Important Murder Case Called by Judge Kirwan at Two O'clock This Afternoon - - Jurors Drawn - - Undergo Grueling Examination - - First Juror Drawn Has Already Formed Opinion and is Discharged.

Judge Kirwan called the court to order at two o'clock this afternoon. The thirty-six jurors drawn for this term of court were all present and occupied the chairs on the right side of the court room.

A small crowd of spectators attended in spite of the interest that the Pfeil murder case has aroused. That was probably due to the general opinion prevailing that no evidence would be taken in the case until tomorrow.

Among the handful of spectators were the second wife of Julius Pfeil and the daughter of the third wife with the murder of whom he is charged.

Both occupied benched in the front of the court room just behind the rail. Emma Foeste was neatly attired in a black dress with a small black hat offsetting her pretty face to advantage.

The second wife of the defendant was seated aside Emma Foeste and was also attired in black with a black hat.

A few minutes were consumed in disposing of a case or two on the calendar and the Pfeil case was called. A breathless silence reigned as Judge Kirwan called the case to trial. Attorneys Voigt, Mead and Williams took the chairs on the right side of the Attorneys' table and were followed by District Attorney Collins and Attorney Simon Gillen, who will prosecute the case.

Julius Pfeil the defendant was then called and he entered the court room with Under Sheriff John Holling. He was dressed in the same grey coat and dark trousers that he wore during the preliminary examination. He took the chair immediately in front of the Press table.

The jurors were then called to be examined as to qualifications to sit in the case. The first name drawn by Clerk of Court Croghan was that of Adam Buchman of Rhine Township, Pfeil's township, and the only Rhine man on the panel. Then followed William Bickel of Sheboygan, Richard Brehm of Wilson, Herman Frick of Sheboygan Falls, Henry Herbst of Wilson, G. Kleefisch of Sheboygan, Henry Krumrey of Plymouth, William Loeffler of Sheboygan, J. W. Miller of Scott, August Quehl of Herman, August Rammer of Wilson, Lawrence Reilly of Mitchell, August Reineking of Herman, Ferdinand Reyer of Wilson, Conrad [B]auer of Sheboygan, H. F. Shadbolt of Sheboygan, L. C. Tasche of Sheboygan and Henry Tasche of Sheboygan.

The Judge then instructed the jury about not talking or reading about any of the cases while serving as jurors. Judge Kirwan also asked the attorneys on both sides to cooperate so as to make it possible to secure of jury from this panel without having recourse to machinery for additional jurors which was not entirely satisfactory.

The charge was then read to the jury and a few questions asked by Judge Kirwan as to the relationship of the deceased third wife of the defendant.

Adam Bushman {Should be Buchman - D.B.} was then examined. He stated that he had formed an opinion which he could not change no matter what the evidence might be. He was released on the consent of both parties.

August Rammer was then examined by Judge Kirwan and the attorneys for both sides. He was given grueling questioning as to his qualifications to sit in the trial. The examination was still going on at the time of press.

Drs. Nutt and Brueckbauer Authorized to Remove Tongue and Whole of Esophagus Which Will Be Brought Into Court - - Body Removed from Grave Wednesday - - Comes As a Surprise to the Defense - - Case Creates Wide Interest - - Detailed Story of the Trial - - Press Furnishes Cut of Mrs. Pfeil Today which is Taken From the Only Photograph in Existence - -Experts Arrive to Testify.

The body of the third wife of Julius Pfeil has been exhumed. The tongue and the whole of the esophagus have been removed and will be given to Dr. Loewenhart and Dr. Lehner of the University of Wisconsin for examination, to determine whether the back of the tongue was burned as the defense claims and to ascertain how much of the esophagus bore the burned appearance which was found immediately above the stomach.

The body was exhumed yesterday afternoon between two and four o'clock on the order of Coroner Feagan and District Attorney Collins, with the permission of the relatives of the deceased.

The exhuming was done in the presence of Undertaker Graef of Plymouth, Rev. Schmidt of the Lutheran church, Dr. Nutt, Dr. Brueckbauer, Carl Foeste the son of the deceased and two grave diggers. The body was taken from the casket and the parts desired for examination in connection with the famous murder trial were removed. The body was then restored to its rest in the new Plymouth cemetery.

The state claims that the back of the tongue was not burned while the defense up to the present date has adopted the opposite contention.

The matter will be of utmost importance in determining the guilt of innocence of the accused.

This afternoon Judge Kirwan examined Ella Foeste in reference to the funnel which was reported [???] after the death of her mother and in answer to a question from the court the witness testified that [??] purchased the funnel sometime last winter. It is evident from the questions on the part of the [??] defense and court relative to [??] funnel that this testimony will be an important part in the murder.

Court was a trifle late in starting this morning, because of the delay in the arrival of medical experts for the defense. At half past nine Judge Kirwan entered the court room and [??] Deputy Dan Fischer to the jury. The jury filed in and the defendant Julius Pfeil took his [??]. He nodded to his attorneys and the newspaper representatives sitting at the table in his rear.

Mrs. Ecklemann was the first witness of the day. She testified that she had seen Mrs. Pfeil [??] around the barn of the Pfeil home on the afternoon of April 2, between five and six o'clock. That was the last time she had seen her [alive]. She noticed that both curtains in the sitting room were down at [??] o'clock on the following morning. This seemed very unusual to [her] because most invariably had seen one curtain up at that [time] of the day.

[Edward] Pfingsten stated that Pfeil [came] to his place at half past seven [o'clock] on the morning of April 3, [and told] him that his wife was sick [and that] he should drive to Franklin [after] Dr. Sieker. Then Pfeil went to [Ei]mermann's.

[???] saw Pfeil go to the cheese factory at half past six o'clock and saw him return at a [quarter] after seven.

Emma Foeste the step daughter of Pfeil then took the witness chair and stated that she and her brother came home on the morning of April 3, at about ten o'clock. When they entered the house she saw Pfeil and Mrs. Eimermann carryout parts [???] shed. When Pfeil saw her he was surprised and frightened and [said,] "Where do you come from." [She] said her brother had brought [???] he told her that her mother was dead. She threw herself on the chair in her grief while Pfeil and Mrs. Eimermann continued carrying things from the spare bed room. Pfeil said they were preparing the room for the undertaker. [???] was taken to the woodshed.

She went into the room and saw no bedding there, whereas the bed had contained the usual bed clothes. Neither was there any clothing in the room. They were also taking up the carpet which was later used for carpeting in another room. Miss Foeste never saw any of the bedding afterwards. She staid at the home of her brother the night of April 6, and returned to the Pfeil house for her clothing and that of her mothers the following day. She arrived there at eleven o'clock and saw Mrs. Jacob Eimermann and Mrs. Kastner washing. Pfeil said he did not want to give her clothing until it had been washed. She only got the shoes that day. Later on all the clothing was secured.

"Five minutes after I came into the house," the witness continued, "Carl my brother entered. Pfeil said, "I have sad news for you; your mother is dead." Carl replied, "well that is no wonder." Pfeil became angry and retorted "if you talk crazy, I will put you out of the house." He then took Carl in the bed room and said that that was just the way he had found her. I went into the bed room later on. Her slippers were under the dresser. She had never put them there before, as she always stood them in the sitting room. Her mouth was tied shut by a handkerchief. Her eyes were tightly closed and had large blue circles beneath them. The hair loose and not nearly so tight as it usually was a short time after she combed it. The looseness was apparent. Her face had a peaceful expression. The spread covered her body up to her chin. Several quilts, a blanket and a spread were covering her body. The bed did not look as if it had been used the night before. It was not the least disarranged. In the kitchen, the table was bare of dishes. Nothing was on it except the pepper and salt.

Emma Foeste when asked concerning the manner of greeting between Mrs. Eimerman and Julius Pfeil, said the former in addressing him called him "Pa." She testified that several times during the time the coroner was there holding the inquest that Mrs. Eimermann spoke to Pfeil and always said "Pa."

The witness testified that on the morning when she returned and was informed her mother was dead, that the inspection of the pantry brought to light the fact that a funnel was missing from one of the shelves, also the mop rags. As to the mop the daughter of Mrs. Pfeil testified that there was something on the floor of the kitchen that looked like coffee and she wanted to mop it up. It was then that she discovered that the rags had been removed from the mop. This afternoon she was cross examined at considerable length.

A majority of the audience hearing the Pfeil murder case in the Circuit Court room yesterday afternoon were women. They began to arrive early and long before the jury filed into the room the spacious chamber was filled with a morbid crows.

At two o'clock sharp Judge Kirwan appeared and the trial which is arousing so much interest throughout the county was continued. Emma Foeste, the daughter of the deceased by a former marriage was recalled and examined as to the location, construction and architecture of the house, with the number of rooms, windows, etc., etc.

She then told of the family relationship between Mr. Pfeil and her mother. She said that Mr. Pfeil had spoken to his wife in rough tones when he addressed her and that she had frequently complained that in the evening he would kick her and take the quilts from her for his own use.

Attorney Williams then took charge of the witness and gave her a grueling cross examination, in which she stated that her mother has by her own right a forty acre farm about eight miles from the home of Pfeil, which forty acres were a part of a 152 acre farm left by the late Mr. Foeste on his death. The rest of the farm belonged to the children.

Conrad Reineking of Herman Township was then called. He declared that he had been at a party with Mr. and Mrs. Pfeil in July 1910 and that at the time both Mr. and Mrs. Pfeil seemed to be on the best of terms. They called each other Ma and Pa. That two or three month later he visited the Pfeils and found condition exactly reversed. They hardly spoke to each other and it was plain to see that they were not on good terms.

Chas. Laack of Rhine corroborated the testimony of Mr. Reineking as the party referred to had been given at his house and he and his wife had returned to visit the Pfeils on the same day that Mr. and Mrs. Reineking were there. He said that Mr. and Mrs. Pfeil were not on friendly terms in October.

