New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1906-01-31
BOUND OVER TO GRAND JURY
Ed. Berkner Under Bonds to APP
pear to Court.
Eye Sensation Pushed to
District Court.

Defendant Claims Case is One Of
Malicious Prosecution.
Friday the postponed hearing Of the
case of Seifert VS.. Berkner was called
bv Judge Geschwind in his court at
Sleepy Eye and the taking OF testi-
mony began. L. G. Davis appeared
for the prosecution and G. W. Somer-
Vile for the defense, and there was as
much interest manifested in the case
as if it was of great magnitude. Ac-
cording to the testimony offered it ap-
pears that there is evidence that there
is more to the case than the simple
matter concerning the transaction be-
tween Berkner and Seifert. Testimony
of witnesses for the defense seem to In
dictate that Seifert was disposed to
treat the matter lightly until he was
approached or had consulted some OF
the other merchants in the city. This
testimony, according to the Sleepy Eye
Herald, is as follows:
''George Quinlan, travelling man,
told that Seifert told him that he did
not intent to arrest Berkner. but that
the other merchants urged him and
offered to pay costs.
CLANS Jensen testified that Seifert
had consulted him to regard to having
Berkner arrested.
s'Mrs. Newman and August Dun
broske, both clerks for Berkner Bros,
testified as to the good friendship exist
ing between Berkner and Seifert.
"Nat. Seifert, brother of Fred, testi-
fed that Berkner and his brother were
not on very good terms, and told Of
Berkner threatening to give Fred a
swift kick if he did not let up on that
Natter
When the defendant was placed on
the stand he claimed that he and Mr..
Seifert were on the best of terms. He
did not deny that he opened the regis
ter and took So 80 and left receipted
bill. That on finding that Mr.. Seifert
was offended about the transaction, at
4 80 O'Clock of the same day he went to
the store and offered to give back the
money. This was refused. Defendant
stated that he did not intend to steal
the money and did not think at the
time that he had offended Mr.. Seifert.
Upon being cross-examined, Berkner
denied that he invited Seifert out in
the back yard or that Fred would get
a swift kick if he did not stop talking
about it. He also denied that Seifert
told him not to take the money.
The evidence of Mr.. Seifert in SUBJ
stance is that at about 1910 O'Clock !,
Jan. 18th, Mr.. Berkner came to his
store with a bill for 80 and denand-
ed payment. Being busy at the time
waiting on customers he told Mr.. Berk-
ner he would look up the bill later and
If found correct he would settle it. Mr..
Berkner said he wanted the money.
The latter being behind the counter
near the register, after receipting the
bill rang up the register and took the
money out at'd walked out. Mr.. Seifert
testified that he protested against Mr..
Berkner's actions.
In the cross examination by Mr..
Somerville Of the witness; Ii was the
intent of the defense to prove that both
Mr.. Berkner and the complainant were
on good terms and that the offense was
not that of a criminal, but that of the
ordinary business transactions between
local merchants. Many ofthe questions
asked by the Senator was objected to
as not being proper, and the Judge
sustained the objections. After half a
dozen such objections were sustained
by the Judge in behalf of the prosecu-
ton, Senator Somerville addressed the
court in an impassioned manner and
stated to the court that he would show
that the whole case was one of malici-
Gus prosecution, that the defendant
had broken away from the local
grocery trust because he would not
stand for the high prices the trust
charged for goods and also the prices
fixed for produce, that the local grocery
organization was illegally organized
to hold up prices, and as such were
amenable to the laws of the state and
the federal antitrust laws of the United
States and every member was subject
to Indictment. This arraignment of the
local business men brought Attorney
Davis to his feet and in answer to what
was said by the Senator, stated that
some trusts were good thing, especi-
ally when so-called trust buster was
in the habit of charging more for
goods and collecting more than he
ought to on his bills. This statement