The Sun.
London, England, 1864-10-07 00:00:00

The Great Polish Trial at Berlin.

The translation of the Dzialynski memoranda was read on
the 26th, after which the experts were called to decide as to
whether certain documents were written by Count Dzia-
lynski and M. Gultry. They stated it to be their opinion
that these documents might have been written by the gen-
tlemen in question.
A student named Hoppe was then brought forward as a
witness. He deposed that last year he went, with 50 fellow..
students, into the kingdom of Poland, where he first joined
Mielencki's detachment, and afterwards those of Fanchenx
and Taczanowski. He was afterwards wounded and taken
prisoner by the Russians.
President—Why did you go to Russia ?
Witness—To fight.
President—Was it stated in camp that, after conquering
the Russians, Prussia would be attacked ?

Witness--I hoard no such statement.
President—Did any one persuade you to go ?

Witness—No.

A witness named Hoffmann then deposed that ho had
been enlisted at Posen for the insurrection by M. S. Blociss
zewski, whom, however, he could not point out among the
accused. M. Lent then proved that the witness had con-
fessed forgery.
The Court retired, and resumed shortly after, announcing
the temporary liberation of M. Blociszewski, but rejecting
the motion for the liberation of Messrs. Zakrzewski and
Jarzenbowski.

Messrs. Prondznski, Hulewicz, and Wilkonsk were then
examined. They denied having belonged to the insurrection,
which they regarded as an unfortunate consequence of
Russian tyranny, and added that they knew of no hostile
intentions towards Prussia among the insurgents.
On the 27th several witnesses were examined in the Re-
kowski case, from whose evidence it appeared that M. Re-
kowski had neither paid money nor given arms to the insur-
gents, who used the high road, passing through his estate
on their way to the kingdom of Poland.

Other witnesses in the cases of MM. Radziminski and
Prondzyneki gave similar evidence, after which Messrs
Deycks.and Janecki proposed the liberation of Messrs Pron.
dzynski and ltekowski, which, hcAvever, was refused by the
Court.

M. Rekowski was then examined. He denied having
assisted the insurrection, but admitted that Fancheux lay
wounded in his house for a few days. The so-called report
found among the Dzialynski papers was only a private letter
addressed to an old friend of his. The depositions of several
witnesses was then road, from which it appeared that no
volunteers had assembled on his estate, and that Prussian
troops were stationed there after March 12, 1853.
M. Plucinski, accused of having acted as military com-
missioner, denied the charge. He admitted that he had
given money to volunteers, but added that he had never
enlisted any. He did not receive any Englishmen at Czem-
piny, or any officers from Cracow.

Messrs K. Wenclewski, F. Matecki, and J. Majewski,
accused of having assisted the insurrection in various ways,
also declared their innocence.

The Court then rejected the motion of M. Brachwogel for
the liberation of M. Rekowski.

On the 28th ult. a landowner named Kantak, a member
of the Prussian Chamber, was examined as to the tendencies
of the Central Agricultural Society of Posen. He deposed
that the objects of the society were purely agricultural;
that it numbered many Germans among its members, and
that he was its secretary. He added that he was firmly
convinced that the Polish insurrection was neither directed
against Prussia, nor would ever be so directed, and that the
agricultural society had not taken any port in political
matters.

M. L, Smitkowski denied the charge against him of his
having acted as civil commissioner. He admitted having
collected money for the families of wounded insurgents at
the request of the agricultural society. His statement was
confirmed by witnesses.

Similar evidence was given by M. Skrzydlewski.
Count Kwilecki, M. Kierski, and M. Koscielski, accused
of belcnging to the secret organisation, were then examined.
All three denied the charge against them.
A witness named Solecki then gave evidence, which was
totally opposed to that which he had given in the prelimi-
nary examination. -Upon this several of the accused stated
that during his examination every effort was made to obtain
depositions from the witnesses against the accused.
The President—Accusations of this kind should be made
in another place.
M. Elven—l am of opinion that the accused should be
permitted to make such statements when the matter affects
their own interests. In a trial of this kind the public ser-
vice demands such explanations. If the charge is correct,
the grievance should be removed; if incorrect, the truth
should be clearly shown.

President—The truth should be elicited, but this is not
the proper place for doing so. I close the discussion.

The R itness Solecki was then indicted as " suspected of
perjury,"
and the Court decided that Count Kwilecki be
liberated, M. Radziminski being still detained in prison.
On the `.49th the accused, M. Mielencki, stated that he
had been wrongly reported in the newspapers as having
acknowledged that he had collected 400 volunteers and led
them to the frontier.

M. Lisiecki then submitted that M. Smithowaki be libe-
rated, as there were no proofs against him. The Court post-
poned its decision.

A discussion next took place as to whether or not ibbe
Jarochowski had passed sight or nine times through Mys•
lowice on his way to Cracow. The witnesses brought for-
ward by the prosecution failed to establish the abbe's iden-
tity, and he proved that he had only 01103 gone to Cracow
to take back his younger brother, who wished to join the
insurrection.

The experts on the side of the defence in the Niegoleweki
case then said that, after examination of the documents
attributed to him, they found they were not in his hand-
writing.

The President direcled the experts for the prosecution to
give their reasons for arriving at a different conclusion.
Professor Cybolski next deposed that a document put in
by the prosecution, purporting to be signed by Dr Niego-
lewski, was written in such bad Polish that no Polo could
be its author.

M. Elven—ln No: 120 of the German Posen Gamete of
Sept. 8, 1863, there is a loading article which speaks with
great animosity of Dr Niegolewski, and makes very grave
accusations against him. lam now in a position to prove
that the article is a reprint of the indictment of Herr von
Baerensprung, director of the Posen police. This fact is
not only of great importance to the accused, Niegolewski,
but also for the right understanding of the whole matter, as
each special charge begins with the reports of the Posen
police, I therefore move that the report contained in the
documents against the accused Jasinski be read, which will
fully confirm my statement.

The Crown prosecutor opposed the motion, as no proof
could be given that the article was printed with the know-
ledge of the police authorities, or that its publication was
not an abuse of confidence.
M. Elven—ln that case the authorities would of course
have disclaimed the responsibility of the article.
The Court decided against M. Elven's motion, and also
against that for the liberation of MM. Smithowski and
Jarechowski.
The examination of the accused was then resumed.

M. Ziblocki, accused of having taken a principal part in
the civil organisation of the insurrection, denied the charge.
He said he had relieved some destitute insurgents, and
being a large landowner, had received a great many Poles
at his house, but he had not held any office in the national
organisation.
M. N. Szumann denied that he had acted as a civil com-
missioner, but admitted his having joined Turno's detach-
ment at Slupee, and having been engaged in the battles at
Pyzdra, Rychwal, and K 010. In June ho was arrested by
the Russians and given up to the Prussians. While in the
insurgent ranks he had Keyed as a common soldier, and
never heard of any hostile designs against Prussia.
Messrs. Kbnow and Brodowski, who were also accused of
having acted as commissioners in the national organisation,
denied that they had done so.
• Dr Szumann, late editor of the Posen Gazette, said that

the charges against him were based solely on police reports
drawn up by a man who was a perfect stranger to him.
His conduct had been ever guided by the feeling that he
was a Pole by birth and principles ; but he had never acted
in any official capacity in the organisation. His statements
were fully confirmed by the evidence of numerous wit-
nesses, among whom was the landrath of the district of
Czarnkow.

The Court then ordered the liberation of M. Kunow and
Dr Szumann, but rejected M. Deyck's proposal to liberate
M. N. Szumann; after which it adjourned to the 3d of
October.