The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1905-04-21

The affidavits in substance We're as
follows:
The affidavit of Mr.. Liesch goes on to
give history of the telephone war
which has been waged in New Ulm for
some time past. An attempt has been
made by the Blue Earth County Tele-
phone company to secure an entrance to
New Tim, but this mas been opposed
by the Minnesota Central and the
Northwestern Telephone company. The
discussion and agitation of the tele
phone question resulted in the organiZa
ton of number of Independent tele-
phone companies, one of which Mr..
Liesch was made president. He became
interested in the telephone situation and
discussed it in his newspaper. That an
article in reference thereto appeared in
The Brown County Journal prior to
April Sth, to-wit, the issues of said
paper for March Is, 1905 and March %,
1905
That upon the organization of such
New Ulm Rural Telephone company the
said Minnesota Central Telephone COM
pany began an active campaign of OPP
position to this newly formed company
and endeavored to discourage would-be
patrons of such organization and caused
to be sent and mailed broadcast to the
citizens of New Ulm and vicinity a cir
cular in the number of 1000 and over
in regard to telephone matters including
with each circular clipping from The
Anoka Free Press in regard to tele
phone matters at said city of Anoka, a
copy of which said circular and clipping
being hereto attached, hereby made a
part hereof and marked Exhibit f.
That Immediately after and mailing
such circular and clipping, Exhibit 4,
affairs at said city of Anoka took a
turn and the grand jury made a report
discredible to the Northwestern Tele
phone company, of which the Minnesota
Central is prophets ry line as above
set forth; that to counter-act the efforts
and effect of the said circular so sent
out by the Minnesota Central Tele-
phone company this affiant, as the edi
tor and publisher of a public newspa-
per believed it his duty to call the
attention of the public through the col
umns of his said paper to such condi-
ton of affairs at said city of Anoka
and tnereupon and especially after con-
sultation with other officers of his said
new company this, affiant caused to be
published in the regular issue of The
Brown County Journal of April Sth,
1905, an article in reference to the tele-
phone matters at Aneka.
Mr. Liesch states that it was arrang
ed with d. d. Richardson of the Tri-
state Telephone company that mis- com
pany should purchase 5000 copies of the
paper containing this article and that
they be marked Sample Copy" and dis
tributed broadcast.
Mr.. Liesch admits that in the same
issue there was an article in reference
to one Sable and George r. Koch, the
defendant in the Gerhard murder case.
Affiant specifically denies that the
publishing, mailing and directing of
such copies of the issue of said paper
of April s and the article therein con-
tanned and complained of was done with
any motive or intent of ill-will or mali
ciously and denies that the same was
done with the intent to prejudice, mis-
lead, deceive or corrupt any person
whatsoever; and affiant denies specif-
cally that such directing and mailing
was done with the intent on the part of
this affiant to prejudice and poison the
that the same was done to unlaw-
fully interfere with the due, regular and
legal course of proceedings of the court
in said cause; denies that the directing
and mailing was done with the intent to
prejudice and poison the minds of and
disqualify as jurors any person who
might read or be advised of the con-
fonts thereof; denies that said direct
ing and mailing was done to prejudice,
poison and infame the minds of the
public generally against the defendant
and the members of his family, denies
that the same was done in order to pre-
vent fair and impartial trial of said
cause; denies that the same was done
to obstruct, corrupt and prevent the adj
ministration of justice; denies that the
same was done to infame, bias or pre-
JUDGE the public generally and the jur-
ors of the regular pan! ell of the ad-
journed term as aforesaid against said
defendant; denies that the same was
done in order to prevent decent and
orderly administration of justice and
this affiant in addition to the above
specific denials of acts of wrong doing