know whether Cuhorst and Muskei had any personal relations.
Q For the purpose of explanation to the Tribunal, in the case of the Bieger affidavit -- we have an affidavit from Document book III-B with the NG No. 80S, and the Exhibit No. 511. Now I shall revert to the affidavit by Frau Renz, the affidavit for the Prosecution Exhibit No. 241, NG No, 795. Witness, what position did Frau Renz have in the Haus, but don't give us any details about the Alpine Club.
A Frau Renz was hired as the innkeeper for the Haus lodge and her husband was also employed there as an assistant to his wife.
Q It is alleged that there wore differences of opinion between Cuhorst and Frau Renz. What can you say in that connection?
A These differences of opinion developed mainly in the fall of 1943 because the Haus was partly confiscated for a school and several rooms had remained for members of the section of the Alpine Club. If I may say so, there were two different parties that lived in the Haus. There was the school on one side, the teacher, the teacher's wife; also Mr. Cuhorst and her daughter lived up there. There were also sources of friction and differences for various reasons.
Q One moment, witness. Are you informed about a misunderstanding which arose between Cuhorst and Frau Renz? Do you happen to know any details about it?
A Well, misunderstandings occurred probably very frequently during the time they lived up there together and altogether during the time when Frau Renz worked there. It wasn't simple to run that Haus.
Q Cuhorst on a very definite occasion drank a bottle of wine in the Habrecht Haus together with friends, and that resulted in the misunderstanding. According to your own statement, will you tell me something about that misunderstanding.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the charge against Cuhorst that you are now attempting to answer?
DR. BRIEGER: From the affidavit by Frau Renz, it can be seen that Frau Renz is very embittered against Cuhorst. I have good reason to clarify that.
THE PRESIDENT: What does she charge him with? What does she accuse him of? We don't have that affidavit before us at the moment.
DR. BRIEGER: Frau Renz states here that Cuhorst frequently, and in great detail, talked to her about his work as presiding judge of the Special Court. Do you have any impressions about that?
THE WITNESS: Well, as the alternate chairman of the section Snabia, I frequently came to the Habrecht Haus and happened to know very well about various occurrences up there.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q Frau Renz charges Cuhorst, and that in my opinion is the most important charge which she mentions, with having incited school boys to mistreat enemy parachutists and even to kill them.
A No. I don't know anything about that.
Q I have reached the end of my examination, and I thank you, witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other direct examination of this witness? There appears to be none. You may cross examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. LAFOLLETTE:
Q Witness, did you sit with the defendant Cuhorst in the Schmidt case, in which lawyer Diesem was the defending attorney?
A No. That case was tried in Stuttgart and in Stuttgart itself I never was an associate judge with Cuhorst presiding.
Q Do you know anything about the conduct of that case? Do you know whether Diesem was stopped in his argument?
AAt that time, I attended the case for a while as a listener and I also listened to Diesem's plea. Diesem stated that that was just a series of minor food thefts. But whether Cuhorst, on the basis of that statement or for any other reason ever interrupted attorney Diesem, I do not know. It is possible, but I cannot remember it.
Q You a re not as positive now as you were on direct examination that Cuhorst never interrupted defense counsel and prevented them from making their defense, are you?
A You ask whether Cuhorst interrupted?
Q I am saying now, do you want to be as positive as you were on direct examination when you said Cuhorst never interrupted?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't understand that the witness said that, Mr. La Follette.
THE WITNESS: I have said before it is known that Cuhorst interrupted defense counsel, but I personally cannot remember a case where it happened. Above all, I no longer know whether or not in the trials which I attended he interrupted. As for other trials, I did not participate in those, and in the case Schmidt, I was -
BY MR. LAFOLLETTE:
Q I understand. I am sorry. Did you know of Louise Togni who was sentenced to death?
A Louise Togni? No, I don't know that case.
Q The case was in the summer of 1942 for plundering. Do you remember that case?
A I do not recall the name. What was it about, please?
Q Well, if you don't remember it, you don't know.
A Maybe I can recall the case, but I do not remember the name.
Q She was an Italian who worked at Ludwigshafen.
A Quite unknown.
Q Do you remember the case of a man named Pitra who was sentenced for having intercourse with a German woman?
A The name is not known to me either.
Q Do you remember a defendant named Kupra who was sentenced to death?
A No, I do not remember that name either. It may be that I know the case, but I do not happen to know the name.
Q Do you know a defendant named Lescinski?
A No, I do hot know that name either.
Q Do you know a defendant named Milch?
