 |
| 3. TESTIMONY OF DEFENDANT TER MEER (FIRST PART) |
| |
EXTRACTS FROM THE TESTIMONY OF
DEFENDANT TER MEER¹
|
| |
| CROSS-EXAMINATION² |
| |
| * * * * * * * * * * |
| |
MR. SPRECHER: Now, you say that you are not a lawyer, Dr. ter
Meer. Technically, I suppose, that is true, but you studied law for several
years, did you not?
DEFENDANT TER MEER: No, I registered for law one
semester in a university, but unfortunately I attended only two lectures during
the semester. Then I studied chemistry.
Q. During your internship in
your father’s factory, didn't you study commercial legal matters at his
request?
A. If you confine the expression “commercial legal
matters” to mean cartel contracts, conventions, and perhaps a license
agreement now and then — then you are right. I do know such contracts.
Q. Now, the Francolor Convention is in evidence as Prosecution Exhibit
1255,³ Document NI-6845, Book 58, English
page 35, German page 41. Now, Article 11 forbids the French firms who are
parties to the Francolor agreement to participate either directly or indirectly
in the production or sale of dyestuffs products, apart, of course, from the
arrangements of the convention.
Do you recall that the French firms
wanted to be permitted to acquire financial participation in enterprises
outside of France?
A. You mean that the French enterprises who
participated in the Francolor Convention wanted to acquire participations in
foreign firms?
Q That is right. A. I don’t know what you have in
mind. Would you perhaps point it out to me.
Q. Indeed. Is it not a fact
that you personally intervened against the French request to be permitted to
acquire financial participations outside of France?
A. Is that
mentioned in the document?
Q. No, no, I haven’t given you any
document about that matter. I am just asking you the question.
A. I
thought since you referred to this document, page 41, I must say quite frankly
that I do not know what this question has to do |
__________
¹ Further extracts are
reproduced above in subsection C 6, below in subsections D 6, E 4, and section
IX F 2, and earlier in section VII C 5b, E 3, G 3, H 4b, 1
7c, J 4, K 3a, L 3d, M 3, and 0 7a in volume VIl,
this series.
² As explained in 1 above, the first examination of
defendant ter Meer concerning spoliation was conducted during cross-examination
by the prosecution for the reason that the Tribunal had approved a request of
ter Meer's counsel that his direct examination on this subject be deferred
until a later stage of the case. The later direct examination of defendant ter
Meer is reproduced in 6 below.
³ Reproduced in 2 above.
213755—53—11
153 |
. 
