BY MR. LaFOLLETTE:
Q. Witness, I believe you stated that Cuhorst, the defendant, set the cases for trial himself; is that correct?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And that he also would set three or four cases in which severe penalties could be given for trial on the same date.
A. Well, I cannot remember individual cases, but I don't think it is impossible that several serious cases were tried on the same day for trial under Cuhorst; he attached importance not to spend much time on one case.
Q. Was it his purpose, or practice, to conduct his trials speedily so that he could finish the cases which were set for that day; is that correct?
A. Certainly.
Q. Under those circumstances, what was his attitude or his action toward defense counsel who made arguments or interposed motions on behalf of their defendants?
A. Well, it happened that Cuhorst declined to listen to motions for evidence and that he rather went ahead with things quickly, rather than to deal with lengthy legal decisions.
Q. Now, I will ask you, do you remember the case of Heinz Niemis?
A. Yes, I do. The case of Heinz Niemis, I was not at the trial, but I saw a copy of the verdict of the Special Court. Cuhorst was the presiding judge at the trial, and I saw a verdict, a copy of the verdict at the office of the General Staatsanwalt and I had to examine it and I had to add my remarks to this verdict, and then submit it to the Oberlandesgerichts President Kuestner.
Q. Did you add your remarks to that verdict in your own handwriting?
A. Yes, I did. The case was as this: Heinz Niemis, as far as I remember, was a young man of about twenty years; he was of Italian origin at Kracherwaldstrasse in Stuttgart; he had been called in to do some repair after houses had been bombed out. In the course of this repair work, he committed four or five thefts; and in two of the thefts they were of little importance; one I believe was all he stole was a piece of cheese; the most serious offense he had taken several objects, the value of about one hundred marks; those objects included a wristwatch, and sugar, etc.
Q. Do you know what the prosecution asked for in that case as the maximum penalty?
A. The prosecution demanded in the case of Niemis, for an offense against the public enemy law a penitentiary term, a sentence of four years, from three to four years; that is to say pass the sentence of three to four years; that was in accordance with the remarks entered on the indictment which had been submitted to the Reich Ministry of Justice. The prosecution had asked for four years' Penitentiary in accordance with those remarks on the indictment.
Q. What was the sentence?
A. The verdict passed was for five years in the penitentiary because of an offense against the public enemy law, and because that had been a repeat offense. Niemis had several previous convictions of a small and unimportant nature, but that meant that he had committed a repeat offense.
Q. Now, these offenses were committed largely in the area Kracherwaldstrasses in Stuttgart; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Who was the prosecutor who prosecuted the case?
A. I don't know the prosecutor and one can't tell from the indictment or from the verdict who was the public prosecutor. The fact that the act was committed in those bombed buildings in Kraeherwaldstrasse indicates to me that the circumstances in passing the sentence in which the Special Court exceeded the demands of the prosecutor by one year, that was important.
Q. What did you write on the verdict?
A. I knew that Cuhorst lived in Stuttgart and the Kraeherwaldstrasse was in the same district as the Gauss-Strasse; I wrote on the verdict demands of the prosecution, four years. I knew that from a notification from the expert who dealt with the case, and I added Special Court added one year because of the part of Stuttgart where the offense was committed was in the same district where the presiding judge lives, I would like to add that I reported on this remark to the Oberlandesgerichts president Kuestner and I told them that I thought it probable that the verdict would exceed by one year the demands of the prosecution because the offense had in fact been committed in the residential district where Cuhorst lived and because by exceeding the demands of the prosecution wished to demonstrate that concerning thefts in his own district, he would take particularly severe measures.
Q. Now, let me remind you of the case Alp, and Kraeutle which was tried at Ulm; do you remember that case?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Now, Kraiutle and Alp were sentenced to death, and then the Ministry of Justice refused to uphold the sentences at the insistence of Beisitzer; isn't that right?
A. Yes, that is correct. Kraeutle and Alp were pardoned, as far as I remember, to ten years and eight years penitentiary respectively.
Q. Cuhorst had sentenced them to death?
A. The two were sentenced to death at Ulm because of offenses against the public enemy law. They had worked in warehouses and had stolen objects from the Ulm station; and, as far as I remember, in accordance with the motion by--
MR. LaFOLLETTE: The English translation is not coming through. Would you repeat; we were interrupted because the earphones were not working.