DR. BRIEGER: One moment. I see cause and third it is my, duty to protect against these questions by Mr. La Follette because they were not a subject of the direct examination. These cases were not mentioned by me.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is overruled. I think we understand what he is getting at. We will recess now until one-thirty.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 Hours, 8 September 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: In the matter which was presented by the prosecution this morning with reference to the affidavit Gramm, the Tribunal finds it unnecessary to decide the exact question presented. This witness, if called, would not be called for cross examination but for direct examination in rebutted.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Correct.
THE RESIDENT: And if his affidavit were presented, it also would be in the nature of a direct examination used in rebuttal or direct evidence in rebuttal. That being the case, it follows that if the affidavit were received instead of oral testimony, under our practice it would be obligatory upon us, so far as we could, to secure the presence of the affiant for cross examination by the defense. Since we anticipate that at some time it would be necessary for the affiant or the witness to be present personally, we think it is advisable that he should be called by the prosecution in the first instance personally so that both sides may examine him in open Court rather than to receive the affidavit and then be burdened with the obligation of seeking to present him later for cross examination. I think that disposes of the question.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: May I proceed, Your Honor?
DR. MAX HEGELE - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION - Continued BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q Did you ever hear of the case Kadaday or Taladay?
A No, I know nothing of that case.
Q Did you ever hear of the case Funek: F-U-N-E-K?
A I do not remember that name, nor do I know anything about it.
Q Did you ever hear of the case Koudelka?
A No. That is the same tiling with that name. I cannot remember that name. I can't recall it. I don't know what sort of a case that was.
Q All right; did you ever hear of the case Machalski?
A Kelski?
Q Machalski: M-A-C-H-A-L-S-K-I?
A Maybe, but I don't know.
Q Did you ever hear of the case Magritai?
A No, I haven't. No, I can't recall that name.
Q Did you ever hear of the case Goudy: G-O-U-D-Y?
A No. That is the same thing again: no.
Q Did you ever hear of the case Cabor: C-A-B-O-R?
A No. I don't know that name either. Maybe I heard of it and maybe I didn't but I don't recall the name.
Q Did you ever hear of the case of a Pole, Cisalski: C-I-S-A-L-S-K-I?
A I can't recall that name either.
Q Now on the question of the Law Against Poles and Jews, I would like for you to assume with me the existence of certain facts, which I will state to you. Assume that a Polish man, approximately 19, had sexual intercourse with a German woman over 16 years of age; and assume that this Pole was tried by the Special Court Stuttgart and sentenced to death. Now I ask you, assuming those facts, to tell me under what law--criminal law -- that sentence could have been given in the year 1942 in Germany at Stuttgart?
AAssuming those facts, it is possible -- well, that case could only be sentenced under the Law against Poles.
Q And assuming that instead of a death sentence, a prison term of either 8 or 10 years had been given to the same man, under what criminal law in the same year would that sentence have been valid?
A That too only under that law-- the Law Against Poles.
Q Do you remember in the Stiegler case whether or not the whole profit was 700 Reichsmarks?
A No. I cannot remember those details. I was not the judge in charge of reporting.
Q May I ask you, during the time that the defendant Cuhorst sat in the Special Court and the Criminal Senate of the Court of Appeals Stuttgart, No. 1, did or did he not set all the trial dates and appoint the judges in each case?
A Yes. Cuhorst received all the cases that came in and he set all the dates for the trials accordingly. He decided the time, the place, the court, the judge in charge of reporting, and the associate judges.
Q And he did that also for trials in Stuttgart when he was away too on trips, did he not, in advance?
A Concerning official trips, oh, yes, Cuhorst also set the time for the trials for those cases. Yes, he did.
Q And he then had the power to appoint himself as the presiding judge in any case that he chose to preside over?
A Cuhorst, as the presiding judge of the Special Court, had the right to decide who was to be the presiding judge and to appoint himself to be the presiding judge.
Q Did you act as a judge in Poland during the war, and if so, what years?
A In 1941.
Q I will ask you whether or not during the time that you sat as presiding judge in Poland that you sentenced six Jews to death in Warsaw for leaving the Ghetto?
A Yes, I did.
Q That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: In what court were you sitting at the time?
THE WITNESS: That was at the Special Court in Warsaw. May I add a little to that? May I make a few remarks in addition to that?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you may.
THE WITNESS: I wanted to point out that death sentence had to be pronounced on account of a mandatory law which did not allow any extenuating circumstances. May I also point out that law was passed, as we were told at the time, so as to stop the spreading of typhus in the town of Warsaw.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you recall the date of enactment or the title of that law?
