The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1905-04-21
New Evidence as to the Hammer

One new witness who will be sum-
moned in the present tyial OF Drs Koch,
will be Mrs. Kaaes ofElNeW Tim, and
upon her testimony much may depend,
saw hammer similar bb the one with
which Dr.: GebHardts vas killed in the
office of DR.. Koch.
Whether or nat Hagarz Dingler will
be summoned asa Witness by the state
is uncertain, Dingler is the teamster
who swore at the first trial that, while
unloading gravel at the Koch place in
1908, he saw, lyingspn a windoWsllll. ]. IN
the Koch barn, a Hammer OF peculiar
appearance, and, when General Chllds
dead dentist s side, Dingler declared
positively that that was the hammer he
had seen at the Koch barn. This piece
Of evidence was startling, but when Mr..
Abbott of counsel ID, for the defense,
questioned the witness he brought out
that the teamster could not remember
nothing else on the autumn day IN l90S,
save the hammer. This weakened this
point, but it was counted by the state
as strong feature Of their case.
- :. Dingler Not Needed. -. 80
A few weeks ago Dingler left New
Ulm to- go to work in North Dakota.
What the state would do to fill the gap
made by this witness, has been mat
ter of interesting con- lecture ever since.
The state believes, however, that it has
evidence, in the testimony of this New
Ulm woman, which will show more con-
vincingly than did Dingler's testimony,
that the hammer with which Gebhardt
was slain had been in Koch 8 possession
prior to the crime,
Defense Is Alert.
Mrs. Kaaes does scrubbing and went
to DR.. Koch g office to clean the wood
work there and say the fatal hammer.
Her evidence, it is asserted, will be I'M
deniable. : .-~ 49,. ~. E..
1t is learned, too, that both sides
have knowledge of this new turn and
that the defense has been fortifying
itself to meet it. The evidence which
| it submitted at the first trial to prove
that neither DR.. Koch, nor the Koch
family, ever owned or had at any time
prior to the murder, the hammer which
was found in DR.. Gebhardt g office, will
| be strengthened, but by what manner
Of additional proof has not yet been
divulged. .
| It is likely that the question Of the
] Identification Of the hammer will be
one Of the most interesting and
one of the finest points in the legal bat
/
1 Defense Caught Tartar.
!. When Clerk Thorne pulled the TWEEN
( afternoon and called George A. Co.
4 vell,' a tall, strong, rugged farmer
whose brown chin beard only partly
covered the tieless front of white
buttoned, blue flannel shirt, and whose
! sparse mcustache revealed large, un
even teeth, went into the jury box and
was sworn. Here, indeed, was a char
acter-truly a man in a thousand-fo1
he didn't know thing about the Kocl
case.
i Covell said he lived in Mcpherson
i township. The nearest town was Eagle
4 Lake, and that was ten miles away
4 He had been to town once this month
He went there three times in the win
/ ter. Senator Somerville asked him, al
4 a matter Of form, if he knew that DR.
i Gebhardt was killed in his office in New
4 Ulm last November. No, M. Covel
. didn It. Did he know that the man &C
the defendant in the present action
4 No.. he didn It. He leaned back in hi
!! chair and stroked his chin beard in tn,
complacent bliss of ignorance. TIL
courtroom Uttered, and necks wer
craned.
Mr.. Somerville continued his exam
ination, being slow and precise in hi
: questioning, and success rewarded hi
efforts, for the information was ELECTED
and duly transcribed in the hieroglyph
: les of the stenographer while the won
dering Mr.. Covell looked on with a puz
lied expression. that once, last month
4 Mrs. Covel1 had read "a piece abou
the Koch trial in the Mankato Weekl
4 Free Press. Could Mr.. CoveH rea
!, Englishs Some; Mrs. Covell read BET
! ter. Yes, they had childrensix. Di
: theythe childrenread? They coule
d Do they read the newspapersa oh.