A. Because the case between the fixing of the date and the actual date of the trial only a very short period elapsed; I believe only two days elapsed in fact, but I can't remember exactly. The defense counsel either never saw the files at all or had them only for such a short time that he hardly had an opportunity to inform himself on the case and to discuss it with his client.
Q. Were you going to continue? I didn't mean to interrupt you; do you have any more to say?
A. These circumstances, that is to say, that the defense in a manner which I considered in admissible had displayed in their way these circumstances which had caused the senior public prosecutor Wendling, who was at that time the expert under the general public prosecutor, they caused him, those circumstances caused him to work towards getting a pardon for the two defendants.
I only obtained information about this case through the files because the decision on the pardon from the Reich Ministry of Justice was received by me at my office at a time when the senior public prosecutor Wendling had already left end taken up a position as chief public prosecutor at Ravensburg.
Q. Now, this other question. Do you know that Cuhorst had a suitcase stolen from him on the way to or from the Ukraine?
A. Yes. People were talking about it and were saying that on the way a suitcase her been stolen from Cuhorst, and that Cuhorst had said that from now on he would adopt particularly severe measures toward railway workers; whether that verdict was a practical effect of this statement, I cannot say, but I considered it possible.
Q. Kraeutle and Alp were railway workers, were they not?
A. They worked in the railroad warehouse; they had done so for several years. I said already that the case was dealt with by Wendling who worked extremely energetically for a pardon because he believed that the verdict should not have been passed under these circumstances.
Q. Thank you. Now, do you remember the case of a young Pole who was sentenced to death by Cuhorst for having had intercourse with a considerably older German woman, and that in that case the Ministry of Justice set the verdict aside, set the sentence aside and ordered a sentence of imprisonment?
A. Yes, I remember such a case but I am no longer in such a position to give any particulars about that case. As far as I remember the man concerned was a very young Pole who had had an affair with a very much older German woman. The Pole, if I remember correctly, was tried with Cuhorst as the presiding Judge and was sentenced to death. I assume the fact that the basis for the sentence was the law concern Poles. The peculiar feature of this case, if I remember correctly, was that it was the German woman who persuaded the young Pole to start sexual relations with her and that must have been the reason why attempt was made to achieve a pardon for the Pole and it must have also been the reason the Reich Ministry of Justice did pardon the Pole, a thing, which after all, was not a very unusual thing.
Q. Have you heard the defendant Cuhorst in his conduct of the trial against Poles and other foreigners express his opinion or legal rights, if any, or how they should be treated when they appeared in Courts before him?
A. Well, Cuhorst said and expressed generally that foreigners in Germany had to keep to the German laws particularly and if they infringed the German laws they would receive particular severe punishment.
Q. We are turning to a subject that we had gone over some but I believe that I recall that you said definitely that Cuhorst conducted his trials solely on the basis of the unsworn indictment which stressed the points; is that correct?
A. Yes.
JUDGE BRAND: Mr. Prosecutor, I made a note of that matter. I wonder if you would clarify it for us what you mean by acting on the basis of the indictment? I call attention to the distinction between acting on the indictment as being the charge against the defendant on tho one hand or as being evidence of guilt on the other. That matter wasn't clear to us.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: In the conduct of the trial as you observed it did Cuhorst confine his questions of the witness to the matters which were set out in the unsworn indictment -- rather, the defendant?
A. Yes, that's correct. The indictment which, after all, contained everything that he made the basis for the examination of the defendant and of the witnesses and then he left it to the associate judges on the basis of their knowledge of the files to put further questions.
Q. Now, what happened if a defendant refuted statements which were allowed to have been made by him or which are allowed to have been made by other witnesses as they were set out in the indictment?
A. In such cases Cuhorst put it to the witnesses that formerly they gave different testimony. Very often he said so in a very rude manner and if necessary the Police officials or the judge of the local court, who had first examined the defendant was heard and the judge of the local court was then questioned as to whether the witness or the defendant had, in effect, made those statements or not and these statements of the officials had to be sworn to by the official.
Q. Now, was the defendant in the trial under those circumstances permitted to obtain any witnesses to testify in support of any position which he took contrary to that set out in the facts stated in the indictment ?
