Q Witness, doesn't your testimony contradict your statement on direct examination when you testified to the following and this is a literal translation: "In the DWB, the leadership forces were mostly members of the SS". Now you just said that an intelligent civilian would have a more powerful position with the DWB than an SS officer.
A I said "he could have." I didn't say, "he did."
THE PRESIDENT: What has this to do with your client, Dr. Heim? How are you concerned in this cross-examination? How does it affect your client?
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, Herr Dr. Hohherg at no time was a member of the SS. Dr. Volk, who was an SS Hauptsturmfuehrer testified that he would not be able to become Chief of Staff W, because he only had the rank of SS Hauptsturmfuehrer. Now the conclusion out of this is that a civilian, who did not have an SS rank, could by no means become Chief of Staff W.
THE PRESIDENT: Don't you think that's a point that you ought to argue to the Tribunal, rather than with the witness?
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, I only wanted to have shown by the witness what his opinion was about this problem, as, after all, he was with the DWB for years and particularly was working with the Legal Department there.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if this continues much longer, we are going to have to limit cross-examination, as we are permitted to do under the Ordinance. The cross- examination is taking altogether too much time and covering too much territory, too much ground. Go ahead.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, I am sorry, but the witnesses are all incriminating my client and I simply have to defend his position.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q Did you know the contract which existed between Herr Dr. Hohberg and the DWB?
A Yes.
Q Can you tell us whether that contract was an official contract or a working contract?
A It was a contract which was similar to a working contract, a contract on commission.
Q Did you also know the first contract, or did you only know the second contract?
A I don't know whether I saw the first contract or not: I couldn't tell you for sure.
Q Witness, you testified before that you had connections with the Property Manager of the Apollinaris and that was the Reich Commissioner for the Administration of Enemy Property.
A I didn't want to say that. As a matter of fact, I didn't want to go into detail in regard to this problem before the Tribunal, because I am going to bring in a number of affidavits on that question. That is the reason why I spoke briefly and you may have misunderstood me. The Reich Commissioner for Enemy Property at the time was a man named Ernst. The administrator is another man. He was only appointed later on.
Q Do you know who the Manager of the Apollinaris was?
A Wirtz was his name.
Q That's all. Do you know who carried out the compulsory auditing the DWB after Dr. Hohberg?
A I believe it was the Trusteeship and Auditing A.G., but I don't know if those were compulsory auditings with a certificate.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess for 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Take your seats, please.
The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. HEIM:
Q Your Honor, I have only four more questions.
Witness, I would like to read to you four lines of an affidavit by Frau Fauler. I want to do that in order to refresh your memory about your classification as being indispensable. I want to read from Hohberg Document 24, Exhibit #24, and it is on page 55 of Hohberg Document Book #1. The last paragraph and I quote:
"I further know that Dr. Hohberg was neither a member of the NSDAP nor the SS. As a result of this, finally in 1943, his classification as being indispensable to this office was suspended and he was assigned to the Wehrmacht, in this case the Luftwaffe."
A Other wise Hohberg could not have been called up to the Luftwaffe.
Q Witness, does that affidavit refresh your memory to some extent with regard to your classification of being indispensable?
THE PRESIDENT: His classification or Hohberg's?
BY DR. HEIM:
Q I'm referring to the classification of Hohberg.
A This testimony does not contradict my statement. This classification was suspended because otherwise Dr. Hohberg could not have been conscripted into the Luftwaffe.
Q Witness, while you were at Minden in prison did you give the defendant Hohberg an affidavit?
A Yes.
Q Do the contents of this affidavit contradict the testimony which you have given today?
A No.
Just a moment please, Dr. Heim, I have not as yet completed my statement. At Minden we discussed the legal importance of the so-called Office Chief W. We were quite worried about the subject at the time and regained the conviction that this Office Chief W was not an office chief in the sense of the technical designation of an office chief, as I have explained before, With regard to Office Groups A to D. And in this affidavit it is stated that Dr. Hohberg was not an office chief.
Of course, here we were referring to the technical sense of the designation. After all, this affidavit was dictated by Dr. Hohberg and the it was submitted to me.
Q Didn't you have this affidavit changed and didn't you have it rewritten by your secretary?
A I don't think this was done with regard to that point.
Q Witness, that is sufficient. Witness, you stated that Hohberg had a contract which resembled that of a working employment contract and I would like to show you your affidavit of the 2 of December 1946. I want you to identify it and please read it to us.
