DR. KOESSL: Thank you. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other direct examination? You may cross examine.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
DR. SCHUBERT: May it please the Court, I have to submit three document books and two small supplements. I have just asked to have the document brought here and ask to be permitted to wait a few minutes. They will be here right away. May I begin with Document Book 3, Your Honor ?
THE PRESIDENT: What was your last exhibit number? 81?
DR. SCHUBERT: 81; yes. May I begin now?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I was going to ask you if you could introduce them with as much expedition as possible.
DR. SCHUBERT: In Document Book 3, 4, and 5 there are excerpts from court files, and in some individual eases explanations from the legal literature and supplements of a similar nature. The furst document in Document Book No. 3 is No. 71 an excerpt from the files in the case against Boehm. First the indictment. I refer to its first page, from which it can be seen that the Prosecution demanded the death sentence. Then there is the verdict, Document No. 71 is submitted as Exh. 82.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. SCHUBERT: In connection with that case I submit as Document 46 an extract from administrative regulations concerning criminal law dealing with the theft of goods on the Reichsbank, Document 46 as Exh. 83.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Also concerning the case Boehm, Document 32 to be Exhibit 84 a decesion by the Reich Supreme Court, where the Supreme Court pronounced the death sentence for continued thefts in a case where the nullity plea had been filed.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Also Document 87 belongs to the Boehm case. Also a decision of the Reich Supreme Court.
I offer it as Exhibit 85.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Document 152 offered as Exh. 86 deals with the case Giani and Sala. The first part of the document contains the indictment. I should like to draw the attention of the Court to Page 3 of the indictment. That is Page 16 of Document No 3. At about the middle of that page there is the motion made by the Prosecution to appoint a defense counsel for the accused Giani and Sala. That mean that the prosecution intended to demand death sentences for these two defendants. Then there are a few extracts from the police interrogation records which support the statement made by the witnesses, and then the sentence.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Document No. 50 offered as Exh. 87 is an extract from the files of the case against Irmgard Hofmann. On Page 31 of the Document Book there is the sentence, on Page 37 the decree the motion granting the motion for reopening of the case, and finally the decision to disallow the motion for reopening of the trial.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. SCHUBERT: The next document, 64, is offered as Exh, 88, an extract from the files of the Jankovic case. The first document contains proof that the warrant was served to the defendant Jankovic. The second document is a report by the administrative of the prison, according to which Jankovic had fled, and on Page 42 I am submitting an extract from the indictment of the following reason. The Prosecution has already submitted in evidence the indictment in the case Jankovic, but in the document submitted by the Prosecution from the stereotyped form of the indictment the passage appointment of defense counsel has been copied with out being crossed out, which permits the assumptions that the Prosecution actually asked for a defense counsel to be appointed. In fact, however, as one can see from the files, that was not the case, but on the form the motion for appointment of defense counsel is just crossed out.
Then I come to my Document No. 63, the sentences of the Special Court in the case Koch, offered as Exhibit 89.
TEE PRESIDENT: ** and 89 will be received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Document Do. 74 is offered as Exhibit 90. It is an extract from the files of the case Collischan. I refer particularly to the first document of that extract, according to which the General Public Prosecutor issued a directive to the Senior Public Prosecutor to demand the death sentence.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Document 53 is offered as Exhibit 91. It is an extract from the files of the case against Katharina Meyer. It contains the death sentence.
Document No. 70 is offered as Exhibit 92. It is an extract from the files of the case Pirner.
THE PRESIDENT: 91 end 92 are received.
DR. SCHUBERT: In this indictment, may I point out that on Page 67 of the document book, the prosecution in the case of Pirner referred to Paragraph 1 of the amended law. Document 53 also has to do with the case Pirner; it is offered as Exhibit 93. Document 153 is an extract from German law. Furthermore, I submit document 80 as Exhibit 94, an extract from the Juvenile Court Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. SCHUBERT: The two following documents, I do not submit, because they have nothing to do with the case as such.
THE PRESIDENT: Which ones?
