The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1902-03-26

that the bill be reported without recommea-
dation.
William F. Nolker testified that he was .
director Of the ST. Louis Electric construc-
ton Company In February 1901 He said
the shares at that time were worth nothing
Cross-examined. witness said he was a
member OF the Kinloch syndicate. Circuit
Attorney Folk objected to q line OF ques-
tioning designed to show tho manner In
which the stock had deprecated. Attorney
Krum said he proposed to show that the
stock had a '1itisated" value. at least
that Is. that It had a value to be determined
as a consequence Of litigation against the
recreant directors who had caused Its de-
preciation. The objection was overrulsd.
When Mr. Krum. attempting to follow
THIS limo Of questioning. asked witness II
tho directors Of the K,nloch syndicate were
not also directors OF the construction COM
pany and controlled that company, the
Court sustained an objection.
Mr.. Krum asked witness II he knew of
tho purchase by tho Kinloch syndicate Of
St. Louis Electric Construction Company
stock. from Charles B. Stark for $1s.Oo0.
II object" said Mr.. Folk. 1T makes no
difference whether Stark held UP anybody
for his claim. that cannot be used to es-
tablish the value Of Meysenburg's stock"
I except to the language Of the Circuit
Attorney" said Mr.. Krum. ''The allegation
against Mr.. Stark is unwarranted, and the
Circuit Attorney knew when he made It
that II was absolutely untrue"
Mr.. Krum's language aroused the ire Of
the Court. and for the first time In the two
days in which the attorneys have been IN
dulging in irrelevant and sarcastic side rs-
marks. Judge Douglas manifested great
feeling.
That 10 a highly improper statement you
have made. Mr.. Krum." he said. "and this
Court will not tolerate any more such
statements The statement OF the Circuit
Attorney was also an improper one"
EX-COUNCILNAN WIGGINS
NEXT TAKES THE STAND.
The witness was excused. and Charles
Virgins. ex-Councilman and chairman Of
the Railroad Committee when the Suburban
bill was pending. was called. The witness
testified that Meysenburg had spoken to him
half a dozen times about his claim against
the Suburban people while the bill was
being considered in committee. His recoi-
lection was that Meysenburg said he had
a claim against them which he could ad-
Just: that he had sold them some stock Of
the st. Louis Electric Construction Com
pany. which they had refused to pay for:
that while the bill was up he had been ap-
preached with an ofiler to settle hi, claim.
Witness told him his method Of collecting
the claim was in his Judgment. indiscreet
under the circumstances. Meysenburg did
not mention Kratz in connection with the
claim or its settlement.
On cross-examination witness said Mey-
a NOT ha in
tee Meysenburg had said that the consen,
Of the property owners should be obtained
before the bill was passed. He also .ug-
gested the bill being reported without rec
ommendation.
At this point. after introducing as evt-
dence the certificates Of stock and the bank
checks. the State announced that 1t would
rest.
Mr. Lehman announced that the defense
would file a demurrer to the evidence on
the ground OF insufflciency to sustain the
indictment and ask for instructions to tho
Jury Judge Douglas thereupon excused al
the witnesses for the defense until this
morning and ordered the jury to retire
while counsel made their arguments.
Mr.. Lehman. leading. confined his argu-
ment mainly TO attacking the averment in
the Indictment. which alleges that Meysen-
burg entered into an express agreement
with Stock binding himself with referenc,
to his action on the Suburban bill In consid-
ovation OF 5000 ostenSbly paid for stock.
The State has averred in the Indictment
that an express agreement was made, and
II Is obligatory on the State to prove moth
ing short Of an express agreement. The
question Is. Does Stocks testimony With
reference TO his visit to Meysenburs's office
constitute an express agreement? No agree
ment was made at that time-ths Suburban
bill. the Suburban company. MeysenburS's
official position. were not mentioned at that
visit. Meysenburg's statement to Stock.
This transaction Will not influence my ae.
ton on the bill." not only precludes anv
express agreement. but proves the contrary.
Again. he said. Meysenburs had a right to
settle his claim against those liable to him.
without resorting to a lawsuit. In any way !
he desired without st!pulating that its SET
Element would influence his action n a |
legislator.
COURT TAKES MOTION
10 0UASH UNDER ADvlSEAENT.
Krum. following. dissectsd what hs -.