(Affidavit is handed to witness)
Witness, please read this affidavit to us.
THE PRESIDENT: Has this affidavit been marked as an exhibit and admitted in evidence?
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, I have just offered this affidavit now for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, before he reads it, have it marked as an exhibit and do you have a copy for the prosecution?
DR. HEIM: Yes, Your, Honor. It is Hohberg Document 69 and will become Exhibit #42.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have a copy for the prosecution?
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, unfortunately the copies were not finished in time. I would like to ask the witness, with the permission of the Tribunal, to read the affidavit now into the record.
THE PRESIDENT Well, that's the thing that you object to when the prosecution does it.
DR. HEIM: No, Your Honor, I objected at a time when the prosecution submitted the document about the Gallus Printing shop but then it did not have any document number and it did not give it any exhibit number.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, isn't there some particular part of this affidavit, just a single statement in it, that you are interested in?
DR. HEIM: Dr. Volk, please be kind enough and read the sentences which I have provided with parenthesis.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, I object to the reading of this document as long as this affidavit has not been presented here in evidence.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, I have already offered this affidavit as Hohberg Document 69, as Exhibit #42.
THE PRESIDENT: Any objection, Dr. Hoffman?
DR. HOFFMAN: No, I only advised my colleague because, on the one hand, you asked for a copy for the prosecution, and I advised him to present this document after the noon recess so the prosecution will have a copy too. Otherwise, I am afraid that later on when I complain that Mr. Robbins hasn't submitted a copy to me in time he will use that same excuse and I want to clear that excuse out of the way for later on.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, do you object to this affidavit? It has been offered in evidence.
DR. GAWLIK: I have no objection whatsoever, Your Honor, if it is offered in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Robbins, you are eloquent in your silence.
MR. ROBBINS: I have no objections, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Just ask the witness to read the small part of the affidavit that you're interested in.
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, on Saturday morning I have already turned over a stencil to the Reproduction Division. Unfortunately, I still have not received any copies yet.
Witness, please read the sentences now which I have provided with parenthesis.
WITNESS: I would prefer to read the entire affidavit now.
THE PRESIDENT: I would prefer that you didn't. Just remember you're a witness now, not the lawyer.
WITNESS: "Auditor Certified Merchant Hans Hohberg, by virtue of a contract, was with the DWB as a free auditor and he also worked for a large number of affiliated companies."
Now, the first sentence:
"One day Pohl gave Hohberg the designation of an office chief. As I found out later, Pohl was trying to bring Hohberg under the SS jurisdiction at the time. The term "office chief" was purely fictional because there was neither an office in existence nor did it have that name or a budget either. No document or written appointment was compiled and there were no functions with regard to the Party or the SS and there was no function to be carried out for the Reich or for the Party."
That is what I have explained with regard to the position of office chiefs.
"Some time later a collaborator of DWB denounced Hohberg to the Auditing Institute at Berlin. He gave the reasons that Dr. Hohberg is qualified as an auditor and was being questioned because he accepted that designation. Pohl then replied to that inquiry of the Auditing Institute that Dr. Hohberg as an editor, was completely independent and therefore there was no contract between him and DWB but that he was only working for the DWB. Then the person who had made the denouncement, Mr. Rux, from Berlin, Harmsdorf was sentenced to one year's imprisonment because he knowingly had made a false denouncement."
And this does not contradict my statement at all.
DR. HEIM: Witness, do you still maintain the statement you have made in your affidavit?
A The statement which I have made here in the witness stand is true.
Q Witness, I didn't ask you about that.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, wait a minute. The witness has said that he does not repudiate the affidavit and that it agrees with his testimony and I think it does too. He says the affidavit is true. Now, what more do you want?
DR. HEIM: If the affidavit is true, according to the witness' statement then I am, of course, completely satisfied. Thank you. I have no further questions.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN (Defense Counsel for defendant Mummenthey)
Q Witness, you have known the conditions of the affiliated companies since 1940 and the conditions of what, later on, became the DWB?
A Yes, I knew them very slightly.
Q Do you know the conditions of the DEST in general?
A Yes, I know about them generally. I have never worked in DEST but I know its general status.
Q Who, in the year 1940, was the business manager of DEST?
A The first business manager and office chief was Dr. Salpeter. That was in the year 1940.
Q At the time was the defendant Mummenthey also a business manager, that is to say, was he an assistant business manager?