Fred Meyer testified that he had visited the home of Julius Pfeil some time in January or February and heard only a few words spoken between the two. As long as he had been there which was for several hours the only words passing between them were those of Mrs. Pfeil when she asked her husband if he did not want a cup of coffee and he replied that he might take one.

Herman Foeste, the step son of Julius Pfeil was then called and said that Mr. Pfeil very seldom spoke to his mother during the time that he visited them. He then told of his arrival at the Pfeil home on the evening of his mother's death.

He arrived Monday evening and found Pfeil leisurely seated in a chair smoking a pipe, as if nothing had happened. He told me about my mother's death. He wanted to leave that night but was urged to stay by Pfeil because Emma would be all alone in the house otherwise. He left the next noon although Pfeil again asked him not to go. He gave him some money to buy yeast, with the understanding that he return. Before he left, Pfeil told him that his mother had died a natural death, that no one gave her anything and that she had not taken anything. He came back the next day and told them he had made arrangements for an autopsy. When Pfeil heard this he replied "You are crazy." Before the death of his mother he asked Pfeil for a job on his farm in the following summer but Pfeil refused on the grounds that he was not in need of a man.

On cross examination Herman stated that Pfeil would leave home in the evening during the time he was there but that most of the time he was at home.

Mr. Kissinger told of a gathering in Rhine Center in September 1910 at which both he and his wife and Mr. and Mrs. Pfeil were present. The relationship did not seem to be good at the time. "We were in the dance hall," he said, when Mrs. Pfeil asked about her husband. She said she had not seen him all day. I knew he was in the saloon so I went to get him. I told him some one was inquiring about him, but he replied that he could not dance that evening because of a sore toe. Nevertheless he returned to the dance hall with me but left soon after. The relations were not good.

At this point, the state dropped the matter of domestic relations between Mr. and Mrs. Pfeil and attempted by a number of witnesses to fix the time of Pfeil's departure from the cheese factory and his return to his home on the morning of the death of Mrs. Pfeil.

Mrs. Theo. Hungsberg declared on the stand that on the morning of April 3, she wanted her son who was to put in his first days work at the cheese factory in Franklin to ride with Mr. Pfeil as she knew he would pass their place. It was a quarter after seven in the morning when her son left. He had to be at the factory at eight o'clock but did not want to ride because it was too cold. She looked at the clock when he left and she knew it was 7:15. Two or three minutes after Mr. Pfeil appeared driving his two horses. He was on his way back from the factory. She had also seen him go to the factory that morning. That was about half past six o'clock. She gave a party that evening of April 2, but neither Mr. Pfeil nor Mrs. Eimermann attended. They attended most of the times and invitations were not necessary as anyone that came to a birthday celebration was always welcome.

Conrad Ecklemann testified that he had seen Pfeil leave for the cheese factory on the morning of April 3. That was about a quarter after six. He went right after. He also saw him return, being about 110 steps away from him at the time. That was about an hour later as it always took him about that time unless he did shopping in Franklin.

About ten minutes after his return he saw Pfeil walk up the road. It was a pretty cold morning and Mr. Ecklemann's feet were very cold after the drive. He warmed them at the kitchen stove and saw Pfeil from the kitchen window.

Jake Miller who is one of the strongest witnesses for the state then was called. He had called on Pfeils in March and he saw the domestic relations were not of the happiest. Mrs. Pfeil, he said, was the picture of utter misery and wretchedness. "I attributed her appearance to mental torture. It certainly was not physical as she seemed to be in the best of health. I never could conceive of any greater dejection that was portrayed on that face."

"On April 1, I was at Rhine Center and met Pfeil. He insisted upon telling me about his family troubles. I was not in a receptive mood. If I had known that the testimony was desired for a trial of this nature, I should have taken it down in notes. I only remember definitely a few things of what he told me. He said that his wife had asked him if either she or her daughter Emma could go to the step son to help him in his work and he replied "both of you go." This seemed very unusual and indicated to me that the relations were very strained. I certainly would not want both my wife and daughter to leave the house at the same time, without anyone else to take care of it.

"I attended the funeral of the late Mrs. Pfeil and on the way back rode in the same carriage as Mr. Pfeil. To settle my own curiosity I decided to ask Mr. Pfeil regarding a rumor that was afloat. I told him that a story had been circulated that on the evening that Mrs. Pfeil and daughter Emma had returned from the home of his step son after a weeks visit, Mr. Pfeil was reported to have been at the home of Mrs. Eimerman until midnight. Mr. Pfeil did not deny the rumor but stated that it could not have been as late as that. Mrs. Eimermann is a widow living a short distance from Pfeil."

When cross examined by Attorney Voigt, as to his construction of the sentence 'both of you go,' Mr. Miller said "If there was not anyone in my house but my step daughter and my wife and no body to keep house I certainly would not tell both to go unless something were wrong. If similarly situated all would take the same construction of the sentence.

Mr. Miller states that on one occasion Pfeil seemed to think that the fates were against him. "During the half hour I spoke with him he spoke only of his wife. I told him that he spoke like an insane man, or like one on the verge of becoming so."

Mr. Wehmeyer of Elkhart Lake stated that on March 17, he met Pfeil in Elkhart and that he wanted to talk to him about his family troubles but he did not want to listen. He could see that he did not agree with his wife.

Mr. Holzschuh said that in a saloon in Elkhart Lake on March 17, he had overheard a conversation between Pfeil and John Feltmann, in which he heard Pfeil say that his wife was gone and then use these words "I would rather pay than go to Waupun." Mr. Feltmann told Mr. Holzschuh that he also heard those words.

Fred Meyer was then re-called. He said he saw Pfeil talk to Mr. Miller in Rhine Center on April 1. He did not look happy. He was talking about his family affairs. He heard Pfeil say that either she ought to get out of the house or get her out of the house, exactly which he did not remember. His face was red and fiery. He may have been drinking.

William Winter said that he saw Pfeil on the morning of April 3, walk toward Pfingsten's house. He also saw the nine year old LINDOW girl on the same road and Pfeil did not walk any faster than she. That was about half past seven. Pfeil asked Pfingsten to go for a doctor and then went to Eimermanns. He returned with Mrs. Eimermann and all of us went to Pfeils house. "I asked if I could go along in" said Winter "and he said yes" So Pfeil Mrs. Eimermann and I entered. I saw a table but did not see any dishes on it. We went into the sitting room and the curtains were down. The curtain in the bedroom also was down. It was dark in the room and Mr. Pfeil pulled up the shades. I put my hand on the head of Mrs. Pfeil. It was colder then my hand and I had been outside for some time. It was pretty chilly that morning. I said she was dead. I left Mrs. Eimermann there and went on my way.

"The body was covered to the chin and the hands were beneath. The body was towards the outside of the bed on the back, with the head facing east. The body was clothed when I saw it. I saw Henry MAUG drive past his place."

Henry Maug of Rhine township testified that he had driven past Pfeil's house o the morning of April 3, and noticed that the bedroom curtain was down but drawn a little to one side. He could not tell if anyone was behind it. On being cross examined he said he remembered this because he learned of Mrs. Pfeil's death soon after.

On an early spring morning, before the sun's rays had as yet acquired strength to remove the snow from the frozen ground, the shadow of death spread itself over a house in Rhine Township several miles from the village of Elkhart Lake.

A woman of middle age, the mother of five children and the wife of a prosperous farmer, lay stretched out in bed. Life had departed. But only the most careful scrutiny would reveal this sad truth. To a casual observer she seemed to be in a deep but pleasant sleep. Her head was peacefully reposing on a pillow. That was the only portion of her body that could be seen, as the spread was covering the rest up to her head. The spread was not wrinkled and covered the woman in neat smoothness.

Still the woman was dead. At what hour she had breathed her last on that morning of April 3, no tongue has ever told. When the husband returned from the cheese factory, to which he had hauled his milk for years, he found his wife in the position described he says.

He threw back the cover of the bed and there she lay dead. She was all dressed and her skirt was as far down on one side as on the other, in the rear as in the front. He had left her early that morning and she seemed at that time to have been in the best of health and spirits. She even had milked some cows that morning and did chores about the house. Now she was dead. No one had seen her die as the children were gone on a visit. They returned that morning and were told of the sad death of their mother and of its suddeness. It was known however that at one time she had been troubled with heart disease so that was assumed as the cause of her sudden death. Still after some discussion it was decided by the family to call the coroner and hold an inquest. Several witnesses were examined and the coroner arrived at the conclusion that the death was caused by heart disease.

A son however did not seem satisfied with the finding of the coroner. He feared that his mother had been murdered. Oh, horrible, thought. Why that idea should have taken hold of that son is a mystery. He insisted that the funeral service be delayed. He wanted to know why his mother died so suddenly. He wanted to know what was in her stomach. So, four days after her death, two physicians were called and an autopsy held. The stomach of the dead woman was removed and sent to Madison so that the contents might be analyzed by experts.

Almost two months passed away and the township of Rhine was just returning to its quiet undisturbed peaceful life after the excitement of April, when lo and behold the officers placed the husband under arrest charged with cold blooded murder of his third wife. He had been married twice before and had lost his first wife by death and his second by divorce. He was brought to Sheboygan to face this charge before a Court Commissioner. On June 3, he appeared before a Court Commissioner to answer the charge. The court room was crowded and much testimony was taken. Then came the horrible information that the stomach of the woman was found to have contained CARBOLIC ACID and that it was that acid which caused her death. The Court Commissioner found that the evidence in the case was not sufficient to bind the man over for a trial by jury. So he was released and back to the self same farm which had been the scene of the tragedy he went.

Four days elapsed and the husband was again taken into custody charged with the same crime. He was again arraigned before of Court Commissioner in the presence of the same morbid crowds and this time he was bound over. For thirty seven days he was deprived of his liberty. All this time the attorneys for the man attempted to get bail, but there was always a hitch in the proceedings. Finally on August 5, he was released on bail and again returned to his farm.

