The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1902-03-28

-
I . with Circuit Attorney Folk =
e . 90 . . >>>> <>>> = . =
! Kratz. the bill was reported and passed q
| week later
/ JUDGE KRUN ANSWERS
FOR THE DEFENDANT.
Chester Krum made the opening address
| for the defense. He said. In view OF the in
| srructions of the court. he was surprised
| the State should attempt TO ask convic-
| tion on the charge in the indictment He
said the court instructed that unless the
/ jury found that Neysenburg made an
agreement that unless and until he was
paid ss.Ooo he would oppose the bnl the
defendant must he acquitted" It must be
shown. not only that Meysenburg received
the money. declared Judge Krum. but
that he received II under an express agree
ment that unless and until IT was paid he
would oppose the bill.
why is Stock free to-day to serve the
State in this prosecution? God help the nb-
erty OF a citizen who has 10 defend HIM
! self from testimony offered by such a man
as stock.
He dissected Stocks testimony to show
that there was no such agreement made be-
tween Stock and Meysenburg. as alleged. He
also reviewed the 'hearsay testimony Of
Kratz to show there was no such egree-
ment.
Where is Kratz?" he asked. why is
re not here to give testimony in person."
Mr.. Krum said the State would have the
jury believe the bribe-giver rather than the
victim-that the unsupported testimony OF
a man who confesses TO debauching the
legislators is to he given credence over the
statement of the man he attempted to de-
bauch
Referring again to the express agree
ment Mr.. krum said: An express agree
ment must he a distinct understanding be-
tween two parties. one Of whom saws I
will do thus and So and the ether, If YOU
DO thus and SO. / will do thus and So
There was nothing Of this in the evidence In
The case. Meysenburg never made any
such agreement, and the Suburban Railway.
the bill nor his official position was once
mentioned between him and Stock Mey-
senourg had not agreed to do anything and
Stock had not asked him to do anything in
reference to the bill. Much stress wa,
paced by the State on the testimony of
Hodges and Virgins. that they advised
Meysenburg to sue for his claim, but when
the defense attempts to show that he d.i
.ake steps to sue. the State says that evil
oence Is irmaterial and shuts II out.
The money received by NeysenburR came
Iro'n turner and Nicolaus. to relieve their
liability to Meysenburg. II you believe II
came from the Suburban company you
must believe that all the directors Of that
company are PARTIES to a corrl,pt act-ara
particeps criminis in this transaction"
A c. Maroney followed for the State
He said that Krum. In his argument dis
secting kTatz's statement had rot rectted
all the facts relating thereto. He said the
testimony showed that Kra,z had called on
Meyesenburg several times. '-krum asked
where was Kratz." observed Mr. Maroney
Well. II he comes here on April Z. We &il
show him where Kratz is He reviewed
Meysenburg's transaction with Stock. show
Ing how he had attempted to conceal his
alleged guilty connection with the bill.
Continuing. Mr.. Maroney said:
He manufactured evidence to conceal bis
trail. part Of which was preparing n
statement showing the alleged amount due
him on his claim against Turner and Stock.
Stock had come there expecting to nav
5000. as agreed upon. and he was startle,
when Meysenburg gave him the So 42
change.
Members Of the Municipal Assembly are
not in the habit Of giving any change"
The subsequent transaction with the
banks in the matter of s.epos;,inS and ex-
changing the checks was also dwelt upon.
Mr.. Maroney then urged the faliacy of the
claim Meysenburg asserted against Turner
Stock and Nicolaus. saying: The claim
was not against them nor against the Sub
urban The only man he could possibly
recover from was Charles Suffer-
He said Meysenburg had denied the truth
OF the testimony OF every witness on the
stand except those who testified to his good
reputation. The testimony as to his repr-
tation was unimportant. he said. because
all men are honest or reputed 10 be until
they are caught
MR.. LEHMAN MAKES
An ELOQUENT PLEA.
Fred Lehpnann closed the arguments for
the defense In an eloquent speech of more
than an hour. In which he devoted most Of
his energies to establishing the trIstness Of
Meysenburg's claim against Turner and
Stock and his legal right to collect In any
manner short of prostituting his official
position.
The charge OF bribery" he said In his
opening. lis serious one. Conviction
means disgrace. deprivation of citizenship
and Imprisonment. / am impressed with
the fact that the Circuit Attorney. in his
zeal for the regeneration of ST. Louis. re-
lies mainly upon the man at the head Of a
scheme Of Wholesale corruption Of public
officials-a man stepped In his own iniquity
When the picture of the renascent ST
Louis is painted, II will bear. like Raphael's
cherubs. the pictures of Charles H. Turner
and Philip Stock. twin conservators of
public safety and regenerators of public
morals
Mr.. Lehman reviewed at length the
transaction which. he said. was the leeiti-
mate origin Of the claim Meysenb1rg held
against Turner. Stock and others Of the
Kinloch syndicate. which claim was repre-
sented by the 20 shares of stock he sold
to Philip Stock.
Mr.. Lehman said: The claim wa. abso-
lutely honest in its origin. The defense had
attempted to show that Meysenburg
had acted honestly in his endeayor
to collect the claim before he sold the
shares to Stock. but at every attempt the
State had shut the doors In their face
The defense attempted to prove that the
shares Of Stock had value. By transaction