A Whether he was an assistant business manager already in 1940 I don't know. However, I believe that I can recall that he only was a prokurist at that time. However, I can't give you the exact date, Dr. Froeschmann.
Q In order to judge the activity of Mumenthey, it may be of importance as to just what the character of Salpeter was. Are you able to tell the Tribunal very briefly about this subject?
A Dr. Salpeter in his field was a very good lawyer. However, he was a very bad businessman. He was personally very ambitious and inconsiderated to collaborators. He exploited them, only gave orders to them, and he followed the so-called Fuehrer Principle even in the economic field.
Q Is it correct that Salpeter in all important matters would reserve his right to make his own decision?
A In my field of activity--I was the liaison referent with him to III-A/4, and this was always the case. I recall that on one occasion I had to compile a draft -- the prosecution has read this draft in part in his opening statement -- at the time he gave me the exact details, and he told me precisely just how I had to work out this draft of this speech. I requested him at the time to leave something to my own initiative, because after all in the position which I had. occupied in peace-time I had something of a higher position. However, he did not do that, and he treated me just like a small apprentice. From that, I must conclude that he acted in the same way toward all the other experts.
Q Witness, there was a second person who played a very important part in the DEST and this might be important for Mumenthey's activities while he was working there, that is the so-called Schondorf who has already been mentioned several times. Have you known Schondorf?
A Yes.
Q What was Schondorf's relationship to the DEST, or what was his relationship to Pohl?
A His relationship to the DEST was the following: Schondorf as far as I know, was first of all, a prokurist. Later on a business manager. He was a technician and he lectured at the Brick Works in the camp. In the DEST he was the competent man actually, that was, with regard to the Brick Works and with regard to technical questions. He carried out his work at Stadlag. The second part of your question Dr. Froeschmann, was his relationship to Pohl. Pohl had put Engineer Schondorf in charge of all the technical aspects of all the raw production places in the WVHA, and he was always bragging about this. And he stated that he would only work four days a week. And I also know from discussions that he had the right to report directly to Pohl. In these technical companies, as it always is the case, there was a constant struggle between the technicians and the businessmen. As a result of this, he always emphasized the fact that the businessmen, including Mumenthey, could not give him instructions.
Q May I conclude from your statement that Schondorf held a very important position within the DEST?
A He did not only hold outstanding position in the DEST, but he also held an outstanding position in many companies. I know that Dr. Bobermin only succeeded with the utmost effort in achieving in a discussion with Pohl, that Schondorf was not the man in charge of the technical management of the Eastern Brick works of which Dr. Bobermin was in charge. However, Dy. Bobermin's efforts did not clarify this question either.
Q Witness, if the technical management was in the hands of Schondorf, then he also had in his hands the planning of the Works, that is to say, he still had to obtain the approval of Pohl, is that correct?
A I don't know that, but I have to assume so. I can't tell you that from my own knowledge, since I was not there; however, I must draw that conclusion from the facts which have become accessible to me.
Q Were you ever consulted on how the planning was drafted?
A No.
Q Consequently, you do not know how the planning was carried out in the DEST?
A I only know from the time when I began my work in 1940 that Dr. Salpeter, who was the outstanding person in this case, in that office, I know that he went to Pohl together with Schondorf. Just what happened later on with Mumenthey, I don't know. However, I must conclude from that that Schondorf usually would go to see Pohl by himself, and that he did not take Mumenthey along anymore.
Q In your opinion, wasn't the figuring out of the necessary labor part of the planning? Can you give us any statement about that?
A I am not a technician, Dr. Froeschmann.
Q But I would like to ask you some other questions. Did you know Mumenthey's business management in the DEST?
A Yes.
Q Did Mumenthey maintain a policy of expansion by constantly including more plants in his organization?
AAs far as I am able to judge that. Mumenthey did not want to have any new plants. He said that he had so much work to do, and that he had to bring so many commercial matters into order which Salpeter had left behind; for this reason, after Dr. Salpeter left, a businessman from the Economy was placed at his disposal. For his assistance in order to clarify the status and the business matters in the DEST. That was Dr. Opperbeck.
Q After Dr. Salperter left, did Mumenthey become more independent in his business management or was he continually tied down by special circumstances? Do you know anything about that?
A I don't know at the moment just what circumstances you are referring to.
Q May I use the word "Corporation" to you, and then the orders which were issued in that respect.