Tuesday the Judge of the Circuit Court called the case of the State of Wisconsin vs. Julius Pfeil, charged with murder. The man appeared and the famous murder trial is now on.

Such is Testimony of Dr. Nutt for the State - - Present State of Mouth and Tongue Indicate that Little Carbolic Acid if any Reached these Members - - Battle of Experts Soon to Start - - Cuts of Mrs. Minnie Pfeil, second wife and Miss Emma Foeste, Daughter of dead Mrs. Pfeil

Dr. Nutt developed into an important witness for the state to-day, when he declared that the decomposition of the mouth and tongue of Mrs. Pfeil. indicated to him that little if any carbolic acid had touched those portions. He declared that the carbolic acid acted as a preservative. The esophagus was in a good state of condition, and [clearly] showed the burns and at some points the parched condition. He made it quite clear that he was of the opinion that the acid did not get into the mouth.

Dr. Nutt declared that in all his experience he had never had a case where a suicide taking 100 grains of carbolic acid has been [??] to place herself in a position similar to that occupied by the body of Mrs. Pfeil. There is usually evidence of pain, and he said it was customary to find the body drawn across the bed or on the floor, and the lower limbs drawn up. He said in some cases there might be an absence of those symptoms but not when 100 grains was taken. The doctor is precise in his answers and is making an exceptionally strong witness for the state.

Louis Laun of Elkhart Lake, the undertaker who took charge of the body of the deceased, was then called. During his testimony Attorney Gillen and Attorney Mead frequently clashed. Mr. Laun testified that Dr. Sieker had notified him of Mrs. Pfeil's death and said that he himself and not a substitute should [??] out. When he arrived there Pfeil said "Da liegt Sie," and added that she had died just that way. The position of the body in the bed seemed suspicious. "Pfeil told me it was heart failure. I asked him about an inquest and he said the children did not want the body cut open. He told me she was troubled with heart failure. On Monday afternoon at two o'clock I began working on the body. I noticed a discoloration on the right side from the middle of the trunk to the middle of the thigh. It was about eight inches in breadth and somewhat uniform in color. It was streaked with white, red and purple. The white marks were darker than the color of the skin however. The upper part was darkest in color. Discolorations are very common on bodies after death but a discoloration of the one just described is most rare. Usually the discoloration is only around the abdominal region. In this case it was on the thigh as well. Discolorations occur frequently if the person had been confined to bed because of illness for a long time. Rarely in sudden deaths except from heart failure. In the embalming process I flashed the light from the sun by means of a mirror into the mouth and throat of the body, but saw nothing wrong. Everything looked normal. I suspected poisoning before I made the examination but did not think it wise to make known my suspicions after a physician had found heart failure to have been the cause. There was a small reddish black scar on the right lower lip. I told Pfeil when he objected that the woman was his wife and he ought to have and inquest no matter what the children said.

Dr. Nutt told of the exhuming of the body. He said that the organs near the exterior like the outer part of the tongue etc, were well along in decomposition but that the internal organs were very well preserved. The esophagus, the tongue and that part of the wind pipe entering the lungs was removed for examination. Then he described the action of the epiglotis or the lid on the wind pipe. He said that when in the act of swallowing the lid, attached near the rear of the tongue fall backward involuntarily across the wind pipe. Swallowing goes on when one is asleep. The saliva is swallowed. Unconsciousness produced by physical violence might effect the action of the epiglotis as to cause it not to close when swallowing, the person being unconscious. A finger held into the throat would cause the epiglotis to cover the opening into the lungs. If it did not cover it and anything were swallowed the matter would enter the lungs and choking and coughing would follow.

Shortly after six o'clock last night, Judge Kirwan asked the spectators to leave the court room and then received from the hands of district attorney Collins, two exhibits of a gruesome nature. The wrappers in which they were enclosed were not removed, but the contents were revealed to the Judge. This introduction of exhibits was made in the presence of the attorneys, the jury, and the expert medical man. There were two exhibits, one wrapped up in a newspaper and the other enclosed in a suitcase. The District Attorney informed the Judge that the one package contained the stomach of the woman who the state claims was murdered by Julius Pfeil and the suitcase contained the tongue and the esophagus of the deceased which was removed Wednesday afternoon after the body of the woman had been exhumed, as announced exclusively in the Daily Press.

When court resumed its session at two o'clock yesterday afternoon the benches were filled with spectators, women again making up the majority. A few minutes after two, the aisles were filled and there was no longer standing room in the rear, so intense is the interest taken in this case.

During the afternoon a great deal of evidence was introduced which was of a sensational character and which had not been heard in the preliminary examinations. Much of this evidence came as a surprise to the defense and they fought bitterly to break down the testimony of several of the witnesses. Many objections were made during the afternoon for the defense and for the state. Attorneys Mead, Williams and Voigt, frequently objected to the questioning of District Attorney Collins on the grounds that it was leading. Several times they were sustained by the Judge.

The District Attorney and Attorney Gillen representing the prosecution interposed objections quite as frequently when the defense was cross examining the witnesses. They based most of their objections on the grounds that the questions were immaterial or that they constituted improper cross examination.

Several new phases of the case were developed yesterday. At the preliminary examination the state launched the theory that a funnel was used in the administration of the poison. But no evidence was introduced to show that a funnel was in the Pfeil home or had been purchased by Pfeil. Now comes the sensational testimony of the step daughter of the accused to the effect that when she returned to the Pfeil home on the morning of her mother's death she entered the pantry and observed that a funnel 2 inches in diameter and 3 in. in length was not in its usual place. She said she did not see it in the pantry at all.

The defense attempted to break down this testimony. Attorney Williams asked Miss Foeste if she had observed everything in the pantry, and received a negative answer. Then he wanted to know why she had observed that this particular funnel was missing. Miss Foeste replied without hesitation, that it was because the funnel had always been on a shelf in the pantry where it was quite evident. The fact that the funnel was not in its place immediately impressed itself upon her mind.

Judge Kirwan then asked Emma Foeste who had bought the funnel and she replied that Mr. Pfeil had, some time last winter.

The second sensation of the day was the testimony of Dr. Sieker of Franklin and Dr. Egloff of Elkhart Lake, to the effect that they had discovered at the time they made their examination of the body at the inquest, several portions of the skin which were bluish or reddish blue in color. A very small mark of that kind was found on the right side of the neck, just at that portion where a woman's skin would be exposed if she were clothed in a waist. An area stretching from the middle of the back to about the middle of the abdomen and as far down as half way between the hip and the knee cap was also discolored. These discolorations might have been caused by one of several causes among which the witnesses enumerated violence, gravitation of fluids and post mortem changes. The defense strongly combated the violence theory, and at first substituted for it gravitation of fluids. By gravitation of fluids is meant the movement of a fluid 'because of its weight' to the lowest part of the body, that part closest to the center of the earth.

The state however successfully met this argument by attempting to show that the body of this woman lay upon its back and that if the discoloration had been caused by gravitation of the embalming fluid to the lowest portion of the body the discoloration would have made its appearance in the skin of the back and would not have been localized on the right side. The defense then emphasized post mortem changes as the cause for a discoloration of that kind and the witnesses admitted that port mortem changes of that kind might occur. Much attention was paid by Attorney Voigt of the defense to the fact that the witnesses had made a judgement of death by heart failure after they had seen the discolorations described. He claimed that if there had been anything suspicious about those discolorations the physicians could not have rendered a judgement of death by heart failure. Dr. Egloff stated in response to a question of that kind that both he and Dr. Sieker had regarded the discolorations with suspicion and had stated their suspicions to Coroner Feagan, but the fact that there was not anything else to indicate death by violence had induced them to arrive at the conclusion of death by heart failure.

The third sensation of the afternoon was, as stated above, the introduction of the gruesome exhibits. They were given in charge of Clerk of Court Croghan who deposited them in the court house vault.

In the afternoon session of the court the three daughters of the deceased were in the court room and sat together on one bench. They were attired in black in mourning for their mother. The second Mrs. Pfeil, who will be an important witness in the trial if the state will be permitted to introduce her testimony, sat aside of the three daughters. She also was dressed in black.

Emma Foeste again took her place on the witness chair which she had vacated at the noon recess. She answered all the questions clearly and without hesitation in a sweet girlish voice. She stated that when she had gone into the bedroom in which her mother lay dead on the morning of April 3, she found her mothers slippers under the dresser, a most unusual place. Mrs. Pfeil had always been in the habit of placing them in the sitting room near the couch. Never before had she seen them in the bed room under the dresser. She never had been able to secure the shoes which her mother usually wore around the barn, although she had gone after Mrs. Pfeil's belongings several times. Attorney Williams on cross examination developed the point that these shoes had belonged to Mr. Pfeil and that consequently it was not to be expected that he would give them up. The shoes had been in the house before the third wife arrived. Miss Foeste then testified regarding the missing funnel. She said she had not seen it in the pantry on April 3. It had always been in plain sight when not in use as it was kept on one of the shelves.

On Friday, March 31st, her brother Carl came to her home and asked if she could go with him to his home to do some work for him. She asked her mother and her mother asked Mr. Pfeil, the conversation having been published in yesterdays paper. It was understood that it was more suitable for her to return on the following Monday than on Sunday and her mother understood it that way. Her mother never went away at night although she did call on the neighbors in the day time. The room in which she saw her mother dead was the room in which her mother and Pfeil slept. The pillows upon which the head of the dead woman lay did not look as if they had been used.

Edgar Chaplin, a student at the University of Wisconsin, testified that on April 10, he had received a sealed jar containing the stomach of the deceased from Dr. Nutt and that he had placed the same in his suit case and delivered it to Prof. Lehner of the University of Wisconsin for examination. The suit case had never passed out of his sight from the time of getting possession of the jar to the time of delivery.

Peter Frick of Rhine stated that he had seen Pfeil deliver milk to the cheese factory on the morning of April 3. It was about half past six o'clock at that time.

