The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1902-03-26
STATE RESTS IN
MEYSENBURG CASE,
Continued From Pape On.

not but he would find out few days
thereafter he came TO me and stated that
MI. Meysenburg was dissatisfied. stating
that the PEOPLE seeking this franchise had
not treated him properly In relation to
some shares which he held in the Electric
Construction Company. which was the first
Information / had that Mr. Meysenburg
held shares In the company"
When did you next see Mr.. KratzT'
"A few days after January IL"
What did Kratz say?'
Mr.. kratz said Meysenburg wanted g.
COO. / told him I couldn't give him any
answer until i saw Mr. Turner,
Did you ever have any dealings with
MI. Meysenburg or any communication with
Mr.. Meysenburg regarding the shares of
stock and the $500 except through Kratzr'
Never
''Do you know where this bill was a. that
timer"
Yes. cir. It was In the Railroad Commit
tee, composed Of Mr.. Virgins, Mr.. Hodges
and Mr.. Meysenburg"
why was 1t you went to Mr.. Kratz to
ind out about the bill? He was not Q
member Of the Railroad Committee"
JURY RETIREs WHILE
POINT IS ARGUED.
At this juncture the defense objected and
the jury retired for argument Of counsel
After lengthy argument the objection was
sustained and the jury returned
Witness further testified that he repre-
sented Charles II. Turner only in the 600
transaction. He did not know the value Of
tho stock, but considered It valuetesA
On cross witness said he was
not interested in any way in the Suburban
Railway Company. Was q director In ths
St Louis Construction Company and men,
Der Of the Ktnloch syndicate He was then
excused.
Richard Hospes. cashier OF tho German
Savings Institution. Identified the 5000
check. payable to Stock and Meysenburs.
In answer to a question. to which ob1ection
was made. and overruled, witness replied
that the check was drawn by Stock, who
gave Hospes. to secure it, a note signao
by Charles H. Turner and Henry Nicolaua
On February 2 1901. witness saw the check
In Meysenburgs possession. and he told him
he was going to deliver stock for It Mey-
senburg deposited the check and received
q cashiers check for S. S9s6.6a
Witness was cross-examined mildly. Coun-
sci asked him as to the reputation of Mey-
senburg for honesty and uprightness, and he
replied it was very good
Mr.. Hospes was recalled after the noon
to who brought the note on which the
check was drawn by Stock. Witness said
he was mistaken when he said Stock
brought the note. Turner brought 1t, with
instructions to turn the proceeds over to
Stock. He was then excused.
Charles II. Turner was called He tes-
titled he was president Of the Suburban
Railway Company. when Council bill No.
"A was pending In the Municipal Assembly.
Philip Stock represented the company as
its legislative agent Witness had signed
the note fer 5000
why was the note executed BY you and
put In the German Savings Institution. and
what did Stock say TO you in reference to
Meysenburs at that time. and the neces-
sity Of putting up s0oO?''
Mr.. Lehman objected that this testimony
was incompetent. because It was hearsay.
and It was not shown the defendant had
any knowledge Of the conversation or trans
action between Stock and Turner In a
lengthy argument he declared that the in
dictment averred an express agreement be-
tween Stock and the defendant, and the
State had not shown this The State could
not aver an express agreement in the In
dictment and attempt to establish a case
by proving an implied agreement He sub
mitted numerous authorities in support OF
this contention. The objection was sus-
tained.
The witness was not cross-examined.
CLAIM OF MEYSENBrRG
DISCUSSED IN COMMITTEE.
Councilman W. +. Hodges was the next
witness. He was member of the Railroad
Committee when the Suburban bill was
In January. 1901 at a meeting Of
the committee IN Meysenburg's Office to con-
slider :he Suburban bill. Meysenburg told
him and Mr.. Virgins. the third member.
that he had claim against Turner and
others interested in the Suburban road.
whose names witness did not recall, con-
transaction OF some years pre-
vious. He understood Meysenhurg to say
he had advanced money 10 purchase a lot
He said he would demand payment Of the
claim by Turner and the others. Witness
,cid him that. considering the fact that the
bill was pending In the Council.
and in the Railroad Com mittee. OF which
Meysenturg was a member. he considered
It indiscreet OF Meysenburg to push the
claim for payment: that IL he. witness, were
similarly situated he would put the claim In
the hands of a lawyer
On cross-examination witness said Mey-
senburg had not said TIM claim was agains.
the Suburban road. but against Turner and
others. whose names he could not recall.
Pressed by Mr.. Lehmarn. witness recalled
that Meysenburg rad mentioned the name
,f Charles B. Stark in some way in con-
nection with the transaction ont of which
rev his claim. Witness said he favored the
bill after 1t had beer. amended to his salts
faction. Did not remember that Meysen-
,urG had opposed tie bill in committee.
Gould not recall that Meysenburg asked