A The Corporation Charter with the DWB, GmBH was merely a matter which referred to taxation law and commercial law. The decisive factor here were the orders from the Chief and the personality of Pohl. The DEST of the plant at Oranienburg was Pohl's chief worry. Consequently, Pohl was mainly interested in this plant and the DEST, and that is the reason why Mumenthey with regard to his business management had to pay much more attention to his work than the other chiefs, he was much more subordinated to the authority of Pohl.
Q Are you informed about Mumenthey's attitude with regard to the inmate question? I am referring in particular to the treatment of the inmates who were working in the plants of the DEST.
Q I would like to express myself in the following manner, Dr. Froeschmann. Every human being whenever he is exposed to the sun, he has to throw a certain shadow, and every human being has a certain reputation as far as living together with other people is concerned. Formerly, I used to call it a shadow picture of that person. And such a shadow was also cast by Mumenthey, it was cast by all of us. From that office I only know that Mumenthey was regarded as a very social, not only toward the members of his staff, but also toward the inmates. I have heard, for example, that he managed to get potatoes, by giving the farmers bricks in return. After all, potatoes could not be easily obtained during the war.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
On one occasion I also heard that he procured several shipments of soda water for inmates. I also heard that he requested, that he succeeded in getting thirty to thirty-five inmates released on his own initiative. By applying to the WVHA, these persons were later employed as civilians with the DEST.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Witness, after telling us about the shadow of man, and social attitude, and so on--now you have given us three episodes, each one of which you preceded with the statement "I have heard." Do you know these of your own knowledge?
WITNESS: Yes. With regard to the releases of inmates I know that from my own knowledge.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Then state "of your own knowledge." You said "I have heard" which, of course, makes it hearsay.
WITNESS: Very well, Your Honor.
I know from my own knowledge that Mummenthey succeeded in having these inmates released. I found out about that because he made an inquiry to the DWB G.m.b.H. just how the inmates were to become civilian employees, because for the civilian employees I was competent to figure out the wages. He made an inquiry as to just what salaries those former inmates were to receive since they had become employees. I know that from my own knowledge.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN (Counsel for Mummenthey):
Q Now, another question, witness. Do you know that Mummenthey in the year 1942 was to become a full-time SS officer?
A Yes; Pohl wanted that. However, Mummenthey refused that. Actually, the appointment was never carried out. I wasn't present when he saw Pohl.
Q Can you recall that Mummenthey stated at the time that he could not consider it, and he wouldn't consider leaving the DEST?
A Yes; he voiced that opinion very frequently.
Q And now my last question. Are you informed about Mummenthey's relationship to the DEST, as far as his work was concerned. Did he have a contract with Pohl, with the DEST, or the DWB?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A In my opinion, he had a contract with the DEST G.m.b.H. The contract had the same form as the contract which has been submitted here in the files, as far as I was concerned.
Q Witness, did you have the opportunity to watch the inmates who were at work in the DEST enterprises?
A Yes, only on one occasion at Flossenburg. I described that in my direct examination, but I didn't see him otherwise.
DR. FROESCHMANN: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
BY DR. FICHT (Counsel for defendant Klein):
Q Witness, did you ask Klein to come and see you in the spring of 1944, and did you pass on some important information to him on that occasion?
A Yes.
Q What did you tell him?
A Klein wanted to make a report to Pohl and I met him when he was coming downstairs. I asked him to come into my office with me because I wanted to tell him something. On that occasion I told him that Pohl frequently had made derogatory remarks about his business management.
Q And what did Klein reply to you?
A He told me that he couldn't understand that at all. He told me that he couldn't understand the reasons that had caused Pohl to make such statements.
Q Why did you warn Klein?
A Because he was my colleague, and I didn't want to see that a man should suddenly be dismissed. That is why I wanted to pass on that information to him. Actually, I was not authorized to do that, but, after all, Klein was a fellow lawyer and as a colleague I wanted to tell him about it.
Q Now, I want to ask you about another matter. Did you attend the balance sheet conference of all the enterprises in Office W in June, 1944, and were you the court reporter at that time?
A Yes.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Were all the balance sheets of all the various firms discussed oh that occasion?
A Yes, they were discussed, one after the other. Every office chief would come with the competent business manager, and then the office chief or the man who was in charge of the group of enterprises would remain there during the entire time and he would represent his office.
Q However, not all the men in charge of the films were present at the same time?
A No.
Q Can you recall about the official judgment of Pohl's with regard to the films in W-8?