A. Certainly the defendant had that liberty. It was the duty of the defense counsel to see to it that such witnesses were brought in. Either the defense counsel asked that these witnesses should be called or he, himself, brought the witnesses along with him to the courtroom. If such witnesses were present usually they were examined.
Q The defendant or his counsel were required to obtain these witnesses themselves, were they not?
A. Not necessarily so. They merely had the possibility concerning the witness who had not been summoned by the Court or who, because of the shortage of the time, had not been summoned. They only had the job to summon them but it happened quite frequently that the indictment itself mentioned such witnesses which the defendant, after the defense counsel had made a corresponding notion at the pre-trial and then such witnesses were called in the sane way in which the witnesses for the prosecution were called.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Thank you. That's all that I have.
THE PRESIDENT: Defense counsel may cross examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. MANDRY:
Q. Dr. Mandry for the defendant Cuhorst.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you tell us how you spell your name?
DR. MANDRY: M-a-n-d-r-y- Witness, you said that the fixing of the dates of trials was exclusively a matter to be decided by the presiding Judge Cuhorst at the Special Court or at the Penal Senate?
A. Yes. As far as I remember that was so. Apart from the Second Penal Senate where President of the Senate Kiefer, naturally fixed his own date.
Q. Did that lie within the competence and the code of procedure?
A. I am not informed on the details of the procedure but I would think that the presiding judge of the Special Court was entitled to fix the date because he is the responsible authority in charge of the organization. It is my impression that sometimes he was a little too domineering in his procedure and that he frequently considered the other judges hardly at all. I occasionally heard complaints on that point.
Q. It has been put to you that occasionally three or four cases were fixed, for the same day. Is that manner of fixing cases to be heard -- was that made necessary because of the number of cases that had to be dealt with?
A. I said already in my testimony that the Special Court would have to deal with a large number of cases because all serious cases of the whole Land -- at any rate, from 1938 to 1939 -- that is to say, mainly during the war, were dealt with by the Special Court and also because often many cases of offenses against the malicious acts law had to be dealt with.
That is to say, far more cases had to be dealt with by the Special Court than had to be dealt with by any Court in the Land and that made it necessary often to deal with several cases, even with cases which were of importance in one and the same day.
Did the competence of the Special Court include the duties of tho Worrttemberg Penal Chamber and all of the jury courts?
A. Yes, the Special Court of Stuttgart was competent for the whole area of the District Court of Appeals Stuttgart. That district included the whole Land of Wurttemberg and included the Land of Hohenzollern. The competence of the penal Senate during the war was extended beyond the area of the Oberlandsgericht including Baden, Paletinate and the Saar area. As far as I know that was done because of the exigencies of the war. The Special Court itself always only dealt with the area of Wurrttemberg and Hohenzollern.
Q. At the end were the serious offenses when committed in other Wurrttemberg Court Districts -- were all of then finally dealt with by the Special Court ? Was it so that the indictment on these cases could come before the Special Court?
A. That's correct. The competence of the Special Court was, in part, compulsory. It was laid down in the law. For example, the Special Court alone was competent to deal with cases under the law against violent criminals under which it tried cases for listening to foreign radio stations and also for those under the Malicious Act Law and also for cases of offenses committed by violent criminals and also for cases than came under the Car-trap Provisions. In part, I believe, it was also competent for cases of undermining the defensive strength until later on the Oberlandesgerich dealt with cases of undermining the defensive strength. Apart from this compulsory competence of the Special Court, there was a provision in the Compulsory Regulations that the Peoples Court could bring before the Special Court any case which on account of the gravity of the offense or because of the consequence or because of the particular significance for the security of the county or for any other reason, required that the case should be dealt with speedily.
Crimes against the war economy, too, were exclusively tho sphere of the Special court. If it is possible, concerning cases of a lesser gravity at hand from the local court it went over to the Penal Chamber but this was hardly ever done because the penal chamber lacked the necessary experience which the Special Court had gained because so many cases, particularly during the years of the war there was hardly a case of any special importance which was not tried and sentenced at the Special Court. That is true, whether it was a murder case which a District Court at Ravensburg, Ulm or Heilbrann could have tried or whether it was a case of the sexual offense of rape or whether it was a case of an offense against the public enemies and of particular gravity *s, for example, the Alp-Kraoutle case, which we mentioned earlier or whether it was a case which in some other way because of the manner in which it was committed, had drawn particular attention toward it. All of these cases were concentrated at the Special Court and that at the instructions of the Reich Ministry of Justice.
