Q. Well, when a question of inheritance under the general law came up in the courts in which they were confronted with this 13th decree concerning police confiscation, what did the courts do?
A. I got to know of only one single case which may be connected with this problem, and I am thinking of a case of recognition of the right of subsequent inheritance. The district court of appeals and the seventh civil senate of the Reich Supreme Court at the time decided that the right of subsequent inheritance remained legal and that regardless of the provisions which had been issued in connection with the Jewish problem, the estate, if a case of subsequent inheritance occurred, would have to be passed on to the subsequent heir. Other cases, I do not remember.
Q. Was that the equivalent or did it amount to holding that the decree for police confiscation was invalid?
A. I am sorry. I did not understand.
Q. The Supreme Court apparently refused to apply the provisions of the decree for police confiscation, did it not?
A. I can’t say for certain. If I remember rightly the Reich Supreme Court, concerning the question of the validity of that decree did not express its opinion at all.
Q. Well, it didn’t enforce the decree, did it?
A. No, the Reich Supreme Court said, the subsequent heir who comes after the immediate heir is not affected by that decree, and therefore, his rights remain his rights.
Q. And who was the subsequent heir? Was he a Jew?
A. All I remember is his name. Whether he was a Jew I don’t know, but I don’t think he was. Probably he was non-Jewish.