THE WITNESS: That was in October, 1941.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean that the law was passed then?
THE WITNESS: In the year 1941
THE PRESIDENT: You don't have the citation to that law, or the title of it?
THE WITNESS: No, I can't tell that with accuracy. The point was that one wanted to prevent typhus from spreading in the town of Warsaw.
THE PRESIDENT: I'm just asking you if you can identify the statute under which you acted.
THE WITNESS: It must have been dated October, 1941, but I don't remember the title of the law.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, that's all.
BY DR. KUBUSCHOK (Defense Counsel for defendant Schlegelberger)
Q Concerning the last question which the prosecution asked you, witness, I would like to ask you this in supplementation. Was that law, a law in the Government General and had it been promulgated by the Governor General at Krakau and did that law, by any chance, have nothing to do with the law issued by the Reich Ministry of Justice? Was it a law enacted by the Governor General which was only enforced there?
A It was a law enacted by the Governor General and was only valid for the Government General.
Q And another question. Was there, in the law against Poles, any provision which said that sexual intercourse between a Pole and a German or vice versa was punishable?
A I don't know.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I object, Your Honor, for the reason that it calls for an opinion of the witness as to the construction of a statute.
THE PRESIDENT: I think he said he didn't know.
Your answer was that you didn't know, wasn't it?
THE WITNESS: I don't recall that.
THE PRESIDENT: Redirect examination.
DR. BRIEGER: Your Honor, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is executed.
DR. BRIEGER: May I now call my next witness?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
(DR. JUR. MAX STUBER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:)
JUDGE HARDING: Raise your right hand and repeat after me the following oath:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath)
You may be seated.
DR. BRIEGER: May it please the court, may I beg to examine my witness for the defendant Cuhorst? His name is Dr. Stuber.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BRIEGER (Defense Counsel for defendant Cuhorst):
Q Witness, please tell the court your full name.
A Dr. jur. Max Stuber.
Q And when and where were you born?
A I was born on the 16th of August, 1891 at Lautheim, Kreisbiberach.
Q Are you a free man? What is your address?
A Yes, I'm a free man and my address is Stuttgart S, Hohenheimerstrasse 52.
Q Now, I want to ask you, for how long were you with the penal senate at the district court of appeal?
A It was at the beginning of 1937 - in fact, it was on the 1st of February, 1937 - that I was assigned to work with the district court of appeals. Then I was assigned to work at the penal senate.
Q For how long did you work at the special court at Stuttgart as a judge?
A I think it was at the end of 1939, it may have been at the beginning of 1940, when I was also assigned for work in a secondary senate as a judge at the special court.
Q Were you a member of the Nazi Party and since when?
A Since the 1st of May 1933 I was a member of the Nazi Party.
Q Did Herr Cuhorst try to exert any political influence on the judges who worked with him?
AAccording to my experience, never. He never tried with me and I never heard of him trying it with other people.
Q Did he try to make any judges join the Party?
A No, he didn't. I do not know anything about it.
Q Was the special court an independent court from the point of view of organization?
A The special court Stuttgart was set up with the district court of Stuttgart. It was a division of the district court just as the penal chamber and the civil chamber.
Q Did the special court deal more with general criminal cases or did it deal more with political criminal cases?
A To begin with, at the time when I was not yet with the special court, I think mainly political cases were dealt with and, later on, as the war progressed, the special court more and more took over the dealing with general cases and therefore political cases were no longer in the majority.
Q Was it like this -- that since the outbreak of war, dealing with political cases took over secondary importance?
A Yes, according to my experience, that was so.
Q Did the jurisdiction of the penal senate become more stringent or milder with the appointment of Herr Cuhorst as presiding judge of the penal senate?
A Well, before Herr Cuhorst was the presiding judge of the penal chamber, generally speaking, the penal senate dealt, in the first instance, only with the preparation of cases of high treason. If I am to make a comparison with cases were the circumstances were more or less similar, I am bound to say that since the time when Cuhorst became presiding judge, jurisdiction in cases of that type definitely became milder than it had been before.
Q Were you in a position to make observations concerning the jurisdiction of the first penal senate under Cuhorst and the second senate?
A Yes.
Q Please tell us something about that.
AApproximately at the middle of 1943 - I can't tell you the exact date--I began to work for the second penal senate too and at the very first sessions there and as long as I worked there I found that the second penal senate, in cases of undermining military morale - and those were the cases which the second senate tried mainly - it didn't deal with any cases of preparation of cases for high treason - in those cases the sentences of the second senate were much more severe than the sentences of the first penal senate. The second penal senate adhered more to the severe jurisdiction.