Q. Did the speedy trial and also the short space left before the trial -- was that done because of such instructions or were there any instructions against doing it?
The speedy trial for the Special Court was a reason for the institution of the Special Court and in various decrees and orders from the Reich Ministry of Justice that it was intended to point out that the Special Court should deal with cases speedily. I remember an order issued in 1935 and I remember the competency order and the Special Court order itself, which concerned the summoning -- the time allowed for summoning was reduced to 24 hours. In an order -- I believe it was issued in 1940, it also said that in cases where the offender was found committing the act or where otherwise there was no doubt of his guilt an immediate sentence was possible. In 1942 the so-called Speeding-up Decree -- the Decree for the speeding-up of trials was issued which ordered that indictment, summon, and verdict should be worded as briefly as possible so that thereby the proceedings could be speeded-up but on the other hand that these tendencies toward speeding-up the trial were exaggerated for in a serious case it seems to me considerably more important to examine the case thoroughly and to prepare it thoroughly and competently.
It seems to me that it is more important than that a case is dealt with like lightning. Naturally, there are a class of cases which do not need a great deal of preparation but in serious cases I always considered it a mistake to go ahead at too great a speed because that cannot be in the interest of a case.
Did not at that time some of the countries took the view that speedy sentencing at the speed of lightning and in many cases was, in fact, to be preferred if thereby details which appeared of little importance were not completely cleared?
That's right. The aim in view was that if the offender had committed several offenses the prosecution concerning offenses of lesser importance should ignore them altogether and that the indictment should be concentrated on the main offense. That, too, was meant in the interest of speeded-up trials and it is correct, too, that a speedy trial, particularly it could be useful -- particularly if the terror effect was desired and had been achieved. I remember -- I will remind you of the case of the motor-trap case. In that case the Ministry of Justice in my view were completely right in insisting on a speedy trial because those cases of robbery and thievery represented a tremendous danger to transport and because they might easily have been into an epidemic unless severe measures were taken immediately. That was done in few cases and as a result these motor-car traps -- this robbery would stop in Germany.
Q. Did not the robbery of the station and the plundering of personal things -- do not those belong to this context and are you familiar with an instruction concerning thieves and field-post thieves, as remedy particularly speedy trials should be used and if possible the trials should be held on the spot where the crime is committed -one moment please -- and is such a procedure not admissible in particular when the offenders have admitted their deed in full?
It is correct that there were instructions and I am of the view that in special cases it could be of particular effect if the proceedings were hold at the very spot because frequently then the knowledge of the entire surroundings were familiar and of the local conditions could help to clarify the matter better.
I am willing to admit that the postal and railway thefts did require very severe punishment, because these were offenses which concerned the national community as a whole and because, of course, tho safety of the posts and the railways must be preserved at all costs. But all the same, I am of the opinion that the speed of a trial must not prevent the thorough and conscientious conduct of a trial.
Q The cases of Kraeutle and Alp belong to this category?
A Yes.
Q Is it known to you whether these criminals did admit their deed?
A I believe that essentially they were convicted and that they did confess. However, I do not know the details.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, please. Before we pass this question of speedy trials, I want to got that decree more definitely in my mind. I understood the witness to say it was a decree of 1942. I have before no a copy of a decree of February 21, 1940. I am wondering if that is the same one.
THE WITNESS: No, I am talking of a decree made in the year 1942. As far as I know, that decree is also contained in the collection of previsions on penal procedure; it is contained in the appendix. The decree was called "A decree for speeding up." It was Hitler's own decree, and it was followed by an executive order made by the Reich Ministry of Justice. That order too is contained in the same collection.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed with the examination.
BY DR. MANDRY:
Q Because of the short time left between the commission of the deed and the trial, you criticized the Alp case and said that it had curtailed the facilities of the defense. What means are at the disposal of a conscientious defense counsel if he feels himself curtailed in his defense?
