The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1905-08-04

der, but it was not of as good quality
retailing at about Is cents. The SIX
handkerchiefs marked &C. r. Koch
were of better quality than the stained
one and not like it. The &C. X
handkerchiefs were not of as good quail
ity. The ones marked Geo. r. X
We're of much the same quality, but not
from the same lot There was not one
that was from the same lot as the
bloodstained handkerchief On redirect
examination, the witness said that
scarcely any of DR.. Koch's handker-
chiefs were alike
julius Hortvet of Minneapolis
chemist for the state dairy and food de-
partment, testified that the quality of
handkerchiefs can be determined by
chemical analysis. He had not made a
chemical test, but had applied the oil
test to ten of the handkerchiefs and
had found one to be cotton and all the
others linen. Cross examined by Mr.
Clark, the witness said that olive oil
was used, being dropped on the hand
kercniefs, and the difference between
linen and cotton handkerchiefs being in
idcated by the appearance, due to the
physical reaction.
f. L. Dills, teacher in the James
vile schools, and a new witness, said
that on Thursday morning after the
homicide Mr.. Brooks had said that he
didn't know whether the party that he
saw through the transom was DR.. Koch
and could not tell unless he saw him in
the same position. He never knew of
any wrestling or boxing being done in
DIR. Gebhard's office, and never saw the
hammer in evidence there, nor any old
wrench He had lived at New Tim and
been intimate with Dr. Gerhard.
c. A. Zelle said that on the Sunday
morning after the homicide Mr.. Brooks
entered his office and said: Il would
not swear that DIR. Koch was the per-
son that [ saw, and | would not swear
that it was not, now / have said ALL"
Impeaching Brooks Testimony.
w. I. Eckstein testified to the con-
versation between Mr.. Brooks and Judge
B. T. Weber on the morning after
the homicide at the Review office. He
said that Mr.. Brooks had said that he
had seen the person before but could
not place him.
Judge F. B. Weber of New UIm tes-
titled to a conversation had the morn
ing after the homicide with Mr.. Brooks
in his office In the conversation, Mr.
Brooks had described the person whom
he saw as being young man, twenty
six years old, weight 40 pounds, com
plexion light, hair dark, close shaven
well but not richly dressed, accustomed
to indoor, such as office, work, and rath-
er light build This was substantially
the description. Cross examined, the
witness said that he had presided at the
first trial of DR.. Koch. The conversa-
ton had not made enough impression on
his mind so that he had thought of it
during the trial He did not recollect
the exact words.
Sheriff Julius testified to converse
ton with Mr. Brooks on the evening
after the homicide at his office In the
conversation Mr.. Brooks had said: The
fellow who did that deed looked more
like George r. Roch than any man
Know" and Before | say who it was
must 90 and see him" These were sub
stantially the words.
'Why didn't you arrest DR.. Koch that
night?" asked Somerville on cross ex-
animation.
Because l didn't think that it was
necessary | was not satisfied in my
mind that it was him." replied the sher-
if.
"'Then you didn't believe what Brooks
''No, SIR
mo, sor."
"Did you tell anybody else about it p
Il told Chief Klause"
''When?'
THAT night or the next morning"
Did Not See a Hammer.
DR.. H. c. Koschau, dentist of New
Ulm, said that from Sept 18th to Oct
9Th, 1904, he assisted DR.. Gerhard il
his laboratory on plate and crown work
He became thoroughly familiar with DR.
Gebhard's tools. The witness was
shown the old hammer in evidence ans
said that he never saw it in DR.. Geb
hard's office Dr. Gerhard had no old
hammer with broken claw He haC
two ordinary carpenters hammers, one