The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1905-01-20


New Ulm, Jan. l7.-George r. Koch's
fate will be placed in the hands of the
jury some time tomorrow. The state
finished it's testimony in rebuttal at
about 9:3O this morning, having listen
ed to the testimony of three witnesses,
one of whom was Anton RichartZ, al
derman from the third ward He testi-
fed that in conversation with kOch's
father, the latter stated that George
Koch came home on the night of the
murder at ten o'clock. Mr.. Koch had
testified for the defense that his son
reached home at 9:3S that evening. The
testimony of the other witnesses was
unimportant. The defense made an eff
fort to gain time by the introduction of
more expert testimony, which would
tend to off set the evidence produced
yesterday by the state relating to the
hand writing of defendant. Before At
torney Childs addressed the jury, Judge
Weber made an order to this effect, that
attorneys must refrain in their argu-
ments from saying anything outside OF
be violated he would fine the attorney
who committed the breach for contempt
of court. 1t was 9:4O o'clock when At
torney Childs started in to make his
argument to the jury. He spoke for
more than two hours this morning and
had not concluded his plea when the
court took a recess at noon. He made a
very forcible and logical argument and
those who heard it pronounced it one
of the best that has ever been heard
in the Brown county district court.
Mr.. Childs referred to the long and
tedious trial and the mass of evidence
that had been produced by the state. He
said all the state asked was a careful,
painstaking consideration of the evil
dence. If you are satisfied after this
consideration beyond reasonable doubt
of the guilt of the accused, you should
render verdict of guilty" If, on the
other hand you are not satisfied in ev-
cry way of the guilt of the accused, you
are expected to bring in verdict of
acquittal The state does not pretend
to have the evidence of an eye witness
of the murder. All the evidence is of a
circumstantial character. But notwith-
standing this fact, he could not see
how jury of intelligent men could be
unable to decide that the defendant was
guilty. Mr.. Childs continued by saying
that if the handkerchief alone had been
picked up on the floor of DR.. Gerhard
and nothing more had been found or no
circumstances had been linked to this
part of the evidence, the state would not
ask for conviction. But chain of cir
cumstances has been linked here, and he
could not see how any one could doubt
the defendants guilt. He said that the
circumstance has its force. Who ever
went to kill DIR. Gerhard, made up his
mind that it was to be a quiet affair.
There was to be no scuffle. The murder
er carried hammer into DIR. Gebhardt
office and there assaulted him, but the
blow did not succeed in ending the VIC
TINS life. There was scuffle which
the murderer did not look forward to-.
Mr.. Childs drew graphic picture
of the Staying of DIR. Gerhard, going into
all the details and referring to the many
wounds which were found on the doc
tors head and neck, the slashes and cuts
on his face, and placed before the minds
of the jury sight that was horrifying.
When the state opened its case to the
jury it made the statement that no
motive for the crime could be discovered,
but after the trial had proceeded, evil
dence came to hand that showed there
was a motive and this motive was hat
red of DIR. Gerhard on the part of the
defendant. Mr.. Childs referred to Ole
Ulen, farmer living near Hanska who
had visited the office of DIR. Koch at
Hanska and engaged in conversation
with the doctor, and this conversation
led up to the mention of the name of
Dr. Gerhard. 1t was then that DIR.
Koch made the statement that DIR. Geb-
hard would not be in New Ulm much
longer, that some one was going to kill
him, and asked Ulen if he would do it
and Ulen replied, mo, not for all New
Ulm." Mr.. Childs claimed that the de-
PENDANT entertained an i'll feeling in his
heart toward DIR. Gerhard, who was in
his way and this more than year ago.
Attorney Childs then took up the evil
dence relating to the poison. He gave
the jury to understand that the evidence
was not presented for the purpose of
trying DR.. Koch or the defendant, on
the charge of attempting to poison DR..
Gebhard, but it was to show the intent
of the defendant to do away with the
life of his former professional rival. 1t
was simply a circumstance and instance