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

about IL
Is When did YOU ever go to DR.. Fritz
chic or any one else having the custody
OF it. and ask to be allowed to see the
handkerchief Y
Il did not
did you ever go to DR.. Fritcnie or
anyone else having the custody. Of the
hammer and ask to see it?.'
Z did not. 2
The witness said that the clothing in
1 evidenee was that which he wore the
night of the murder. The scratch on
his face was above the scar and was
there Wednesday and must have been
there Thursday. Gen. Childs read from
the Brown county testimony of the de-
PENDANT about the scratch s'Wen, it
was gone by Wednesday. I thought
that it was~a lucky thing
Did You answer that, them"
'Yes, SIR
The witness told where the brushes
We're where he got the scratches on his
hand and face | did some of DIR. Geb-
hard's work Did work for him twice.
The last time was in July, 1904, when
II filled one tooth with amalgum and
one with gold
On redirect, the witness said that DR..
'ebhard did work for him last Septem-
Der. Said at the Brown county trial
that the scratch was gone about We'd
nesday. I sometimes make an 49, of
the form on the bottle. I did not 90 out
looking for evidence because had
counsel employed to do that They
told me not to talk about the case.
Before that, I talked freely about it.
This Morning.
DR.. Voge was recalled this morning
and identified the suit of clothes that
Dr. Koch wore in Hoidale & Somsen's
office the evening of the homicide. De-
PENDANT did not have several suits of
the same general tone, this in reply
to Gen. Cnilds.
~ Rev. Adolpn Alderman of New Ulm,
a professor in the German Lutheran
college, said that he knew DR.. Gerhard
well. Know DR.. Koch, but not as well.
Saw the latter the noon after the homi-
eide, and he was wearing a derby hat
and long, loose, cravenette overcoat.
G. W. Murfn of Minneapolis, for
mer resident of New Ulm, said that he
was intimate with Dr. Gebhard and fire.
quently there evenings. Was a resi-
dent Of New Ulm until three years ago
last June. Do not remember having
seen an old hammer in his office.
Mr.. Abbott asked for permission to
cross examine the witness, who had
been subaoacael By TIE st1tc o.!
brought several hundred miles The
court granted the permission
The witness said that at the New
Cfm trial he had said that there was
an old hammer in Dr. Gebhard's office.
He had thought and still thinks that he
had a hammer resembling the one in
evidence
Cross examined by the state the wit
ness said that he could not describe the
hammer.
Henry n. Somsen was recalled. DR..
kocn wore brown derby hat and long
cravennette overcoat when in my office
the evening of the homicide. He left
about a. m, and I left at 9:35 and
went home. Saw DR.. Koch the next
morning in his office, and he wore the
same suit as the day before. He also
wore them that evening when practic-
ing music at my home. He was
shocked when informed Thursday that
he was suspected of the crime. Mr..
Somerville made a careful examination
OF his hands, in my presence. Saw a
scratch in the palm Of the right hand.
and an old scab on the knuckle of the
third finger. These were all the blem-
ishes. Had Smith Premier typewriter
in my office. The office was open from
morning until night, even if vacant for a
short time. [ took blue box from
DR.. Kochs office. The box was identi
fled by the witness. It is a fac simile
of the one put in evidence by the state.
When I got the box I had not seen
the one that was in the hands of the
coroner Nh Abbott and I got a pen
ell from DR.. Koch's desk. Witness iden
titled it. tt is an advertising pencil
of A. J. Vogel and similar to the one
found in DR.. Gebhard's office the night
of the homicide. 7 was in DR.. Kocn's Of |
flee when the experiments were made
from the Krone porch. Stood on the
porch While two others were in the Of
fees, and | could not tell one from the
.