Carl Foeste, the step son of Pfeil, was then called to the stand. He said that on March 31 he had gone to Pfeil's house to get his sister to go home with him. His mother asked Mr. Pfeil whether she could go and Pfeil replied in a mean angry tone that both should go. He then slammed the kitchen door and went away. "My mother wanted Emma to return as soon as possible because she said Pfeil was meaner to her when Emma was gone. It was understood that Emma was to return Sunday or Monday. My mother knew that she would probably return Monday. She might have come back Sunday however. I could not bring her back Sunday as I was playing in a band." Carl Foeste then told of his return to Pfeil's home on the morning of his mother's death and corroborated the testimony of his sister Emma published in the paper yesterday. He said, "we went into the bed room and I saw my mother dead in bed. The clothes were drawn back and I observed that she was fully dressed with the exception of her shoes. Her skirts were down to her ankles, as far on one side as on the other. Everything was perfectly straight. The dresses and skirts were straight. The bed clothing and the spreads were straight without any ruffles. Her hair was loose as if they had not been combed for some time. Her eyes were circled with blue. Her mouth was tied up with a handkerchief. Her arms were to her side and she lay straight on her back. Pfeil told me that he had overslept that morning and that on that account he had only drank a cup of coffee before departing for the cheese factory, intending to eat his breakfast later. He said he had gone to the cheese factory about forty five minutes and then returned and found Mrs. Pfeil dead. When he returned he told me he saw the calf food which she had been stirring near the kitchen door. He called to her but did not get any answer. Then he went into the sitting room and saw the curtains down. Then he went into the bed room and saw my mother in bed. He raised her up but she did not answer. Then he went to Pfingstens and Eimermanns and returned with Mrs. Eimermann. Dr. Sieker came about a half hour later and told Pfeil he ought to have an inquest. Pfeil said that if the children wanted it they could have it; that he did not want anything on his shoulders. I asked Dr. Sieker as to the cause of death. He replied heart failure so I thought it would be unnecessary to have one. I wanted one anyway but I did not want to say so, because Emma was to be alone with Pfeil that night and I was afraid that is Pfeil knew that we were to hold an inquest he might get rid of Emma and then commit suicide. Financial questions too might have caused my decision. Pfeil urged Sieker to write out a death certificate. Nothing was said to us about it. When we entered the bed room he tried to be nice again. He said that there was nothing strange about sudden deaths. 'How did your father die and how did my first wife' he said. 'Why, she was sitting on a chair in the sitting room and went into the bed room and was dead.' Mr. Pfeil wanted the doctor to get an undertaker right away after the death certificate had been issued. He insisted on Mr. Laun of Elkhart Lake. He wanted to have the funeral Thursday and made those arrangements. He said later, that it seemed a little long but that the arrangements could not now be changed. When Laun came he told Mr. Pfeil that he ought to hold an inquest.

I went away that day but returned the following day. I had telephoned to the coroner. He had arrived before me. In the testimony to the coroner Pfeil said that he and his wife had always been in the best relations. He told the coroner that his wife had been doctoring all winter for heart disease and that Dr. Sieker had attributed her death to heart disease.

Mrs. Eimermann who was present at the inquest also said that Mrs. Pfeil had been suffering from heart disease. At the inquest she called him "Pa." The two seemed happy during the proceedings. She had her eye on him. She manifested some hesitation in taking the oath as a witness at the inquest saying that she never had been in a similar position before. Pfeil replied that that was nothing 'Immer go ahead."

Attorney Mead had charge of the cross examination of the witness. He brought out the points that Mrs. Foeste had had seven children by her former husband who left her 152 acres of land at the time of his death. Carl stated that he had a brother in the county insane asylum and that his mother might have worried a little about him but not very much as he was in good care. Although he had been opposed to the marriage of his mother to Pfeil at the start because of the latter's bad reputation, he never discussed the subject after the marriage had been consummated. He had visited his mother only five or six times during her marriage to Pfeil and consequently could not say much about their family relations except from hear say.

Dr. Sieker who had made an examination of the body of Mrs. Pfeil at the inquest then took the stand. He said that Pfingsten first came to his house at eight o'clock on April 3, and told him the message of Pfeil that his wife was sick. He arrived at Pfeils at nine. He inspected the body. He opened the mouth and saw nothing wrong in the interior. There was good light there and he could see the interior plainly. He observed the small scar on the lip, which might have been caused by the burning of an acid, by pressure, by a cold sore previous to death or because of a post mortem change. The hands although they were covered by the quilts were rather cool and the head was cooler. The position of the body lying straight on its back aroused his suspicions. The eyes were slightly open. Stiffening had not yet set in. The muscles were all relaxed. The room was comfortably warm as he did not wear a coat. The woman might have been dead an hour or two or four times as long. It was hard to tell because the body had been kept warm by the heavy covering. Pfeil said he had found her in that position. He said she had been doctoring for heart trouble. "I," said Dr. Sieker, "felt a little suspicious and said it was best to have an inquest. Pfeil asked me if I saw anything suspicious and I said no. Then he said there was no necessity for it. I also asked him if there was any poison in the house which she might have taken and he replied not to his knowledge. He showed me a half bottle of medicine which she had been taken (sic) for heart disease. He asked me for a death certificate and also that I should get an undertaker - Mr. Laun. I did not have a death certificate with me. I left but before I got to Franklin, I turned back and again urged Pfeil to have an inquest. He said the children were there now and that if they wanted one they could have one. His conscience was clear, he said, and he did not want any. When I came into the bed room I looked around but saw no bottle or smelled any acid. Everything seemed to be normal. I told the children the probable cause of death and also what Pfeil had told me. They then objected to an inquest. I left the death certificate on the table and departed. Later I was called to make a joint examination with Dr. Egloff, of the exterior body of the deceased. This was at the inquest after the body was embalmed. We examined the mouth and throat but could not find any burn or scar. Dr. Sieker then told of the discolorations of the body enumerated above. He said he had not observed the discoloration of the neck at the first examination.

Dr. Egloff of Elkhart Lake then took the stand. He corroborated the evidence of Dr. Sieker regarding the examination of the body at the inquest. He said, "we thought it was strange at that time to see those discolorations but we had nothing to substantiate a theory of violence, so we believed it was heart failure. We stated our discoveries regarding the discolorations to the Coroner but he did not give them much weight."

Experts on Stand Testify on General Subject of Carbolic Acid Poisoning - - Prof. Lenher Shows Acid Taken From the Stomach of Mrs. Pfeil to the Court - - Room Filled With Odor - - Prof. Loewenhart States it is Very Improbable That A Person Found in Position in Which Mrs. Pfeil Was Found Could Have Taken the Acid Herself Without Leaving Any Indication of it Behind - - Defense Will Call Widow Eimermann, the Woman in the case, to Take the Stand.

A strong biting nauseating odor of carbolic acid filled the court room in which Julius Pfeil is being tried for the murder of this third wife, yesterday afternoon when Professor Lenher of the University of Wisconsin offered several bottles of carbolic acid as evidence, this carbolic acid having been extracted from the stomach of the deceased woman.

There were three bottles in the little package which was opened in the presence of the court and the jury. One fairly large sized bottle contained some yellowish substance which Dr. Lenher said was a derivative of carbolic acid. It had been converted into this solid form because chemists agreed that that was the only proper form in which it could be weighed. This bottle contained seventy-two and one half grains of this derivative all of which had been taken from the stomach of the deceased. A smaller bottle was then shown to the jury. This contained a brownish colored liquid. Dr. Lehner stated that the liquid was pure carbolic acid removed from the stomach of the late Mrs. Pfeil which had not been transformed into the solid derivative. A third bottle containing a liquid similar in color to that of the other bottle, said Prof. Lenher contained carbolic acid which had been made from the yellowish substance found in the first bottle.

Although the stoppers were not removed from the bottles, still the odor of the acid escaped and the court room was filled with it in a minute. All the windows were thrown open to get rid of the smell but it remained there most of the afternoon.

The jar which contained the stomach of the deceased was also produced in evidence.

The state will conclude its case with the examination of Prof. Loewenhart of the University of Wisconsin, an expert in toxicology. The defense will then produce its witnesses. It is understood that Julius Pfeil the defendant will be placed on the stand, in his own behalf. Dr. Bock and Dr. Gutsch of this city will also be called to testify regarding the examination of the esophagus, tongue and wind pipe which were removed from the body of the third wife last Wednesday after it had been exhumed. Dr. Becker of Milwaukee, the expert of the defense will be asked to testify upon the general subject of carbolic acid.

It was learned today from a most excellent source that the defense has subpoenaed Mrs. Eimermann and that she will be called upon to take the witness stand. It is this woman who the state claims Pfeil called on frequently during his marriage to the third Mrs. Pfeil. She is a widow and lives a quarter of a mile from the Pfeil home. The state is attempting to prove that the relations between the defendant and Mrs. Eimermann were of a very intimate nature and is assigning that, as a motive in the crime.

At two o'clock yesterday afternoon the jury of twelve men who are to decide the fate of Julius Pfeil again took their places in the court room. Each wore in his button hole a red aster. Two days before, each had worn a white aster. United States Judge William H. Seaman entered the court room and took a chair on the platform towards the left of the chamber. He nodded to Circuit Judge Kirwan and to the attorneys in the case. He remained for quite a time and seemed to listen to the evidence with great interest. The court room was again filled and all standing room in the rear occupied. Most of the benches were filled as early as one o'clock, an hour before the session began.

Dr. Egloff again went over his testimony of Thursday regarding the observation of discoloration on the body of the deceased third wife on the morning of the inquest. Judge Kirwan wanted to know why so much emphasis was laid on this point when the discoloration had not been observed two days later when a careful examination was made at the autopsy. District Attorney Collins replied that the embalming fluid had a bleaching tendency and the discoloration may have disappeared at that time because of that. Attorney Voigt objected to the questioning on the grounds of repetition, but was overruled, Judge Kirwan holding that in an ordinary case he would sustain such an objection but not so in a case of such a serious nature.