A The defense counsel has the probability, and he has the duty, to ask for an adjournment in such a case, or to ask for a postponement, because he was not able to study the matter properly and discuss it with his client, and because he could not properly prepare himself for the trial. It was possible that, following a discussion between the defense counsel and the defendant, some facts for the defense of the defendant could have come to light. As far as I remember, the actual circumstances of the crime had been cleared, but witnesses could have been called not about the circumstances, but to give testimony about the personalities of the two defendants who hitherto, if I remember correctly, had lived an unexceptionable life and who, in the course of many years, had done their duty as railway workers properly.
Q Did I understand you correctly? Did you say both were pardoned?
A Yes; both were pardoned. As I said earlier, as far as I remember, one was ten years' penitentiary, and the other was eight years' penitentiary.
Q After that verdict did railway robberies increase or not?
A I cannot judge that. At any rate, I believe that the verdict particularly in Ulm, produced a definite deterrent effect. As to the effect elsewhere, I could not elll you. Naturally, the case was reported in the press and I believe that persons working far the railways and for the posts took their warning from that.
Q You said that during the examination of defendants, and in particular during the examination of witnesses, Cuhorst read out records laid down during the pre-trial by police officials.
A That is not exactly what I said. What I said was if a witness or a defendant made a statement which did not correspond to his former statement made by the police or before a judge, then it was customary with Cuhorst to call the official who had formerly examined the witness, and examine him as a witness about that examination which he had conducted.
Q Was that against the procedural code, or correct?
A Yes, it was absolutely correct.
Q If a presiding judge committed any infringement against the code of procedure, what possibility existed under the code of procedure for a conscientious defense counsel? In what way could he bring about a decision by the Court? Would he ask that a note be made in the record?
A He could do both. He could demand that the Court should arrive at a decision on this point if it concerned a material point of the trial; that is to say, if it concerned a question like this, as to whether a witness was to be heard or not, or as to whether a fact about which evidence was required was of importance for evidence or not. I remember hardly any instance where defense counsel, at a trial over which Cuhorst presided, asked for such a decision by the Court.
Q Would that not have been important for a retrial or for asking for a pardon?
A That is correct. An infringement against the code of procedure, in certain circumstances, could justify a retrial.
Q Against sentences-
A (Interposing) There was no appeal and no revision concerning verdicts passed by a special court.
Q Under the German code of procedure, can an infringement of a code of procedure be proved only by the records, or can it also be proved by other means?
AAs far as I remember, It can only be proved by the records, but it is many years since I left my own profession and it is possible that I am wrong here.
Q You said that it was customary in Wuerttemberg to have particularly detailed indictments.
A Yes.
Q Were the indictments which were destined to be dealt with by Cuhorst more detailed than those destined for the Senate, or for other courts, or for presiding judges?
A The indictments for the Penal Senate generally were very detailed. one did not know from the beginning before which Penal Senate the case would come. There was a certain system that was followed, and as a rule I did not pay any attention to that system. I only know that the indictments before the Penal Chambers, and naturally also those for the local courts, hardly ever were as extensive and as detailed as those which came before the Special Court, with the exception of really serious and involved cases.
Q This way that the indictments had of becoming more detailed, was that not connected with the fact that pre-trials were abandoned? Was it not also connected with the endeavor to give as complete a picture as possible to the presiding judge, to the prosecution, and to the defendant from the indictment?
A It is correct that the fact that pre-trials were abandoned did have their effect on the indictment. In the same manner in which pre-trial was ordered, it was also ordered that in all cases where pre-trial was ordered, it was also ordered that in all cases where pre-trial would have been necessary, tho essential results of these pre-trial examinations should be contained in the indictment.
It is also correct that in particular the prosecution at Stuttgart was anxious that the defense counsel too, and the associate judges, by detailed indictment, should be speedily and comprehensively informed. However, a decisive reason for us in making these indictments so detailed was also the fact that we knew that Cuhorst liked to conduct his proceedings, basing himself on the indictment.
Q. Is it not also the purpose of the indictment to give the presiding judge an instrument for the conduct of the trial?
A That is correct. However, with other presiding judges I was accustomed to the fact that they made extracts for themselves from the files, and they laid down their own plan, from files, to which they could adhere, following the files as well.
THE PRESIDENT: He will suspend at this point for the noon recess, and adjourn until 1:30 this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours).
