The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1902-03-27
MEYSENBURG EXPLAINS HIS
TRANSACTION IN STOCK.


Continued From Page One.
termined to kill me If I refused his CON
mand? I would agree and give him the
money without exacting from him a prom
Use not TO kill me-
Judge Dauglas said he would like to hea,
from the State on the point raised by the
defense on the question of variance be-
| tween payment by check and by money
Mir. Folk read from the statutes to the
effect that an error in an indictment re-
earding the name description of persons
and things referred To in the charge does
not invalidate the Indictment IL the error
! does not prejudice the defendants inter.
| ests. Mr.. Folk said the defense had offered
no objection when the check was offered
| in evidence. II the defendant should be
| acquitted on this technicality another in
I dictment could not 10 drawn against him
by substituting the word check" for
| money" because the present indictment
! was broadly drawn.
Court then ordered a recess until 2:co p. m.
MEYSESBURG Is FIRST
| WITNESS OF THE DAY.
| The jury. which had been excluded during
| the arguments. was brought in and the trial
resumed.
\ Emil a. MeysenburS. the defendant. was
| the first witness examined by the defense.
He was asked how the original shares OF
| the st. Louis Electric Construction Com
pany stock came into his possession. Mr..
| Folk objected to any testimony showing that
| the stock might have had a value at that
| time. Mr.. Krum said he wanted TO show.
in connection with other evidence to be
presented later. in connection with claims OF
other minor stockholders against Turner.
Stock and others. that by reason of this
stock Meysenburg had valid claim against
Turner. Stock and others. The objection
was overruled.
1 Witness said, in substance. that In 1891
he purchased lot for the Citizens Electric
Light and Power Company. advancing the
money for the company. In 1897 the proper
ty had deprecated s1Oooo and to secure
Kim for this depreciation H. j. Hanford.
George ]. Kobusch and Charles Suffer each
gave him a note fer s3.ss3-3a. bearing in
terest. secured by three certificates of 100
shares each Of stock OF the Electrical Con-
struction Company year later Hanford
paid his note and 100 shares were returned
TO him. In 1895 witness surrendered the
other two notes to their makers upon
personal agreement with Suffer to secure
his claim. He retained the shares of stock
and later had them made out in his own
name.
Mr.. Krum endeavored to show that the
directors of the KinIoch syndicate were also
directors of the st. Louis Electric Con-
struction Company. but the court excluded
this.
Witness said that Charles B. Stark was
a director In the construction company,
and in 1896 caused an examination Of the
books to be made. Mr.. Krum endeavored
to elicit statement that witness had as
serted a claim at that time. against Tur-
ner. Stock ct al, on account of his stock.
but the court sustained an objection. Krum
stated to the court that the defense offered
to prove that when Stark sold his stock
to Turner and Stock at that time Meysen-
burg had taken steps also to enforce his
claim and had consulted attorneys to this
a valid claim and could be enforced to the
full extent. of the value the shares would
have if the company had been properly
operated. The court refused to allow this
testimony introduced.
Witness said he first saw Stock in refer
ence to the purchase of his stock on Feb
ruary 2, 1901. Stock came to his Office
alone. Kratz was in w:tness's private Of
fee when Stock entered. kratz was not
there by any previous arrangement with
witness or Stock Stock told witness he
heard he had 90 shares of stock. and he
offered witness ss5 per share for them. Wit
ness said he could not sell them at that
figure. as he held them only as collateral
and only wanted the amount due on them.
At his suggestion the stsnographer calcu
lated the amounts, sSs 52-end handed the
statement to Stock. Stock gave him q
check for 5000. and witness gave Stock
in currency the balance between the amount
due him and the face Of the check. Witness
did not say to Kratz, Charley. you know
I only want what is fair and square. He
did not say to Stock, Remember, this IS
only strict business transaction and will
not influence my vote on the Suburban
bill" Kratz did not say when Stock en-
tered. Here ia Stock to see about buying
those shares" Stock did not say when he
came in. or at any time. II understand the
Suburban people have not treated you
right. am here to show We do"
DECLARES NOTHING WAS
SAID ABOUT SUBURBAN BILL.
Witness said, further, that Kratz had
never intir1ated to him that the Suburban
people stood ready to buy his stock. al |
though Kratz had on one or two occasions |
spoken to witness about the sale of his |
stock The details of the conversation wit
ness could not recall. When Stock gave |
him the check nothing was said OF the |
Suburban Railway Company or the bill in |
the Council. To no one at any time had he |
said that after the purchase of the stock |
would ne take action favorable or other |
wise on the bill. He had never objected to
the bill being reported by the committee.
Witness said he took the 5000 check TO
the German Savings Institution after bank |
ing hours. by special arrangement. and re- |
ceived in exchange cashiers check for |
s.. SIS and 1872 in currency. He did this |
so that the cashiers check would bear a |
record of the exact amount due on the |
stock and because he needed the currency
for the day following-Sunday-ha |
given all his available change to Stock. |
After having the witness review his bus'- |
ness career in this city since 1866. Mr..
Krum asked:
Ibid you ever tell Stock or any one else |
that you would oppose the Suburban bill |
unless you received ss0OO?''
mo, sir" |
Did you have an agreement or under |
standing of any kind with Stock or any
body regarding your action on the bill?''