DR. SCHUBERT: Documents 159 and 146. These documents deal with a law which was not applied in the sentence of that case. However, the Document 162, which I offer as Exhibit 95. still refers to the Primer case.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Also Document 111, which I offer as Exhibit 96.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. SCHUBERT: And Document No. 43, offered as Exhibit 97, is a decision by the Reich Supreme Court - a decision as early as 1908 which states that in the case of a criminal who has committed his criminal act partly before the 18th and partly after the 16th birthday, the Juvenile Law cannot be applied.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 97 is received.
DR. SCHUBERT: May I be permitted to point out to the Court in this connection that Article 57 of the Penal Code, which is mentioned here, was the provision enforced at that time, in 1908. It was later replaced by the Juvenile Court Law. Document No. 66 is offered as Exhibit 93; it is an extract from the files of the case Schnaus. It contains the indictment, the sentence, and an opinion rendered by the General Public Prosecutor concerning the clemency question.
Document 137 offered as Exhibit 00, also relates to the case Schnaus. Likewise, Document 128, offered as Exhibit 100, a decision by the Reich Supreme Court. Also, the decision contained in the Document 77 offered as Exhibit 101 still relates to the case Schnaus.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please. 98, 99, 100 and 101 are received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Document No. 48 is an extract from the files of the Sponsel case. Since some of the files have already been submitted by the prosecution, I only submit the indictment and emphasize that according to Page 1 of that indictment, the prosecution demanded the death sentence. It is offered as Exhibit 102.
THE PRESIDENT: It's received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Also in connection with the case Sponsel, I offer Document No. 39 as Exhibit 103, which contains principal rules concerning the thefts of field post mail. Also, Document No. 10, offered as Exhibit 104, is a decision by the Reich Supreme Court concerning field post thefts. Document 86, offered as Exhibit 105, likewise is a decision by the Reich Supreme Court.
THE PRESIDENT: 104 and 105 are received.
DR. SCHUBERT: May I ask if the Tribunal has already decided about the exhibits 102 and 103?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. They are received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Document 184 is offered as Exhibit 106. It is the sentence against Barth and others. That case was mentioned by the prosecution in connection with the Sponsel case.
THE PRESIDENT: It's received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Document 164 is offered as Exhibit 107. It is an extract from the so-called Leipzig Commentary, which was frequently quoted here. These statements refer to the case which was dealt with here, a case in which foreigners had picked, up food ration points which had been dropped from airplanes.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Document 165, offered as Exhibit 108, is an extract from a Judge's Letter and also refers to the use made of ration points drooped by Allied planes. The same applies to Document 11, offered as Exhibit 109.
THE PRESIDENT: 108 and 109 are received.
DR. SCHUBERT: As well, is Document ll4, which is offered as Exhibit 110.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. SCHUBERT: This concludes the submission of Document Book III . May I begin with Document Book IV now? Document Book IV contains cases of habitual criminals; whereas Volume III dealt with the Public Enemy Decree. The first extract is that of the case Bachhuder, Document 79, offered s Exhibit 111. Page 1 of that extract shows that the prosecution intended to demand the death sentence. Page 2 of the indictment is where a notation can be found.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Document 132 relates to the case Bachhuber. It is offered as Exhibit 112.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Also, Document 83, affidavit by Bachhuber's defense counsel.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honors, with respect to the document just offered, the affidavit Kroher, that affiant wan cross examined here on the 22 of May by defense counsel, on the same case in which this present affidavit is offered. I object to the affidavit on the grounds that the witness was here and available and could have been made the defense's own witness, if they so chose.
DR. SCHUBERT: May it please the Court, may I replay to this? What the prosecutor has just said is essentially true. The witness Kroher was here. He had given an affidavit to the prosecution, and on the basis of that affidavit, I cross examined him. At the time when I conducted, the cross examination of the witness, I did not have in my possession the files of the Bachhuber case. I had not received them at that time from the prosecution. When I received them at a later date, I found out that the statements made by Kroher in the affidavit given to the prosecution were incorrect. Thereupon, I asked attorney Kroher to look at the files. Attorney Kroher, without my asking him, told me that he intended to correct these statement, whereupon he gave me that affidavit which I offer as Document 83 to the Tribunal. That affidavit, therefore, serves to avoid a mistake which the witness incurred in good faith, and it also serves to establish the facts, such as they actually occurred. Therefore, I believe that the acceptance of this affidavit should not fail for formal reasons.