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 11 April 1947).
DR. MANDRY: Dr. Mandry for the defendant Cuhorst. May I continue the cross examination?
BERTHOLD SCHWARZ - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION - Continued BY DR. MANDRY:
Q. I am returning to the question of what a conscientious defense counsel could undertake against violations of the code of procedure by the presiding judge. Who was supervising the presiding judge of the Special Court?
AAs far as I know, the district court president was the supervisor.
Q Was that not changed in the course of time so that in some cases the District Court of Appeals stepped in as supervisor?
A In his capacity as presiding judge of the first penal senate, Cuhorst was subordinate to the supervision of the District Court of Appeals' president, but the official supervision over him in his capacity as presiding judge of tho special court--whether that was changed, I don't know.
Q Did not a defense counsel in cases of violation of the code of procedure of the trial or other behavior of Cuhorst have the possibility either to make a formal complaint as an official supervisor or in a more informal way to inform the president of the District Court of Appeals, or at least his personnel chief; or if the district court president was competent for the supervision, to approach him and inform him about excesses or mistakes and to point them out to him; and was that the duty of the defense counsel?
A It would have boon the duty of the defense counsel, but I am of the opinion that a defense counsel would not have dared to take such steps against Cuhorst.
Q On the other hand, you told us about a case in which Cuhorst on his part objected to the behavior of a lawyer which he considered wrong, that he approached the supervisory authority of the president of the Lawyers' Chamber, if I understood you correctly.
A Yes.
Q Was this incorrect in any way?
A The proper way would have been to inform the general public prosecutor about it because the general public prosecutor had the supervision over the disciplinary courts' board--that is, the Ehrengericht. He was the authority which had to judge the behavior of lawyers. It would have been correct to go not directly to the president of the legal chamber of lawyers but to go to the general public prosecutor. Cuhorst did not do this, and the reason was, that his relationship with the general public prosecutor was not a good one.
q Was his relationship with the president of the lawyers' chamber a good one?
A I cannot judge that any more, but I believe that this relationship too was at times in any case not a good one.
Q Was the approaching of the president of the lawyers' chamber not the more lenient method--the least strict way--as compared with approaching the general public prosecutor?
A I would not like to say so absolutely.
Q Do you know whether the lawyer Diessem who was told, in your opinion, by the president of the lawyers' chamber before the special court not to appear any more before the special court and the Oberlandesgericht, that he after this did again appear before before the Special court and the Oberlandesgericht?
Q I do not know whether lawyer Diessem again was defense counsel before the special court or tho penal senate later on. In any case, I regarded this measure in.this case far too strict. I would have imagined that Herr Glueck would ask the lawyer Dr. Diessem to come to him and tell him what Cuhorst had written to Glueck and would ask him that in the future in his statements and in the manner in which he makes his statements to be somewhat more careful in order not to create an unfavorable position in the court and thereby put himself and the lawyers' profession into a difficult position not to antagonize the court; for this danger existed at that time.
In any case of this nature where a lawyer expressed himself in such a way, Cuhorst, did not like it.
Q I am repeating my question. Does the approaching of the general public prosecutor not mean the approaching of a more formal legal apparatus compared with the approaching of the president of the lawyers' chamber, or does not the approaching of the president of the lawyers' chamber mean a more lenient mode of action? You, yourself, mentioned that there was a danger that the general public prosecutor could refer the matter to Berlin and from Berlin action would be taken.
A Perhaps you misunderstood me quite a bit. If Cuhorst would have reported the matter to the general public prosecutor, I am convinced that not even such a step would have been taken as was taken against Diessem, and the reason why this would not have been done is that the general, public prosecutor had even more the tendency to settle these matters out of court simply, and I, myself, was making efforts in that direction. There was no trial, made from this case, even though the general public prosecutor through me had been informed about the incident. Not even files were made up in this case because Cuhorst reported the matter to Glueck in the form of a complaint. The case took on a formal nature to the disadvantage of the lawyer Diessem and a big affair was made out of it.
Q Is the matter not settled in their own house, so to say, if it is brought before this lawyers' chamber?
A It is true that Herr Glueck too settled the matter on his own. field of competence. However, there were legal consequences which were very considerable for Herr Diessem.