New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1905-05-17

That it was not the defendant if any
one, who was heard running in a
westerly direction along Second North
street, toward the gate in question on
the night when said Gebhard was SO
killed, and that the defendant Koch
was elsewhere at that time, and that
there was no blood upon the post OF
said gate on the following day.
That the defendant Koch did not state
to any one that some one would kill
said Gerhard, and that he did not use
the words concerning said Gerhard ex-
pressive of contempt for or dislike OF
said Gebnard as testified by witness
in the case on behalf of the state.
That if any bottle was ever mailed
to said Gebhard containing strychnine
sulphate, at any time, the same was
not so mailed by the defendant. koch, and
that the mailstamp which was used up
on the box exhibit IL, in evidence, was
not in use at Hanska OF elsewhere be-
tween the oath day of October, 1904,
and the I'd day of November, 1904,
and that the box, exhibit IL, in evil
dence, was not addressed upon the type
writer which was in the office of the
insurance company, and that the word
Sample" written upon the bottle, ex-
hibit s, was not written by the defend
ant.
That whatever scratches were on the
face and nand of the defendant the
morning after the death of said DR..
Gebhard were made on a day or days
before said death, and that the other
injuries to defendants hands were caus-
ed by carbolic acid, and burning, and
that no injuries to defendants
face and hands were in any way con-
nected with the death of said Geb-
hard
That The defendant, Koch, continued
to wear the same clothing for some
time after the death of said Gerhard,
that he had worn before and on the
evening when said Gerhard was so kill
ed.
Not All Facts Enumerated.
[ have not attempted by any means
to detail to you all of the facts and
circumstances which the evidence in this
case tends to prove. There are very
many other facts and circumstances
which the evidence in this case tends
to prove, bearing with more or less
force upon the important question of
the guilt or innocence of the defendant
now on trial before you, all of which
evidence you should as carefully con-
slider. and weigh, as if your attention
had been by the court expressly direct
ed to it. Your own memories should be
at least equally as reliable as mine,
and you should allow no part of the
evidence before you to be forgotten,
overlooked, or passed lightly by, wheth-
Ell it argues for the defendants guilt,
or for his innocence
While the evidence introduced tends
to prove the facts which [ have briefly
enumerated, whether it does prove any
of the facts which it tends to prove, or
what it does in fact prove, if anything,
is question for the jury alone to de-
termine, without any suggestion or in
timation from the court. or from any
source whatever, other than the evil
dence introduced in the case.
You have heard all of the testimony,
I shall recite no part of it, should l do
so I might seemingly give greater prom
inence to some parts of the testimony
than to other parts of it, and thereby
do injustice to one side of this case,
or to the other side. To review the
evidence, and determine the facts, is a
duty placed by the law wholly upon
you. | have no views to express as to
what is proved, and what is not.
No person can be convicted of murder,
unless the death of the person alleged
to have been killed, is established as
an Independent fact, by direct proof, nor
unless the fact of the killing of said
person by the defendant as alleged, is
as an independent fact, by
the evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
doubt 49,.
The killing of human being, unless
it is excusable or justifiable, is murder
in the first degree, wnen perpetrated
with a premeditated design to effect the
death of the person killed, or of anoth-
er.
Homicide is excusable when commit
ted by accident or misfortune, in do
ing any lawful act, by lawful means,
with ordinary caution, and without any
unlawful intent
t. G,lJ