A Yes.
Q Just what was your opinion of Pohl about that?
A Pohl praised the business management of Klein, and he expressed his gratitude to him for the way he had conducted the business.
Q Were any complaints, could any complaints be concluded from that?
A No.
Q When Klein moved his agency to Kranichfeld in 1944 did you see him at all after that time?
A Yes.
Q When did you see him?
A I believe that was in July or August, 1944. It was very hot on that occasion; I can still remember that.
Q What caused you to pay him that visit?
A Pohl ordered me to go to Kranichfeld unexpectedly, and I was to determine there the commercial branch office was working, and that is why I went there. I was not allowed to announce my arrival there beforehand. I was especially told not to talk to Klein about it.
Q How long did you have to travel to Kranichfeld from Berlin?
A Yes, I came from Berlin. I took an express train, and it took me five hours to get there, and then I had to go for another three hours on the local train, and then I had to walk for an additional half Court No. II, Case No. 4.an hour.
Q Were you able to surprise Klein, and what impression did you gain of his work?
A I arrived there in the afternoon at four thirty, and I immediately had myself announced to him. And then I was taken to his office. He expressed his surprise about the fact that I had not called on him before because then he would have sent for me with a car to the station. I told him that I was not allowed to do that. He had two big piles before him, and he was signing the correspondence.
Q What impression did you gain from the entire office?
A I concluded that it was working regularly and efficiently.
Q How long did you remain at Kranichfeld?
A I remained there for approximately three hours.
Q Did you report about this visit to Pohl, and just what did you state in your report?
A I told Pohl that the office was making the impression of efficiency; that all the employees had worked at their desks--even on this very hot day. And, after all, I couldn't carry out any auditing work because I didn't know anything about it--or very little. Therefore, I could only give a description, a description of the impression that I gained.
Q Do you know whether Klein had any closer contact with members of the Main Office, or did he seem to be very reserved?
A The latter seems to be correct because he had very little contact with these people.
Q Can you give me an example of that?
A No, unfortunately I am unable to do that. I only know-
Q Did he tell you about his family matters?
A No, I never heard anything about his family status. I only saw the announcement of his marriage on one occasion. I think when he got married he sent me his marriage announcement.
Q Do you know anything about the arrest of his sister?
A Yes, I know about it now. I heard about that in the year 1945.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q Then I have several other questions. These questions refer to the fact that, according to your previous testimony about the business methods of Office Group W and about the personality of the defendant Pohl, you are so well informed.
Do you know the auditing report of the business management of the defendant Klein. It has just been mentioned before, and it was compiled in the fall of 1944.
A I did not read it. If you ask me whether I knew it, that is saying too much. I heard about it.
Q Where did you see this report?
A The court officer, Dr. Schmidt-Klevenow, received this report, and he showed it to me in his office. There were many green lines drawn by Pohl on that report.
Q May I assume that you looked at that report very briefly, but that you are not informed about the details?
A No, I cannot testify about any details in that report.
Q May I put the following to you? Upon the question of Judge Phillips whether any embezzlement had been ascertained, the defendant Baier stated on the witness stand that Klein had made loans to his collaborators, and that he paid them expenses for rent and official trips. And it was stated that these loans had not yet been repaid when the auditing was carried out. In that connection, I want to ask you: As an office chief, was the defendant Klein authorized to give loans to pay travel expenses to his collaborators?
A Yes.
Q Wasn't he required by his duty to do that?
A Yes, his duty required him to do that.
Q When were these loans to be repaid--that is, after the trip was completed?
A If possible, after the trip was completed. That is how it was done in the government agencies. Of course, in our offices it would happen that these things were repaid very late. However, this may have been caused by the conditions of war.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q And were the conditions which prevailed in 1944 important in that case?
A Yes, it may be assumed. However, I don't know any details about that.
Q Do you know just what the credits were which were given for rents?
A Yes, 3 or 4 houses had been constructed there and Klein always urged that the rent was to be fixed. However, the bills for the construction expenses had not arrived yet, and in the case of one family houses, with the interest from the capital, about 7½% interest would be obtained and that would be the rent, of course.
Q Witness, summing up this point, may I ask: Could Klein be charged that he had not charged for the rents until the construction expenses had been figures, so that the rents could be fixed?
A Yes, the rents could not be fixed by Pohl.
