The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1902-03-28
APPLICABLE Q.OTATION
FROM THE SCRIPTURES.

There was a similar business transaction
some 1900 years ago. when the Nazarene
scourged the money changers from the
temple
And Jesus went into the temple OF God
and cast out all those that sold and bought
in the temple. ard overturned the tables Of
the money-changer and the seats of those
that sold doves. and said unto them: 1t Is
written that my house shall be called the
house Of prayer. ans ye have made II den
OF thieves
"It IS, YOU sc eltlemen OF the jury. who
are called upon to scourge our temple Of
justice of the bribers and boodlers who
have made IL a den of thieves. 1t is you
who are 20 set up a standard Of official
conduct in 81. Louis. A conviction in this
case means CONSERVATION and terror to the
hcodlers and corruptiorists-ther removal o.:
the pail OF ignominy and disgrace tina;
clouds the fair fame of our Worlds Fair
city.
An acquittal means the lighting Of bea-
con of confidence and renewed hope to the
corrupt officials whose iniaitous methods
have received temporary check in this
hour of uncertainty. and urge them to re-
surle their shameful practices.
You are TO set the standard OF Official
conduct for ST. Louis-what WILL II be?
las low as the example illustrated In the
person Of this defendant Meysenburg. or so
high and lofty that It will forever be sought
by men only Of the highest moral rectitude
and integrity OF purpose? Gentlemen. it
rests with you and You alone. and l have
the highest confidence in your Judgment"
Only three witnesses We're examined by
b..d d.fa Nv th..
IN rebuttal
When court convened Attorney F. y.
Judson was called by the defense Mr.
Krum asked witness whether Meysenburg
had consulted him in reference to a claim
he held against members of the Kinloch
syndicate. The question was objected TO
and the objection sustained. The witness
was excused.
William ]. Alien. stenographer for Mey-
senhurg. testified that Stock came to Mey-
senburg's office on February .. 1871. alone.
and remained in the private office with
Meyserburg and Kratz an hour. He de-
parted alone.
Witness made ont the statement: given
later to Stock. at Meysenburg's suggestion.
The defense attempted TO show by witness
that II Meysenburg had told Stock after re-
ceiving the check that II would not influence
his action on the bill. the witness could
have heard it, Meysenhurg had denied max
ing such a statement Witness said he
could not have heard such a statement IL
II had been made. Meysenhurg showed wit
ness that day a copy of the check given
him by Stock
The State sprung a surprise on the de-
fense by calling c. o. Austin. cashier Of
the Mechanics Bank. When Neysenburg
was examined Wednesday Mr.: Folk asked
him II he had attempted TO deposit the s.
oto check with the Mechanics Bank, and
Meysenburg replied he had not.
Mr.. Austin testified that Meysenburg had
presented at the Mechanics Bank se0D
check. payable to himself and Philip Stock
asking him to cash it, but that It was re-
fused. not being properly indorsed. Witness
could not recall! che exact day or date of
the incident. He sad also that Meysen5ure
had previously presented other checks i'm
properly indorsed. and that his checks were
the subject of comment among the bank
officials in July 1900
Meysenburg was recalled by Mr.. Krum
and asked whether he had gone to the
Mechanics Bank with the check. but the
State objected that the question had been
asked and answered the day previous. and
the objection was sustained. Meysenburg
was then excused. and the court ordered a
recess until 1:30 to prepare instructions TO
the jury.