THE PRESIDENT: What was the date of his examination before?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The 22nd of May, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Was that before the commission?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess until one-thirty this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing recovened at 1330 hours, 15 September 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Before you proceed with your documents--some days ago, the Tribunal, in open court, stated the imperative necessity for the making of a proper application without delay in the event that any witnesses who had been approved by tho Tribunal should be desired by counsel for tho defense, from zones outside of the American zone in Germany. The application which Dr. Schilf has presented does not comply with the requirements which we set forth. It does not set forth the evidence from which it is possible for the Tribunal to determine whether the documents or the evidence desired is material or necessary to tho proper presentation of the defense under the provisions of Rule 12 of this Tribunal.
I call attention to that fact. The Tribunal has just, after great difficulty, received information--but inadequate information--concerning these requests for witnesses and documents. We are preparing as order which merely attaches to the order the application of Dr. Schilf with the request and the direction to the Secretary-General to take such steps as are required and provided for in Rule 12, Paragraphs (c) and (d), in an attempt at this late hour to secure the witnesses who have been requested. If they are not found, counsel will have no ground for objection.
Tho Tribunal is doing everything in its power to secure them, notwithstanding tho fact that we do not have the detailed information which the rules require previous to the making of this order. I might add that the only information that there is in this application is by reference to applications which were made and approved and have been filed in the archives at different times over a period of many weeks. It certainly was asking too much of the Tribunal to check all of these applications. We have done the best we can, and the order will be issued and will go to Berlin to the Control Council for such help as we may be able to obtain from them as to the witnesses who are outside of this zone.
Now you may proceed.
The objection which was made to the last affidavit which was offered is overruled. The exhibit is received.
Exhibit 113 is received. Exhibit 112 is also received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Document 183, Exhibit 114, is an excerpt from files from the Bauer case. I refer you to page 14 of the Document Book which contains the indictment. On the first page it says that the prosecution intended to ask for the death sentence. The document also contains the sentence which was passed.
The next document, No. 73, will be Exhibit 115. It contains a motion for evidence by the defendant Becker. I included that motion in the document because attorney Kern, in his affidavit, Exhibit 232, complained that his motion for evidence had not been allowed. From the record taken at the trial, which was also incorporated in my document, one can see that Attorney Kern at the trial did not make a further motion for evidence I offer Exhibit 115.
THE PRESIDENT: 114 and 115 are received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Document 182 will be Exhibit 116. It contains the indictment and the verdict in the case against Fluhrer. I refer you to Page 2 of the Document, Page 36 in my document book, where you will see that the defendant Fluhrer was convicted under Article 1 of the so-called Amendment Law.
The next document also relates to the Fluhrer case. The number of this document is 20, and the exhibit number will be 117. It contains extracts from the decision by the Supreme Reich Court. Document 51 will be Exhibit 118. It contains extracts from the files of the Friedchen case. It contains the sentence, and also on Page 1, two documents from the proceedings of the prosecution, which show that the prosecution asked for the death sentence on Friedchen.
The next document, No. 97, also relates to the Friedchen case. Its exhibit number will be 119. This is a decision by the Reich Supreme Court which emphasizes that it does not matter whether a habitual criminal only got away with small proceeds at his last offense.
The next document, 163, which I am offering as Exhibit 120, also relates to the Friedchen case and to some other cases which follow. They contain basic statements from the Leipzig Commentary, which I have quoted several times, and they relate to Article 51 of the Penal Code; in particular, concerning the question of mitigating circumstances under Article 51 Section 2.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibits 116, 117, 118, 119 and 120 are received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Document 34, which will be Exhibit 121 also relates to the Friedchen case and other cases where mental deficiencies play a part. This is a decision by the Supreme Reich Court, which was a basic decision for the interpretation of Article 5l Section 2.
THE PRESIDENT: It's received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Document 98, which I am offering as Exhibit 122, also contains a decision by the Reich Supreme Court concerning Article 51; and Document No. 30, which will be Exhibit 123, contains a decision by the Reich Supreme Court which was passed in connection with the problem constituted by Article 51 Section 2 concerning habitual criminals.