Q No, what I mean is, could he be reproached if he did not collect rents from those people who were already living in these houses before the bills for the construction had been compiled? After all, these bills took up some time before they arrived.
Q According to German Penal Law, he could not have been charged with that at all. Of course, as a business manager, it would have been better if he had told the employee in question, "Just pay a certain amount for the time being and we will settle the matter later." All that would mean was that he would only make the employee a certain advance.
Q The Defendant Baier has stated on the witness stand that in construction matters, and here he was referring to the construction of houses where the funds which had been appropriated, had been extended without any further permission. At the time, and now I am referring to the period of the years '43 and '44, was it not just customary that the expenses for the construction actually were much higher than the expenses which were included in the planning?
A Yes, that is correct. However, if you know the practice, Court No. II, Case No. 4.the planning for a house is always higher than it was previously considered.
Q That is not what I wanted to know. I wanted to know whether the difference was still larger than normal under these circumstances?
A Yes, we had to pay more, because material could not be legally obtained.
Q Didn't it happen in the WVHA that such appropriated funds were exceeded and do you know if Pohl was ever reproached an office chief for having done that?
A No, I can't recall such a case at all at the moment.
Q Did the auditing report show in any way that the construction work which was carried out by Klein for his employees was extraordinary expensive or that the funds which were spent had been illegally spent?
A I saw the house where Klein was living. He invited me for supper one evening and he showed me around the house. It was a very small and modest family house.
Q Did the report show that Klein had embezzled any money from the organizations or from his work?
A No, I don't know the report and I haven't heard anything about that.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Counsel, how does all this affect the charges in the indictment, I mean, your client. I think you had referred to this once before?
DR. FIGHT: Your Honor, a similar question has already been asked by the presiding judge and Mr. Robbins on that occasion stated that he considered it important for what reasons Klein had to leave his office. From this reason I asked the individual questions on that subject. However, I will be finished in just one moment.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: That's all right. I have just been wondering. I see now what you have in mind. Very well.
Q (By Dr. Ficht) I would now like to come to my final question. I would like to ask the following. The defendant Baier has made the statement in the witness stand upon the question of Judge Phillips that he was Court No. II, Case No. 4.not a legal expert and he could not state whether here there was an embezzlement.
Now you happen to be a legal expert and you were working in the WVHA. I therefore want to ask you, according to the facts which have been stated, can we talk about embezzlement and fraud in this case?
A We cannot speak about embezzlement at all, because according to German Penal Law this would not be an embezzlement. According to paragraph 266 of our Legal Code, it is not fraud either, for after it has been booked then in my opinion there is no intention of taking the funds. In short, he did not appropriate these funds for his own use.
Q And now my final question. What was your total impression about this auditing report?
A I did not see the auditing report.
Q However, you looked it over with Schmidt-Klevenow and you talked about it with him.
A Yes, the court officer, Dr. Schmidt-Klevenow, told me, "Dr. Volk, you, as a legal expert know that if one wants to hang somebody, a legal expert can always find a way that this can be done."
DR. FICHT: Thank you, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other questions by defense counsel? I think we might take up cross-examination at the end of the recess, Mr. Robbins. We will recess until l:45.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until 1345.
(A recess was taken until 1345 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 29 July 1947) LEO VOLK - Resumed.
CROSS EXAMINATION
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Witness, just before recess in connection with the DEST Industry you mentioned Schondorf. Do you know Schondorf's present location?
A. I heard it here. As I was told here, he is alledged to be in London, in order to build brick factories there. I know that Schondorf, in the month of May or June 1945, was captured by the British Occupation Forces, and taken to the internment camp of Nevengamme. I heard from his wife that he was in several internment camps. I only gained my first knowledge here at this trial.
Q. Can you tell us, witness, what the functions of a syndikus are?
A. That designation was given me by Herr Pohl.
Q. Is that a word in art, or a technical term that is used in business and commerce, generally ?
A. Yes, it is a term which was particularly used prior to 1933 for experts who dealt with legal matters. In Germany you either say a syndikus or justitiar, those are the two terms.
Q. Is that a position in the management, of an industry, in a field position?
A. No, not quite. I told the defense the position as such can not be seen from the term itself.
Q. It does not correspond to a position of prokurist?
A. No, the prokurist is a person, or rather a term itself used in a mercial code, while the term syndikus can be acquired by almost anybody. A person can call himself a syndikus who has not even completed his legal status entirely in Germany. For instance, we say here that man is not a full lawyer.