In the cross examination of Dr. Nutt conducted by Attorney Mead, Dr. Nutt stated that sometimes death from carbolic acid is a lingering death, but at others it is a quick death from paralysis. The relaxation of the muscles is a usual occurance in cases of log sickness, but somewhat rare in cases of sudden death. If death resulted from paralysis it would have been caused probably about forty-five minutes after the taking of the acid, as it usually requires about thirty minutes for the physiological effects to become evident and a little longer before enough acid has been absorbed to have a paralytic effect on the nerve centers. In that time a person could have vomited and could have pain. "If a person died of carbolic acid I would expect the body to be in a different position than straight up and down. I would expect to see the bed clothes disturbed if such a person died in bed. A person would not have time to arrange the clothes, etc., if death came from paralysis."

Dr. Victor Lenher, (This name is spelled two different ways throughout all the newspaper articles - K. R.) Professor of Chemistry at the University of Wisconsin was then called. The state began the examination by attempting to show that Dr. Lenher qualified as an expert, but the defense interrupted and admitted his qualifications. Dr. Lehner told of his receiving the jar containing the stomach of the deceased and also a letter from Dr. Nutt referring to the stomach which the latter asked to have examined. Some of the liquid was outside of the stomach within the jar when the examination was begun. The contents of the stomach and the liquid in then were examined together. There was about as much liquid in the stomach as there was in the jar. He had weighed out seventy two and a half grains and estimated the weight of the remainder of the carbolic acid which he had found to be from ten to thirty grains. That was all the carbolic acid that the stomach contained - that is about ninety grains. He also tested for other poisons but no other poisons were present. Dr. Lenher then produced the three bottles containing the acid which had been extracted from the stomach of the deceased.

Dr. Brueckbauer then was called and told of the results of the examination of the tongue, esophagus and wind pipe that had been removed from the exhumed body. He said, "the organs towards the exterior like the tongue and part of the pharynx were in a much greater state of decomposition than the interior organs like the esophagus and the wind pipe. They were pretty well preserved. The esophagus especially was in a good state of preservation. The esophagus was burned for its entire length. It was more burned near the stomach than near the pharynx. Then there was a sharp line of demarcation on the larynx. Below that point the tissue was burned. Above it there was not a mark discernable to the human eye. All was smooth and even. The tongue nor the mouth showed any indication of a burn. Neither did the back of the tongue and it was in a good state of preservation - good enough so that an accurate conclusion could be drawn from it. Carbolic acid if taken in the quantity found in the stomach and of a similar concentration, may act in two ways upon a human body; first, as an irritant, and second as a paralytic. As a paralytic when first coming in contact with the mucous membrane causes a shock; in that case death would ensue within five minutes. As an irritant death may be caused from thirty minutes to three hours. A great part of that time would be one of pain to the patient. At the end a period of coma would occur during which the body would be insensible to pain and the mind could not act. It is not at all likely that a body found in the position in which Mrs. Pfeil's is said to have been found, could have come to its death from carbolic acid as an irritant. If the paralytic effect had ensued the body would probably be found near the place where the acid was taken. An empty stomach would hasten death from poison in the stomach.

Mr. Stroud of Rhine said he had been to Rhine Center on the day of April 1, and went into the saloon. There he saw Pfeil talking to Jake Miller and the latter shook his head. Later he passed them and heard Pfeil say, "She has got to go by Monday, it can go anyway it wants to; she's got to go." He saw Fred Meyer back of Jake Miller on that occasion. What Pfeil meant by those words he did not know. Pfeil looked as he always did. He did not appear excited.

Mr. Hofschild declared that he saw Pfeil come to his cheese factory on the morning of April 3, at about half past six o'clock. He also saw him leave at about quarter of seven.

Dr. Pfeifer is a veterinary surgeon in Franklin. He stated: "On January 19 or 20, I went to the Pfeil home to test some cattle. Henry Zimmermann assisted me. At the dinner table, if, I can recollect rightly, Pfeil asked me if I had some carbolic acid with me. We went to the rig and if I remember rightly, I did. It seems that I filled him a two ounce bottle which he gave me and which he got from the house. It seems he said, "Es ist doch immer schoen wen man so etwas im hause hat." This defendant talked to me about carbolic acid in Kuestner's saloon in Franklin about three weeks after the death of his wife. I came into the saloon. Pfeil was sitting there. He came up to me and took me by the arm. Then he said, 'Joe, I always wanted to ask you something. Come out here a minute.' We went out and he asked me either 'how much' or 'what kind of carbolic acid did you give me when you tested my cattle in January.' I responded 'Did I give you some?' to which he replied, "I thought you had but possibly you didn't.' On the same occasion he told me that that louse of a district attorney was out in Rhine. I generally carry a strong solution of carbolic acid with me."

Attorney Voigt tool charge of the cross examination. Mr. Pfeiffer said that he was not certain of the events of January 19 and 20, but that it only seemed that way to him. He said it was a common thing for farmers to ask him for carbolic acid; that it was a very common medicine and that about half of the farmers had some on their premises.

Henry Zimmermann who had accompanied Dr. Pfeiffer to the farm of Julius Pfeil on the 19th of January said that it seemed to him that he saw Pfeil and Dr. Pfeiffer talking at the rig that day and that he saw Pfeiffer give Pfeil something; what, he did not know.

Florence Bahr, a school teacher in Rhine Township who lives in Sheboygan Falls, but during the session of school boarded at the home of Mrs. Eimermann testified that Pfeil would come to Eimermann's about two evenings in the week while she was there. She went home on Fridays and consequently was not there on Friday or Saturday evenings. "In the Eimermann's household," she said, "there was Mr. Winter ninety years old, Mrs. Winter about sixty five years old, the hired man who was usually gone in the evening, Mrs. Eimermann a widow, and I. We all sat in the same room. Mr. Pfeil talked to all of us. Sometimes he would leave early; at other times late, after I had gone to bed.

At this point Attorney Fillen offered the summons, complaint, stipulation and judgement in the case of Minnie Pfeil against Julius Pfeil for divorce as evidence. Attorney Mead objected that the matter did not have any bearing on the case. Judge Kirwan asked Attorney Gillen for a statement. He said: "Your Honor, we submit these papers as proper and relavent (sic) for this purpose - to show that the defendant in this action was parted from a considerable portion of his property which was given to his wife as a result of this divorce. It would establish not only a motive but also the reason why he might have disposed of this third wife in the manner in which he did." From this it is evident that the state will claim as a motive of the alleged crime that the defendant wanted to get rid of his wife in order to marry another woman but did not want to get rid of her by a divorce, which might deprive him of a great part of his property.

Attorney Mead was immediately on his feet and moved that the words be stricken out and that the jury be ordered not to consider them.

Judge Kirwan ruled that the papers would be accepted as evidence but that the complaint was not to be read to the jury.

There was nothing prejudicial in the other papers. That the remarks of Attorney Gillen were addressed to the Court and not to the jury and that therefor he did not feel called upon to order them to be striken (sic) out.

Coroner Feagan stated that he had been called to the Pfeil home on April 4th by Carl Foeste. He arrived at two in the afternoon. "Pfeil told me at the inquest," said the Coroner, "that he had got up at about five o'clock that morning; that a fire was built; that he and his wife milked cows; that she went to the kitchen to get breakfast while he did chores; that she helped him load the milk on the wagon; that he took a cup of coffee but did not eat his breakfast; that he left for the factory at about six and returned about a quarter after seven; that he saw a calf food pail standing in the kitchen when he arrived home; that his breakfast was on the table; that he called to his wife and not getting a response went into the sitting room and then into the bedroom where he put his hand on her face and knew she was dead; that she had doctored with Dr. Nutt and Dr. Brueckbauer for heart trouble and stomach trouble; that he never had had any trouble with her and that the relations between them were always of the best; that once about three months after their marriage she seemed to be dissatisfied and talked of going back to her folks; that he and his wife were always on good terms; that she could not have taken anything or anybody given her anything as there was nothing in the house." Mr. Feagan said he also examined Mrs. Eimermann and she told him that Mrs. Pfeil had once told her that she was doctoring for heart trouble with Dr. Nutt and Dr. Brickbauer. Pfeil then showed the Coroner a bottle of medicine which was about one quarter filled. He said she had been feeling well and was in good spirits.

The Coroner further testified that he had seen a scar which appeared about an in. and a quarter in length on the lip. That Dr. Sieker had pointed out to him at the inquest an area of discoloration on the right side near the hip which was brownish red in color. The discoloration was sharply defined. On April 6th at the autopsy Pfeil asked the Coroner what the trouble had been all about."

The Coroner was excused and District Attorney Collins told the court that the State had one more witness and would then rest its case.

This mornings sessions of the circuit court was devoted almost exclusively to the examination of experts for the state. A large number of hypothetical questions were asked and many clashes occurred between Attorney Gillen who conducted the examination on the part of the state and Attorney Mead representing the defense. Mr. Mead objected frequently on the grounds of immateriality and the including of either insufficient data in the question or else introducing circumstances which, he claimed, had not been shown in the case.

Dr. Lenher was recalled by the defense. He testified that the stomach was practically empty at the time he made his chemical examination although it did contain small parts of food matter.

Ida Foeste step daughter of the accused then took the stand. This is the first time she had appeared as a witness in the case. She was attired in black and wore a black hat. She said her mother was fifty years old, five feet four or five inches tall and weighed between one hundred and fifty and one hundred and sixty pounds.