THE PRESIDENT: 122 and 123 are received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Document No. 40 relates to the same problem. I am offering this document as Exhibit 124.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. SCHUBERT: It contains extracts from the book of criminal law and deals with the problem of Article 51 Section 2 and the amending law.
The last document which is concerned with this problem is No. 150. It exhibit number will be 125. It contains extracts from Professor Schoenke's Criminal Code published in 1947. It shows that the basic decisions made by the Reich Supreme Court, which I quoted before, still valid in German legal practice today.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
MR. SCHUBERT: Document 190 will be Exhibit 126. This document contains extracts from the files in the Fuchsbauer case. The file consists of the indictment and the verdict. On page 71 of my document book we can see from the indictment that the prosecution filed the indictment against the defendant under Article I of the amended law.
Document 188 will be exhibit 127. It contains extracts from the Gruber case. The files contain the indictment and the verdict. I should like to refer you to page 1 of the indictment, where it is said that the prosecution intended to ask for the death sentence.
The last document in this book, No. 107, I am offering was Exhibit 128. These are extracts from the Hahn case. The files also contain the indictment and the verdict.
On page 1 of this indictment too, we can see that the prosecution intended to ask for the death sentence.
THE PRESIDENT: These exhibits are received. All of the exhibits arc received.
DR. SCHUBERT: May I now pass on to Document Book 5. The first document in this book is No. 171, which is offered as 129.
This contains the indictment from the Mahr case; on page 1 of the indictment we see that the prosecution again intended to ask for the death sentence. There follows the transcript from the trial.
On page 6 of the transcript, I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that the defense counsel of the defendant himself asked that the defendant be taken to safety custody, that is to say, the defense counsel himself regarded his client as a dangerous habitual criminal.
I am offering this document as 129.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Document 136 deals with the same case. It will be exhibit 130 . This contains a decision by the Reich Supreme Court dealing with the Mahr case.
Document 55 will be Exhibit 131. It contains the verdict in the Pritschet case, and the opinion of the prosecution concerning the clemency plea to which the defendant Oeschey referred when he was on the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Document 62 will become Exhibit 132. It concerns excerpts from the files of the Reigelbauer case. It contains the expert opinion of the expert.
Document 112 will become Exhibit 133. It contains excerpts from the files of the Strobel case which has been discussed here many times.
On page 29 and the following pages, it contains the transcript from the first trial. On page 32 and following pages, you will find the transcript from the second trial.
On page 35 and the following, there is the verdict, and finally, on page 44, you will find a report which was sent by the public prosecutor in between the first and the second trial.
I am offering this document as Exhibit 133.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. SCHUBERT: The next document, 147, which will be exhibit 134 also deals with the Strobel case. It contains the decision by the Reich Supreme Court to which the defendant Oeschey referred.
This dates back to the year 1383. At that time the Reich Supreme Court ruled that in a case of several trials being held, it is sufficient that at the end of the first trial, the attention of the defendant is drawn once to the fact that the legal point of view has undergone a change.
The next document, No. 33, relates to the same problem. It contains an excerpt from Loewe, on the Code of Criminal Procedure. I am offering this document as Exhibit 135.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Document 185; which will become Exhibit 136, also refers to the Strobel. case. It contains a decision by the Reich Supreme Court on the question as to whether it is necessary to explain finally that a defendant has a criminal inclination, or it is necessary to refer to offense which are not identical with the last offense by the defendant The following documents deal with the clemency of the W Dowen case.
Document 149, Exhibit 137, is the last document which I intend to offer. It contains police transcripts concerning the interrogation of Kaminska-Wdowen It also contains the opinion by the court expert. The transcripts of expert opinions were not contained in the extracts of the files the prosecution presented.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibits 136 and 137 are received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Document 109 will be Exhibit 138. This is an excerpt from the book on Criminal Law, and deals particularly with the question of what objects are regarded as identical with the weapons within the meaning of the law against violent criminals.
Document 105 deals with the same problem. The exhibit number will be 139.
This contains a decision by the Supreme Court of Breslau.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibits 138 and 139 are received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Document 104. which will be exhibit 140, also deals with the same problem. It contains a decision by the Reich Supreme Court according to which a hard blow with the fist may be regarded as equally dangerous as the use of weapons.
