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

Cashier Of the Mechanics Rank. who testi-
fled In the Meysenburg case yesterday.
R. Douglas. wife of the presiding judge.
arrived. They occupied seats on the south
side of the room, and were among the
most attentive and appreciative of the
auditors. The crowd remained until the case
was given 10 the jury, and hung with in
tcrest on the words of the learned counsel.
At the close of Circuit Attorney Folks
speech. a few enthusiasts in the rear seats
attempted 10 show their appreciation of his
effort by hand-clapping. but the demon
stration was quickly stopped by the bai.if.
Judge Douglas had prepared his instruc-
tions to the jury during the noon recess.
and when he ascended the bench at 1:3o he
read them. modifying one clause later at
the suggestion Of the Circuit Attorney.
Judge Douglas then asked counsel how
much time they desired for argument. Mr..
Folk and Mr.. Lehman replied that they
had decided that two hours TO each side
would be sufficient. Mr.. Folk said that
Mr.. Bishop would lead for the State with
ihirty-five minutes. giving way 20 Mr..
Krum. for the defense. who would be sue
ceeded by Mr.. Maroney for the State, with
tnirty-fve minutes. Mr.. Lehman would
close for the defense. and Mr. Folk for the
State.
BISHOP REVIEWS
MEYsENBURG's CAREER.
Mr.. Bishop began by reviewing Mr..
Meysenburg's career as a member of the
Council. He described the solemn and
sacred duties of a Councilman. and spoke of
Meysenburg's action while the Suburban
Ia
saying: in January. 1880. ne became pos
sessed of 20 shares Of ST. Louis Electric
Construction. Co stock. which was value
less. and In October. 1sso. the Suburban bill
was introduced. In January Stock. the
legislative agent, became worried about the
delay on the bill. and went to see Kratz.
the .go-between.' TO pee what was the mat
ter. Kratz told him Meysenburg was the
man responsible: that Meysenburg was
sore at the Suburban people because they
had not treated him right. He learned from
Kratz that Meysenburg wanted 5000 for his
stock. and Stock arranged through Kratz.
to pay il. Meysenburg told his fellow
member that he had chance TO collect a
claim against the Suburban people.
February . 1901. without previous ar
rangement Stock calls and pays him the
5000 Meysenburg. TO cover UP his tracks.
gives Stock an alleged statement, which
Stock does not consider. Mr.. Bishop then
reviewed MeyssnburR's subsequent action
with the check until the transaction was
complete. and he had. as he thought. COW
cred h,s guilty trail under the guise of a
legitimate business transaction"
Mr.. Bishop dwelt on the fact that Kratz
was in Meysenburg's Office when Stock
called: that Kratz had negotiated with
Stock for the latters purchase Of Meysen-
burg's' good will. and declared that Meysen-
burg's action and conduct throughout the
transaction indicated clearly an express
agreement with Stock whereby he was to
cease his opposition to the bill in considera-
ton Of the 5000. The shares Of stock rep
resented no claim against Turner. Stock
or any one connected with the Suburban.
he said. Before the money was forthcom-
ing the bill was held up in the committee
of which Meysenburg was a member. When
Meysenburg learned that the money was
coming. through his negotiations with