New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1905-01-18

lAAiPOooluic lUi d HILL I'D have gone
over to use the machine without
brushing off most of the dust. He
also testified that he had never seen
DR.. Koch use that machine nor any
other.
TYPEW RITTER EX-
PERTS DISPUTE.
George Singleton a typewriter ex-
pert from Minneapolis, connected with
the Blickensdorfer company, was
sworn and qualified as an expert He.
said that several of the alignments of
the Smith-Premeir typewriter which
| the state contends DIR. Koch used, are
bad, and not uniform because several
OF the parts are worn or loose.
Can certain piece Of work done by
a certain typewriter be identified, ask
ed Mr.. Somerville.
| don't think it can
Why? Because the various parts
of the machine are more or less loose
and the writing is not uniform.
Is there any difference in the work
of different operators? Yes.
Is there any way in which piece of
typewriter copy may be identified?
Yes, if a machine has any peculiar
characters or if any of the letters are
off their feet, that is, striking on
one side, then it might be identified.
A sample of the work of the ma
chine was produced and offered in evil
dence. The difference in the align
ment in the different letters was point
ed out to the members of the jury who
gathered in a group about him.
Senator Somerville then produced
the address on the box of poison and
| asked the witness if in his opinion, it
was written by a novice.
[ think, he said, that it was written
by a person used to the machine, be-
cause the touch appears to be uni
form, while if it were written by a
novice it would not be uniform.
| NOT THE TYPEWRITER USED.
Was the address on that box writ
ten on the typewriter in question:
should say not, there was a defect
in the small sshn in the name of Geb-
hardt There is a place in the column
| of the letter which shows that there is
a small piece Clipped out of the face of
the letter. Again, the letter M in
"New Ulm,' is 'otf it's feet. = The
top of the letter is heavy, while the
letter is barely visable.
Mr.. Singleton was turned over to
| the state for cross-examination and
| Gen. Childs had him make several
| samples of work on the machine.
| Singleton, the typewriter expert,
continued his testimony this after
noon and swore that the address on
the box of poison was written by the
use of a ribbon colored purple with a
reddish tint, while the samples written
| by the same machine when it was here
in October showed that the machine
was equipped with a purple ribbon
which had no such tint.
/ One of the strongest points in favor
of the defense was the testimony of
| this expert that the address on the
bottle of poison was written by an ex-
perienced operator and not by a
novice.
Several other experts are here ready
to testify in the case, who, having ex-
amined the address carefully, say
that there is no doubt the address was
written by someone who is not a nov
/ ice.
There is no evidence in the case to
show that DR.. Koch ever operated a
typewriter, and the defense believes
this will go long way toward prov
/ ing that he did not write the address
| on the bottle.
THEORY AS TO POISON GoMBATED.
At the opening of the morning ses-
sion today, the defense took up the
attack on the poison evidence, intro
duced by the state, and while there is
no way to prove that DR.. Gebhardt
did not receive any poison, the de-
Tense believes that it has convinced
the jury that it is not evident that DR..
Koch mailed the poison.
The state has counted much on the
testimony of DR.. Strickler, Office mate
! of DR.. Koch, who swore that he lost
ninety tablets of strychnine in Oc-
tober. The state contends that the
strychnine was stolen by DR.. Koch
and mailed to DIR. Gebhardt. Evi-
dence was introduced by the defense to
1 show that the contention was not true.
The trychnine which DR.. Stricken
lost contained 10 per cent strychnine.
There were only ninety tablets Of it,
while the bottle received by DR.. Geb-
1 hardt, the defense claim, contained as