Document 129, which I am offering as Exhibit 142, also relates to the same problem.
THE PRESIDENT: 129?
DR. SCHUBERT: 129.
THE PRESIDENT: 129, 140, 141 and 142 are received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Document 100 will be exhibit 143. It is an excerpt from a decision by the Reich Supreme Court concerning Article 1 of the law against violent criminals.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. SCHUBERT: The decisions and extracts which I have introduced so far referred to the Kaminska case. The following two documents relate to the Wdowen case. Document 127, which will become Exhibit 144, contains an excerpt from German Criminal Law, which deals with the scope of the Public Enemy Law, and states that foreigners too are subject to the Public Enemy Law.
Document 134, which will become Exhibit 145, deals with the problem of exploiting wartime conditions. The following four documents contain affidavits which relate to the case of Wdowen.
Dr. SCHUBERT: Document 195, I am offering as Exhibit 146, Document 194, as Exhibit 147; Document 196 as Exhibit 148--
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please. Exhibits 144 to 148, inclusive are received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Your Honor, Document 198 which I offered as Exhibit 149 has that been received?
THE PRESIDENT: 198?
DR. SCHUBERT: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 149 is received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Document 75 deals with the Art case. It contains excerpts from the files containing the indictment and the verdict. I refer to page 1 of the document which contains a note from the indictment according to which the prosecution asked for the death sentence.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Document 52 will become Exhibit 151. It contains excerpts from the files of the Fischer case.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. SCHUBERT: It contains the verdict.
Document 94 will become Exhibit 152. This exhibit relates to a case which has been discussed here many times. It is the Therese Mueller case.
The prosecution has also introduced extracts from the files of that case.
The document which am now introducing relates above all to the question as to how far the Special Court was bound by the decision of the Reich Supreme Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. SCHUBERT: The following two documents relate to the von Praun case.
The first document I offer is Document 38, the exhibit number 153.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. SCHUBERT: The difference between the malicious acts and the undermining of the defense is exercised here.
Document 119 will become Exhibit 154. It contains a decree by the Reich Minister of Justice, according to which, in the von Praun case too, the court dealt with it accordingly by not transferring it, but merely discontinuing the proceedings and passing on the files to the Chief Reich Prosecutor with the Peoples' Court for his scrutiny.
The next document number 54, which will become Exhibit 155, relates to the Scheck case. It contains the indictment which shows that Scheck was regarded by the prosecution as having committed a particularly serious crime, and the prosecution referred to a provision which provided for the death sentence.
THE PRESIDENT: Documents 155 and 156 are received.
DR. SCHUBERT: Document 144 will become Exhibit 156.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please. 156 is received.
That is Document 144?
DR. SCHUBERT: 144, yes.
This document concerns the Guentner case, which has been discussed here, and particularly during cross-examination.
The last page of this document, shows that the prosecution intended to ask for the death sentence. There is one document which appears in a supplementary volume that belongs to Book V. I do not know whether it ought to go with this volume.
THE PRESIDENT: It has to go with this volume?
DR. SCHUBERT: This supplementary document, No. 199, contains an afidavit by Johann Dirscherl. The Civilian Court Martial had acquitted him. It was a case which was mentioned here. I am offering this document as Exhibit 157.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. SCHUBERT: I have another supplementary document which belongs with Book 1, and that is my last document. This is my document 200, This is an affidavit which relates to the letter which has been discussed here a great deal, concerning the Doebig affair.
I am offering my document 200 as Exhibit 158.
THE PRESIDENT:Exhibit 158 is received.
DR. SCHUBERT: May it please the Court I have now concluded presenting my evidence on behalf of my client, Oeschey.
THE PRESIDENT: The Oeschey case rests.
You may proceed with the next case.
Josef Alstoctter, a witness, for the defense, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Repeat this oath after me?
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. ORTH:
Q. I am calling the defendant, Altstoetter as a witness on his own behalf.
Where and when were you born?
A. I was born on the 4th of January, 1892, in Griesbach, Lower Bavaria.
Q. You have deposed an affidavit about your career?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that affidavit is correct concerning your career?