Attorney Gillen conducted the first examination on the part of the state. Dr. Loewenhart said: "I am a professor of toxicology and pharmacology at the university of Wisconsin which position I have held for the past three years. I am a graduate of Johns Hopkins University in medicine and surgery. I have not actually practiced but I have seen a large number of cases because the Johns Hopkins hospital is in very intimate connection with the University. By pharmacology we mean the action of drugs on living organisms. I taught this subject to medical students at Johns Hopkins and Wisconsin. Toxicology deals with the action of poisonous substances on human beings and animals and has to do with the detection of these substances and is an integral part of legal medicine.

Defense Will Now Have Its Inning and Case is Likely to Go to the Jury by Friday of This Week - - Interest Increases as the Case Goes On - - Suicide Not Probable with Conditions Such as Pointed Out - - Expert for Defense Takes the Stand

The state has rested it case. It has attempted to prove:

That the third Mrs. Pfeil came to her death from carbolic acid poisoning and has offered as evidence for the same the examination of the stomach of the deceased by Dr. Victor Lenher revealing the presence of about ninety grains of carbolic acid, and the testimony of physicians regarding the burned condition of the esophagus.

That the late Mrs. Pfeil could not have committed suicide, as evidence for which is the very strange position of the body as claimed to have been found by the defendant, lying on its back, with arms extended to the side, with the clothing neatly arranged and the bed clothes undisturbed; the absence of a receptacle for the carbolic acid; and the expert testimony of Dr. Loewenhart of the University of Wisconsin that it is highly improbably that a person, found dead in the position in which Mrs. Pfeil was found without the mouth or tongue showing the effects of carbolic acid burning while the esophagus is clearly marked, could have taken the poison herself.

That someone else administered the poison, for the same reasons as above.

That that person was Julius Pfeil, based on the evidence that he had last been with her, that the relations between him and his wife had not been good and that his actions were extremely suspicious.

That the motive of the crime was love for another woman, Mrs. Eimermann, for which the state has introduced evidence that he called on Mrs. Eimermann during his marriage to his third wife, and that the relations existing between the two were most intimate.

That he wanted to get rid of this wife in an inexpensive way for which the state introduced the remarks said to have been made by Pfeil to several persons on various occasions; and also the papers in the divorce proceedings of Minnie Pfeil, the second wife against the defendant, the judgement in which case bestowed a considerable part of Pfeil's property on the wife.

That the crime was committed with aforethought, to substantiate which, various conversations which Pfeil is alleged to have had and in which his wife was uppermost in his mind, have been offered.

That the opportunity for the crime was the absence of the children from the household when the daughter Emma had gone to visit her brother, that being her first separation from her mother since the relations between Pfeil and his wife had become strained.

That the poison was administered by a funnel through a hose. The absence of the funnel from the pantry on the day of Mrs. Pfeil's death, the absence of a mark or burn on the interior of the mouth and the very pronounced burns on the esophagus are offered as evidence, as well as the answer of Dr. Loewenhart to a hypothetical question as to how such carbolic acid could be introduced, bearing in mind the circumstances.

That the carbolic acid was administered in a different place than that in which the body was found. The lack of odor, the position of the body, etc., have been introduced to sustain that contention.

That the evidence of the crime were destroyed, as is indicated by the carrying out of the bed and the bed clothes from the spare room, the disappearance of the mop and the shoes of the deceased and the washing of her clothes in which she had died before giving them to the daughter.

[unreadable line]

investigation. His opposition to an inquest, his suggestion of heart failure and his hostility to the District Attorney are assigned as evidence.

That his conscience bothered him from the very start for which the state has offered as evidence the conversations had with the children and others that no one had given her anything and she could not have taken anything and that he asked Dr. Pfeifer about how much or what kind of carbolic acid he had given him in January. This was after he learned that the District Attorney was making an investigation, and before a living soul knew there was carbolic acid in the stomach.

That he had secured both the funnel and the carbolic acid some time in winter. The evidence of Dr. Pfeifer who stated that he thought he had supplied him with the poison and that of Emma Foeste who said that Pfeil bought the funnel are offered to substantiate this theory.

The case of the State was concluded at half past two o'clock Saturday afternoon. The defense immediately placed Dr. William Becker of Milwaukee on the stand. He took a directly opposite view of most important problems upon which he was asked to testify from that of the State's experts. Where they said they would expect to find pain, he said there would not be any. Where they said it would be highly improbable for a person to have committed suicide who had been found in the position in which Mrs. Pfeil was found with no marks on the interior of the mouth and no receptacle for the acid being discovered, he could state positively that suicide had been committed and that the conditions stated were most common in death from carbolic acid. When they stated that after a most careful examination of the tongue no evidence of carbolic acid was found, Dr. Becker found evidence galore, etc., etc.

When he was cross examined he did not stand the attack of Attorney Gillen and several times exactly reversed his testimony given in direct examination. He did not seem to be comfortable under the cross examination and his former smile disappeared entirely, and the questions were answered several times in angry tones. Once or twice he persisted in long tedious enumerations even after Attorney Gillen had told him that it was not necessary. When he came from the stand he was perspiring and one of the physicians there asked him whether he was having a hot time.

When court resumed session Saturday afternoon Dr. Loewenhart was recalled to the stand. He stated that he had examined the tongue of the deceased and found the front part to be of a bluish color like that of decayed meat. "When I had concluded my second examination of the tongue," he said, "I arrived at the conclusion that I could see no evidence of carbolic acid poisoning on any part of the tongue, either the anterior of the posterior. The posterior part of the tongue was in an advanced state of decomposition. There would not be any reason for any essential difference in the option of carbolic acid on the tongue and on the mucous membrane of the mouth. If vomiting had occurred the

[unreadable line]

up into the mouth and it would have burned it. Convulsions are a common but not invariable symptom of carbolic acid poisoning. 92 grains are equal to about a teaspoonful and a half.

"If a person had voluntarily taken the acid, if it were possible, the circumstances remaining the same as in the hypothetical question stated above and if I found the person in the position described I should state that it was taken by means of an instrument. I should expect also to see the body very near to the instrument. I should expect an odor, The majority of people can detect the odor of carbolic acid very readily even three hours after death.

The odor is very discernable as was observed yesterday in this court room when the room was filled with it in a minute. If a person had opened the mouth of the patient having taken carbolic acid three hours before and the acid had touched the mouth the odor would have been very plain. If a person had been removed from the room of death to another room subsequent to death the odor would not be strong. If the person had been removed to within a room from the outside where death had occurred from carbolic acid poisoning the odor would not be so easily detected."

"I examined the exhibits of Amelia Pfeil which contained the tongue, part of the wind pipe and the greater part of the gullet. I made two examinations. I found that the front part of the tongue from one to one and a half inches back was of bluish color. It was in an advanced state of decomposition. The rest of the mouth was of a grayish color, opaque, uniform appearance and tough in consistency."

"The esophagus differed from the appearance of the mouth and tongue. Its color was flesh pinkish. There was no putrification as in the mouth cavity. The lining showed the action of a substance which when applied to a living substance burns it. In this case it could be nothing but carbolic acid. The lining was cracked up and down and the muscles exposed. The epiglotis or the lid covering the wind pipe was in the same condition as the mouth. I noticed no difference between the upper and lower surfaces. The trachea was of the same general appearance as the mouth. The line of demarcation was definite, between the well preserved portion and the decayed portion. Carbolic acid tends to preserve the organs. If carbolic acid remains in contact with a tissue for a very brief time it causes an easily seen change. The gullet showed clearly the action of acid. I saw no evidence that carbolic acid had come into the mouth. If acid had been in the mouth for any brief time the signs of it would have been discernable. It would have been in a condition similar to that of the esophagus. The burned condition occurs very quickly after the introduction of the acid.

"If carbolic acid were in contact with the trachea the subject would have a burning choking sensation. If a person looked into the mouth the person could see to the higher portion of the tongue and the muci farther back along the palate. In order that the liquid might not touch that palate it must have been received while the person was lying down and on its back. It would be absolutely impossible for a person to take a liquid from a bottle or vial without the liquid touching the mouth or tongu. Artificial means would be necessary."

The immediate results of drinking carbolic acid are: a disagreeable taste, a burning sensation continued indefinitely into the stomach,

[unreadable line],

[unreadable line]

faster breathing. Vomiting usually ensues. It occurs in the vast majority of cases.

"Carbolic acid is then taken into the blood vessels and affects the tissues. Those most sensitive to it are the nerves. Stimulation ensues with an increase in rate and depth of breathing, faster heart beat, convulsions which are common, and paralysis. In that stage all sensations are lost and the muscles cannot be used. Deep coma follows from which the patient cannot be aroused. The pulse becomes slow and weak. The breathing shallow and death comes from paralysis of respiration. The heart beats a little longer.

"The temperature is not affected at early stages, Rises during period of convulsions and falls during periods of paralysis. Pain varies in different cases. Where death is rapid there may be little pain. Vomiting might occur very promptly because of local action. Convulsions might be delayed. In rapid death they might not occur at all. Paralysis might come almost immediately - a few steps from where the acid was taken. We may ascribe severe pain to this. The face would not necessarily give evidence of pain as the muscles relax after death. Position of limbs might show pain however. If the pain is in the abdominal region the body would double up. The hands be raised to the face. That is the commonest position. Frequently weeping occurs."

Q. If you were to find a patient in bed lying on the back with the arms extended and the lower limbs close together and straight down, the clothes as far down on one side as on the other, in the rear as in the front, the bedding undisturbed, the coverlets close over the body and drawn up to the chin, the mouth open - it you were to find a patient in such a position, at least an hour or an hour and a half after taking carbolic acid from the effects of which the person had died, what would you say as to the possibility of the person having died in that position?

A. "It may not be impossible but very improbable. If the intervals which I described as occurring in carbolic acid poisoning were present I should not expect to find the patient in such a position. The arms would probably be elevated and the legs would be drawn up. The clothing would be of no consideration to the person. It would be disarranged.

