The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1905-05-06
,Discredi ting Klause.

5 Discrediting Klause.
Einar Hoidale, who testified for the
state, was asked to tell of DR.. Koch s
visit to his office on the evening of the
murder. His story was like that given
by other witnesses on this point.
y The, defense then took up line Of
questioning intended to throw discredit
upon. the testimony Of Chief of Police
Klaqse as to the Identification Of the
handkerchief. ---...
:. !. g You are the county attorney Of
Bf9Wn eoq tbs{ began mF Absett
eating, with the other county and city
aardf Ses m aiq of Dr., eeb
@"Did Chief Of Police Klause ever
tell you, as he testified here on the
stand that he did, that Miss Ida Koch
had said to him that the handkerchief
found in Or: Gebhardt s room was zone
Of George 81" -,
"I, never heard or saw that state
ment until I read it in the papers,
'tBy that you mean, do you not, that
you saw it first in the newspaper re-
port Of Chief Klause's testimony at
! this trial9n "Yes.'
"Did Chief Klause tell you at any
time. that Miss Ida Koch had said to
him that she had marked the letters
!
chief, or words to that effect9' "No,
sir.''
Dentist Had No Hammer.
G. F. Schram, a stenographer for the
Minnesota Mutual Fire Insurance com.
pany, whose offices are directly across
the hall from DR.. Koch IS, testified as
| to the wide carriage Smith-Premiel
| typewriter upon which, the state con
| tends, the address on the poison pack.
age was written. His testimony was
not unlike that Of other occupants of
! the office.
HE declared that while he was not
| very we'll acquainted with the defend,
ant, having been there only since Sept
b they had frequently visited each
others Offices, He had been in DR.
| Koch g laboratory many times, he said
and was familiar with DIR. Koch IS tools
| +" Did DR.. Koch have. large claw
hammer in his ooffce9" asked Mr.. Alb
bott. emo, SIR
| elbow do you know?'
| "Because 1 asked to borrow one
from him and he said he had none.
I Discrediting Miss Weiderman.
I The defense introduced Evidence
tending to show that it would have
been impossible for Miss Weidermar
to have told for certain whether the
man she said she saw in DR.. Koch Is
office a short time before the murder
Of sGebhardt, was DR.. Koch. Mrs
Dahms; it was said by witnesses who
had been stationed near her house
while another Of their party made the
run thru her gate, could not have heard
the footsteps she said she heard on the
might of the murder. Fred W. John
son, brother of Governor Johnson, was
a member of this party.
Choice Lot of Witnesses.
Witnesses were placed on the stand
to- impeach the witness Dingler, who
swore that he had seen the old ham
mer on the Koch place two or three
years ago, while he was hauling gravel
and an interesting feature developed
when it forced four of the witnesses tc
admit that they had either served terms
in jail or been fined for assault and
battery or drunkenness.
Fred Englebert, the New Ulm saloon
keeper who served on the first jury
was called as the first impeaching wit
ness, He was followed by Fred Kuehn
Henry Hamann, Joseph Clement, FREQ
J. Engel, Henry Teison, Henry Goade
| Captain Albert Steinmauser and Attor
ney ]. Eckstein. 81
Other witnesses called yesterday af
| ,ternoon, whose testimony is of a mi
nor interest, but who are all necessary
in the elaborate scheme of defense
were G.. w. Barnes, superintendent O,
agencies for the Minnesota Mutual Fir,
/ Insurance. company, on whose type
writer the state alleges that Koch wrot,
the name and address on the poison
package; J. A. Koehler, Arnold He'll
and T. A. Schonlau.