A. Yes, that affidavit is correct, but I interposed my memory, and it is possible that various dates concerning the day or the month are not absolutely accurate, but my personal files, which the prosecution has introduced as Exhibit 405, show the dates.
Q. Please tell the Tribunal, briefly, what your career was.
A. From March 1921, until July, 1927, I worked at the Bavarian Ministry of Justice. There I spent 50 per cent of my time and the remainder of my time I spent on cases of civil law, in particular in cases of law of procedure.
From July 1927 until November, 1929, I worked at the Reich Ministry of Justice, where I was an assistant. I worked in the division of both civil law and the administration of civil law.
From the 1st of December 1929 until the first of May 1931, I was Oberamtrichteratsenthofen in the Allgaeu.
From the 1st of May , 1931 until the fist of June, 1932 I was at the District Court Counsellor at the Bavarian Ministry of Justice, and I worked as a Clerk concerning notaries. I also gave some official courses to referendars.
From the 1st of June, 1932, until the outbreak of the war, I was a Judge at the Reich Supreme Court in Leipsiz. I belonged to that court until I was called to work at the Reich Ministry of Justice, that is, until I was appointed Ministerial Director.
During the war my part was purely formal because from the 21st of August, 1939 onward until the beginning of January, 1943, I served with the armed forces.
From February or perhaps March, 1943, until the collapse I was Ministerial Director and head of a department at the Reich Ministry of Justice. I was in charge of the department for civil law, and the administration of civil law.
Q. From 1932 until 1939 you worked at the Reich Supreme Court; is that correct?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Did you work in the civil senates or the penal senates at the Reich Supreme Court?
A. From the 1st of June, 1932, until the first of April, 1933, I worked in various civil senates; sometimes I worked at three civil senates constantly. From the 1st of April, 1933, until the beginning of 1935, I first worked at the second penal senate for revision, and afterwards at the fifth senate fer revision. Since the beginning of 1935 I work as a member of the third civil senate of the Reich Supreme Court and that year I also become a member of the Reich Labor Court.
Q. Then, you spent about seven years with the Reich Supreme Court, and of those seven years about two years were spent in the penal senate.
A. Yes.
Q. It it correct if on the basis of that fact, and the remaining period of your professional corner, I assume that civil law is your special field.
A. Yes.
Q. Did that make itself felt during your entire professional career?
A. Yes, you can tell that from y careet because not doubt that local point was with the civil law, and it is also true, as shown from the fact that all the time, even before 1933, I had written books on that subject, had compiled a commentary on that subject of civil law.
Q. From the 1st of April, 1933, until the spring of 1935, you belonged to the penal senate. Were any political cases tried by those penal senates?
A. No, I cannot remember one case which in any way had a political coloring or any political flavoring whatsoever. Naturally, it all depended on what one understand by political.
Q. What were the tasks of the penal senate to which you belonged?
A. The penal senates had to decide about the legal recourse to be taken against verdicts passed by the court of assizes; every senate in connection with errors of the district court of appeal, which were allotted to each senate, and we dealt with the area of the District Court of Appeal Berlin. The fifth penal senate dealt mainly with the district of the District Court of Appeal of Duesseldorf. There were also some special cases such as embezzlement, monoply offenses, foreign currency offenses, etc.
Q. From 1933 you belonged to the third civil senate of the Reich Supreme Court. What cases did that civil senate deal with?
A. As from 1935 I belonged to the civil senate. The third civil senate dealt mainly with decisions concerning the legal recourse in the case of verdicts passed by the district courts of appeal all over Germany. It dealt with contracts, it dealt with the claim of civil servants for pay, pension, etc,; and in particular it dealt with claims for compensation in the case of public corporations. It dealt with negligence of official duty in the case of civil servants, etc.
Q. Did that senate deal with political penal cases which in the course of the trial were or been considered criminal?
A. No.
Q. What was the attitude of the Supreme Reich Court concerning the party, and did the Reich Supreme Court in any way allow itself to be influenced by party agencies or state agencies?
A. In the case of decisions by the Reich Supreme Court, the basis of the decisions always was the law which was in effect, and without paying any regard to political opinions of the day. I personally never saw anybody try to influence the Reich Supreme Court. I am firmly convinced that every senate of the Reich Supreme Court would have repudiated any attempt at influence.