Attorney Voigt conducted the direct examination of Dr. Becker. He said he was a graduate of the Medical School of Milwaukee, where he later became an instructor and a professor. "I have studied in Europe for about a year, in Munich, Jena and Berlin. Then I became professor at the College of Physicians and Surgeons in Illinois and then I was selected as Professor of bacteriology etc., at Marquette College. I have assisted the Coroner of Milwaukee County in many cases. I have attended about 2,000 autopsies of which about 125 were carbolic acid deaths.

"Convulsions are not frequent in carbolic acid poisoning in adults or where death occurs rapidly. I examined sections of the tongue and found a line of demarcation on the posterior part of the tongue differentiating the color. The back third of the posterior part is more yellow. Yellowish patches on right and left were visible. I removed one for microscopical examination. These two patches indicated chemical burning during life. Knowing the other circumstances I should say without hesitation that carbolic acid caused that burn. I cannot [say] whether carbolic acid came in contact with the fore part of the tongue during life. The burning of the esophagus increased with absolute regularity from the top to the bottom. There was no positive evidence of carbolic acid on the epiglotis. I can say from inference however that there must have been. The back of the tongue showed signs of preservation.

"Suicides are normally committed in the morning before eating breakfast. Nine tenths of them are on empty stomachs. In many cases the evidence is secreted most carefully. I have had cases where women took carbolic acid outside and returned to the house where death occurred, the evidence having been destroyed. It is nothing unusual for a suicide of this kind to be found with bed clothes over her. She might have covered herself semi-consciously. I by no means expect the limbs to be drawn up. Carbolic acid patients never die from convulsions - but only from paralysis when the muscles relax again. It is very easy to have a position like the one ascribed to Mrs. Pfeil in death. It is not at all unusual in carbolic acid suicide. Between the cessation of convulsions and the beginning of paralysis the mind would be cloudy and would perform the usual work semi-consciously. I have never seen any patient double up. In this case I think the person actually swallowed the carbolic acid. If a funnel had been used it would have scared (sic) and injured the tongue and the epiglotis. If a glass tumbler had been used the contents would have spilled in the mouth. It is absolutely impossible to force carbolic acid into a person without a mark being left. It is possible in no way while she is conscious. So is it also impossible if the person is unconscious, and not leave marks on the mouth or tongue.

"It is one of the most difficult things in the world to introduce carbolic acid through a tube. The withdrawal of a tube would invariably spill some liquid over the corner of the lips or neck. That is why we use a towel. The marks on the body of the deceased could not have been marks of violence by any means. They were port mortem marks. Carbolic acid scars on the tongue do not show any striking difference in color on the first three or four days from that of the mucous membrane. They are almost like the natural color of the mucous membrane.

"It is impossible to chloroform a person who is conscious against his will. It is almost impossible to chloroform a person who is asleep without him first waking up and opposing the administration of the chloroform.

Dr. Nutt was called by the defense this morning as the first witness of the day and stated that he had not seen any discoloration on the body of the late Mrs. Pfeil when the autopsy was held, although a careful examination had been made.

Although the jurors who are to decide the fate of Julius Pfeil charged with the murder of his third wife, have been locked up for almost a week now, when they filed into the court house this morning they still seemed to be in the best of spirits. Each again wore a red aster in his button hole.

Judge Kirwan took his chair at ten o'clock and the sixth day of the famous murder trial was on. The crowd this morning was not as large as on other days and several benches were not occupied. This was due to the examination of experts which is going on at the present time and which is tiresome and monotonous to the general public.

Dr. Becker of Milwaukee, the expert for the defense was then called and the cross examination by Attorney Gillen resumed. Dr. Becker made several contradictions in his testimony and several times was forced to admit that the facts were not exactly so as stated in the direct examination. In the direct examination he said he had spent a year in Europe in study. In the cross examination he said half a year. In the direct examination he said he had attended a thousand autopsies in Munich; in the cross he admitted that there were not so many and that the number was exaggerated. When he was asked about what courses he took in several universities which he said he attended in Europe, he entered into a long enumeration and refused to break off even after the counsel of the defense had said it was sufficient.

(Continued tomorrow)

Makes a Good Witness with Defense - - Denies Many of The Allegations of the State - - Julius Pfeil on Stand - - Makes Good Impression in Direct Examination - - Is Given Grueling Cross Examination - - Experts Testimony All Taken - - Dr. Gutsch and Dr. Bock Testify

Although it had been rumored that the defense would place Mrs. Eimermann, the woman in the case on the stand, still when her name was called as witness in the famous Pfeil murder case it came as a surprise. The whole court room was filled with an atmosphere of suspense when she took the witness chair. Not a sound was heard and many a neck was turned to get a glimpse of the woman who the state alleges was on very intimate terms with the defendant and because of whom the alleged crime was committed.

She took the stand at about half past nine o'clock this morning. She was neatly dressed in a black skirt and white waiste and wore a well fitting black coat and becoming black hat. She seemed to make a very good impression on the stand and stood the cross examination of District Attorney Collins without faltering. Her answers were clear cut and to the point. Although she was at variance on many subjects with several of the State's witnesses still she did not contradict herself and proved to be a strong witness for the defense.

The second sensation of the day was the appearance of the defendant himself on the stand. Pfeil took the stand shortly before the morning recess. Attorney Williams had charge of the direct examination. Pfeil appeared entirely at ease when he took the stand. He was cleanly shaved and wore the same grayish colored coat and dark trousers which he has worn throughout this trial. He told an apparently straight forward story of the events of the day of his wifes death and corroborated the testimony of Mrs. Eimermann regarding the relations existing between them. He stated most emphatically that he and his wife had always been on the best terms in spite of the evidence to the contrary introduced by the state. It is certain that someone is lying in this case as the State's witnesses are positive about certain facts and the witnesses of the defense are just as certain about facts directly opposite in nature. This holds true in the expert testimony as well as the other testimony.

The morning session opened at the usual hour. The jurors for the first time during the trial wore purple asters in their button holes. On the other days they wore white and red. The first witness called was Paul Laack. He stated that he had helped Undertaker Laun at Pfeil's home. He came there at eleven o'clock and left to notify a minister. In the afternoon he helped Laun remove a part of the waiste and then was ordered to leave the room by Laun that his services were no longer necessary. The woman wore the usual clothes.

Mrs. Jacob Eimmermann is a sister of Pfeil and is not a relative of Widow Eimmermann. She said that she did not call on her brother very often. That she was there the day after the funeral and helped wash the clothes. All the clothes were washed. Emma came there to get her clothes and those of her mother. Pfeil said she could not have her clothes until they were washed. She had not noticed those clothes any more than any others. Emma could not have them because they were in the wash. She had not noticed anything wrong with them.

Widow Eimmermann then took the stand. She said: "We have been neighbors of Julius Pfeil for seventeen years. Two years ago next February my husband died. We have always been on friendly relations with the Pfeil's and my husband and Mr. Pfeil worked together on each others farm. Mr. Pfeil took milk for us all last spring. He would come over to the house about twice a week sometimes in the daytime and sometimes in the evening. He came to visit my father, ninety years old who is sick and feeble. On the morning of April 3, he came over to our place and told me that he thought his wife was going to die and that I should come over. I went and looked into the bed room door. I did not go in because the sight of dead people makes me nervous. I said to Pfeil that he should eat his breakfast. He replied that he had eaten enough for that day. The table was set for two persons with bread, butter sausage, cups, plates, knives and forks. I cleared the table and cleaned up and Dr. Sieker came in just as I was getting through with the milk cans. Then we cleaned out the spare room for the undertaker. There were lots of Mrs. Pfeil's clothes on the bed and I took them and the bedding upstairs. The bed stead we carried into the shed. After the children came we took up the carpet. There is no closet in the spare bedroom. When the children came in the following conversation was carried on:

Pfeil - "Hello Emma, Where do you come from?"

Emma - 'Carl brought me.'

Pfeil - 'Bad news, your mother is dead.' Emma did not reply to that. Then Carl came in.

Pfeil - 'Bad news, Your mother is dead.'

Carl - 'No wonder.'

Pfeil did not respond and they went into the bed room to look at the body."

Then they spoke about the funeral arrangements. Carl did not want to write the letters of notification to the relatives and asserted that that was Pfeil's duty. Pfeil said he would write to his side and Carl should write to his. How they settled it I do not know. It seemed as if the cups that were on the table had been used but not the plates and knives and forks. On Tuesday at the inquest we did not call each other "Ma" and "Pa" and I do not see how Coroner Feagan could say such a thing. He called me Mrs. Eimmermann and I called him Mr. Pfeil. No one can call me "Ma" except my children. He never addressed me in that way and never will.

On the cross examination conducted by the District Attorney Mrs. Eimmermann stated: I have been over to Pfeil's only once since Christmas. I did not go to many places because of my husband's death. I did say at one time that 'I could spit that woman in the face, referring to Mrs. Pfeil, but I said that not because of jealousy but because I thought she was not respectable. Afterwards I got to know her and I thought she was good hearted. She called over to our place only once since Christmas. She was not much in the habit of making calls on any of her neighbors. Yes, my husband died in February and it was immediately after that I first met Mrs. Pfeil and made that statement about spitting in her face. There had been coffee in the cups that morning. It was black coffee. Both cups were dirty. There were no dirty plates in the sink that I saw. No body asked me to wash the dishes. Pfeil said she had the calf food half done so I fixed it for him. The calf food was standing in the kitchen. Hot water was on the stove."

As the defendant in this action took the stand a hush fell over the court room. He spoke clearly and distinctly and his answers could be heard in every part of the room. He said: "Our relations were all right. Only once did she mention about going back home and that was about Christmas. I saw that at the time that she was dishearted and asked her what the trouble was. She said that she was not feeling well and remarked that it would be better if she returned home and he remained on the farm.

"On the Friday preceeding my wife's death Carl came over. He stayed for dinner. While I was outside my wife came and asked if either she or Emma could go to Carl's to help in the work for a few days. I said, why sure both of you go. I said that willingly and not in a mean way. Whey they both had been there before for a week."

