The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1905-05-12

examined the type under the glass ana
there is no defect in the letters, and l
have not discovered any defect in other
letters ''h" made by the machine. After
repairs have been made on machine,
as Tightening the carriage, change
would be made in the alignment A
new roller will improve the alignment
and make the writing show less de-
fects.
The witness looked at the insurance
policy made out on the machine in
question and at the blue box. The rib
bon used in writing the address on the
box has more of reddish tinge than
that used in writing the policy. The
ribbon now on the machine in question
is rather new, but is very dry. There
are several shades of purple, according
to how the manufacturer mixes his inks.
On cross examination, the witness
said that the color on the address would
change slightly from handling. There
is no difference in the shade of the writ
ing on the inside and outside of the
policy. Have never read any books on
typewriter experiences, and never testi-
fed before this case as an expert Diff
ferent makes of machines can be told
apart by the differences in the letters
only in some cases. The type in the
late models are much alike. If letter
was decidedly out of alignment by rea
son of the type bar having slipped, the
machine could be identified by the writ
ing. The letter "a" in 'Gebhardt," on
the blue box, has either been struck
twice or the type worn down. l think
it has been struck twice.
On redirect, the witness said that he
never heard before of a typewriter ex-
pert being called to testify in this state.
The label on the blue box shows no
discoloration by handling.
The evening recess was taken.
Not Koch's Handwriting.
Henry n. Somsen, brother in-law of
the defendant, was the first witness
called this morning. Am a partner of
County Attorney Hoidale. Have been
acquainted with the defendants hand
writing for three or four years. Wit
ness was shown the word Sample"
written across the label of the poison
bottle.
! "Will you state whether or not, in
your opinion, that is the handwriting of
the defendant" asked A. r. Pfau, who
was conducting the examination.
SIN my opinion it is not" replied Mr..
Somsen.
The witness was shown number of
sheets taken from DIR. Koch's record
books, and said that they were in the
handwriting of DR.. Koch. The sheets
were offered in evidence.
| On cross examination the witness
stated That the defendant he'd never
written an So" like the one in "Sam-
ple" There is not enough individuality
about "a" and "m' to say whether or
not it is like Kocn's. The lower part
of the 'p" is shorter than many peo-
pie write. There is nothing in the ''l'
to form an opinion.
SIS not the ''e' like the defendant
writes? ?" asked Gen. Childs.
81 don't think So" replied the wit
ness.
'Is not the following stroke a char
acteristic of the defendants as shown
by the writing in his record books?"
81 don't think So"
as not the final 'e' in shave" in ex-
nibit 81 the same as the final sc" in
Sampler"
The defense objected to this unless
exhibit 81, which was writing on note
size paper, was offered in evidence, and
the court sustained the objection
Gen. Childs stated that the position
of the state is that the handwriting
must be conceded in order to be proper
ly compared.
On redirect, the witness stated that
the record book pages were taken from
the books in the presence of the jury
at New Ulm.
On second cross examination, the
witness said that the sheets were torn
out by the defendants counsel with
out the states attorneys having seen
the books.
didn't the state want the entire
books placed in evidence?"
81 don't remember"
William Koch, brother of the defend
ant, said that he know the latter's
handwriting.
Estate whether or not in your opinion
tine word Sample" on the bottle is in
the handwriting of the defendant" ask
ed Mr.. Pau.
81 never thought So" said the wit
ness.
"Do you think so now?"
az do not think So"