Q Can you give us a few examples?
A It is difficult to name any examples because there were so many cases. All I can say is that I was opposed to those severe sentences, particularly in cases of underlining military morale. I was opposed to sentences to that severe extent. At the first session I attended, I found that at the second penal senate, facts which were more serious than they had been in the cases with which I had dealt at the special court - sometimes when I was presiding judge or sometimes when somebody else was presiding judge - I found in such cases that the second senate assumed that it was a case of undermining military morale when, with the same facts, the special court had assumed that it was only an offense under the malicious acts law.
THE PRESIDENT: At the special court, you mean?
THE WITNESS: No, I was speaking of the penal senate.
THE PRESIDENT: You were comparing the severity of the second senate of the district court of appeals, were you not; with what court? You were comparing the second senate of the court of appeals with what other court? Were you comparing it with the........
THE WITNESS: With the first penal senate and also with the special court, to a certain extent because the borderline between undermining military morale and the malicious acts law was very vague, and there were some cases which could been regarded as undermining military morale and the special court sometimes regarded those as if they had been malicious acts. Some were indicted with the special court and sometimes with the district court of appeals with the penal senate there.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q May I assume that you are familiar with the decree of the Reich Ministry of Justice of the 5th of July 1944 which was addressed to the District Court of Appeals at Stuttgart?
A Yes. We judges received that decree at the time. I believe that I received it from the president of the district court of appeals. It was circulated. I read it and, to me, it seemed that was a very important document. I immediately had several copies made and I kept various copies in different places and saved the decree from destruction by putting these copies in different places. Later on, I gave a copy of that decree to one of my colleagues just before the American troops arrived in Stuttgart.
Q What effect did that decree have on the judges concerned at Stuttgart? What effect did it have on them in general and particularly on Cuhorst?
A Well, I told myself "It's just another decree from Berlin and Berlin, of course, is not satisfied with the sentences we have passed on cases of undermining military morale.
The First penal senate is too mild." I personally didn't waste any time on it. I didn't worry about it. I already knew the opinion of people in Berlin. It didn't make much impression on me personally. It was just another decree. I thought definitely that the first penal senate and my work was being criticized and were being criticized pretty sharply.
Q If, in this decree, the jurisdiction of the first penal senate was criticized as being much too mild, was that right, in particular if I refer to your earlier statements?
A Yes, the sentences passed by the first penal senate were mild. The first penal senate always, whenever possible, whenever the facts allowed it, tried not to assume that undermining of military morale had been committed but tried to assume the milder case - tried to apply other laws and, paragraph 134-A, if possible, tried to acquit people.
Q That is enough for me on that point.
Did Cuhorst, during the last few years of the war at Stuttgart preside on Saturdays?
A I can't say with absolute certainty but, as far as I know, during the last few years of the war, Cuhorst on Saturdays, as a rule, went for the weekend to Habrecht House where his wife and child were, and as far as I remember, did not much try cases on Saturday. Perhaps he didn't try any cases on Saturday. I can't tell you for certain.
Q What is the distance from Cuhorst's office to the judges' chamber at the special court?
A I must just try and estimate.
Q Just tell us how many steps?
A Well, I think it is a rough estimate in 1945......
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if you please, shorten up your answers. Give us an estimate in feet or miles and then stop.
THE WITNESS: Well, I estimate about fifteen to twenty meters, but the distance might have been shorter. I really can't tell you for certain. Maybe it was more than twenty meters.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you have answered sufficiently.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. Was it a habit with Cuhorst to talk to third persons on the way from one room to another, and did he ever have discussions about people? In particular, did he ever talk loudly about pending cases or sentences he intended to pass?
A. I didn't quite understand your question.
Q. Well, I'll split up the question.
On that way, was it Cuhorst' habit to discuss official matters with other judges or public prosecutors?
A. I can't really answer that question and the reason is that quite seldom, I hardly ever walked that distance with Cuhorst because my office was in a quite different part of the building.
THE PRESIDENT: That is sufficient.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. Did you have any opportunity to notice whether Cuhorst talked to other people on that way or whether he talked about official matters?
A. I didn't hear it. Therefore, I cannot tell you.
Q. Was it a habit with Cuhorst to discuss such matters in the lavoratory?
A. That I can't state, either.
THE PRESIDENT: You don't know because you weren't always with him in the lavatory, were you, and, therefore, you don't know? Isn't that your answer?
THE WITNESS: No, I never was. I really can't tell you that. I just can't know.