"On Sunday my wife and I were in the house together. I wanted to go to Mrs. Hungsperg but she did not because she said she was waiting for her son Herman. She got her clothes down however and we decided that we could go after he came. These clothes were placed into the spare room. Herman did not come however so we did not go. In the evening, she said she did not care to go because she felt so dizzy. We occupied the same room and bed. We retired at about nine o'clock. We got up Monday morning at about five. I took the milk pails to the barn while she lighted the fire in the kitchen. I fed the horses. Then we milked. I milked four cows and she three. Then I dumped out the milk and she fed the calf. I took the milk into the summer kitchen. Then I took the cart to the shed and she gave me a lift. She went into the house to get breakfast and I hitched up the horses. I went into the house. Breakfast was ready. I took a cup of coffee saying that I would eat the rest of my breakfast later. I lighted my pipe, put on my fur coat and went to the factory.

"I left for the factory at about six and got back about a quarter after seven or half past seven. I passed Pfingsten's house and saw Mr. Pfingsten there. When I came home I unhitched my horses. I heard the calf holler and was wondering whether it had been fed. Took the cans to the house. Saw calf food still there and thought that the calf had not been fed. Removed my coat and went into the bed room and saw her lying on bed. 'Are you sick, Ma?,' I said and got no answer. I raised her up, looked at her and placed her back in her position. I was scared and did not know that she was dead. I did not get aid at Ecklemann's because we were not on good terms. I went to Pfingsten. I knew he was home and his horse hitched. Although he lived there only for a short time we were always on good terms. I told Pfingsten that my wife was sick and asked him to get Dr. Sieker. Then I went to Mrs. Eimmermann and told her to come. I was all alone in the house and I wanted some one there. Emma was gone. After Mrs. Eimmermann had been there for a short time she wanted to go and I asked her to stay because I was all alone. I told her she should stay until the Dr. arrived anyway.

"Dr. Sieker came about nine o'clock. I met him in the house. He removed the clothes and examined her. I was not present. When he came from the room I asked him how he had found her and he replied 'As far as I can find she died from heart failure. Did she ever take any medicine?' I answered, 'Yes,' and showed the medicine to Dr. Sieker. My wife had told me that she had been taking medicine from Dr. Sieker for stomach trouble for about a year. He had also been doctoring for heart trouble as she told me. I do not remember any talk of an inquest at the first call of Dr. Sieker. When Charles and Emma came I was taking out the bed for the undertaker. (Pfeil here told the same story as Mrs. Eimmermann and also denied that he had replied to Carl's remark that it was no wonder that his mother was dead by the words "If you talk crazy I will put you out of the house.") When Dr. Sieker came the second time, I met him outside. He said he thought it was better to have an inquest. I responded that I was satisfied and that he should see the children. We went into the house and I introduced him to the Foeste's. He said that I was willing to have an inquest and asked how they felt on the matter. Charlie asked what she had died from and Dr. Sieker said probably heart failure. Then he said they did not want an inquest."

The defense in the case if the State of Wisconsin against Julius Pfeil scored heavily yesterday afternoon when two of its experts Dr. Gutsch and Dr. Bock of this city who made an examination of the tongue and wind pipe which had recently been removed from the exhumed body of the late Mrs. Pfeil whom the state alleges was murdered, took the witness stand and testified that they had seen unmistakable burns of carbolic acid on the posterior part of the tongue which indicated clearly that the carbolic acid had been in the rear of the mouth. Dr. Bock even went farther than that and stated that the burns were those made by the process of natural swallowing and not those resulting from the forced swallowing of injected acid. Both physicians declared that everything pointed towards suicide rather than murder which in their mind was highly improbable taking all the facts into consideration. In one point however Dr. Bock proved of considerable value to the State. That is that if a solar plexus blow were struck a person unconsciousness would result and no discoloration would ensue. There would be no evidence of the blow and the person in the unconscious state would be able to swallow in the same manner as if conscious.

At two o'clock yesterday afternoon when the Court resumed Dr. Becker was still on the stand. He stated that the limbs may be thrown outward when relaxation takes place. There may be a little bend at the knee. Outside of those exceptions the body lies flat after relaxation. A person may move his arms about unconsciously while in a coma.

On the redirect examination Dr. Becker said that a person could retain food in his stomach for five or six hours. A cup of coffee with rolls would remain in the stomach about four or five hours. Chloroform can be detected in stomach after death by chemical analysis.

In general there seems to be a world of difference between the two experts of the state and Dr. Becker, of the defense as far as the method of answering questions are concerned. The replies of Dr. Lenher and Dr. Loewenhart were clear and precise without being encumbered with numerous details, explanations and conditions.

During his stay in Munich out of all the large number of autopsies less than one per cent were deaths from carbolic acid. Dr. Becker testified in the cross examination that as a rule in all the carbolic acid cases he had seen there the entire tongue was burned, the posterior middle and even the anterior. One out of three subjects showed burns on the lips. If too much of the liquid is present to be swallowed several swallows will be necessary. A tablespoonful of liquid can easily be swallowed at once. Swallowing is not usually a voluntary act. At some stage it is involuntary and can not be controlled. If the victim were aware of the results and the burning effects it would require considerable will power. A person intending to commit suicide would be aware of the effects and results.

The taste nerves are distributed on the surface of the tongue. They are effected by sweet, sour and saline tastes. The tastes of fruits etc., for instance is confined to the back of the tongue and their taste is made perceptible by co-operation with the smell. Carbolic acid has a peculiar taste. The burning is not instantaneous. A numbness is first felt. The odor is immediately detected however by the sense of taste with the sense of smell. If a tablespoonful of liquid were placed in the back of the mouth the liquid would necessarily come in contact with the posterior third of the tongue or some portion of the mouth. If carbolic acid were taken from a bottle the bottle usually would have to be removed from the mouth before a second swallow were taken so as to prevent burning. In order to prevent the burning of the middle third of the tongue or the upper part of the mouth the acid would have to be measured off so as not to exceed the capacity of one swallow. I have seen one case where a quarter of a bottle was taken with only the middle third of the tongue being burned.

In the case of the young man described Saturday where the retainer was not found near the body and there was no odor, I saw the body nine hours after death. The body was warmer at that time that the surrounding temperature. The posterior of the tongue was burned as far forward as the middle third. Dr. Loewnhart was not present when I examined the yellowish projection of the tongue which I removed. This portion was about one third of an inch in width. I examined it with a microscope. I could not determine whether it was affected by carbolic acid burning without the knowledge of other factors. This part was burned because it was the most prominent portion of the tongue.

Dr. Gutsch another of the State's experts was then called, he said: that carbolic acid causes a burn on the mucous membrane that is of a whitish color and very much resembles the natural color of the mucous after death and for that reason may be easily overlooked in an examination. One could differentiate between the burned area and the unburned area of the mouth more easily with the increase of time after death. At the end of three days the unscorched area becomes darker than those that were scorched. In suicide cases the tip of the tongue is not usually burned while the posterior third is burned. After opening the mouth the middle anterior and a very small part of the posterior one third may be seen with the eye. "In my examination of the tongue I discovered burns on the posterior third which I called carbolic acid burns. There seemed also to be a burn on the epiglotis. To my mind the posterior part of the tongue had come in contact with carbolic acid. There were no burns outside of these yellowish projections which we examined. There would be injury to the epiglotis and part of the tongue if a tube were used. We saw no injuries. In an unconscious person a fluid if injected from the mouth is apt to enter the trachea rather then the esophagus. This would result in coughing and spitting. In that case the evidence would be shown in the anterior part. In case of death by carbolic acid I would expect to find the subject in a relaxed position with the limbs extended. It is difficult to administer chloroform by a lay person. If too much is given it would result in death. A patient usually wakes up before the chloroform has taken effect and fights its administration. I consider it impossible to give carbolic acid to a conscious person against the will. I consider it possible that a person could take carbolic acid, destroy all the evidence, throw herself down in a bed and cover herself up with the bed clothes and assume the position said to have been assumed by Mrs. Pfeil and be found dead.

A change in life occurs in women between forty and fifty years of age. This change is usually accompanied by a period of despondency, which in some cases may become so intense as to result in insanity. The mind is affected. The area of discoloration said to have been found on the deceased is a post mortem change. If it had been the result of a bruise or of violence the discoloration would have remained so as to be seen on the autopsy.

"In carbolic acid poisoning I would expect the odor would be detected," said Dr. Gutsch on the cross examination by Attorney Gillen. "If taken in the room where the body was found I would expect the odor to be there. The heart respiratory centers are usually the last to be paralyzed. Consequently respiration would continue and odor of carbolic acid would be given off and ought to be perceptible."

Attorney Voigt took charge of the witness for re-direct examination. Dr. Gutsch said: "Where a person is willing a tube is much more easily inserted than where a person is unconscious. In case a tube were introduced against a persons will by a layman the epiglotis and the rear part of the tongue would be injured. Usually in carbolic acid suicides the acid is taken from a bottle. If all is taken into the pouch in the tongue, it could be taken down into the esophagus in one swallow and none would be ejected into the front of the mouth. A person can swallow about a tablespoon full.

Dr. Bock of this city another of the defense's experts and one of their strongest witnesses was then called. He said: "In two cases I have seen the lips and the tip of the tongue burned. In eight or nine the burns were further back. Convulsions may occur but as a rule do not. They are less frequent in an adult person. A fatal dose of carbolic acid usually kills in a very short time, about five or ten minutes. That would be ample time for a person to walk about and destroy the evidence of her deed. A suicide from carbolic acid is usually found in a relaxed position with the limbs extended. I have attended cases where the quilts were drawn up. Also cases where the retainer was concealed. In one case the retainer was hidden between the bed clothes and the mattress. In that case it was a bottle containing about four ounces. The smell of carbolic acid was very perceptible in that room. A person might take carbolic acid and die in bed in the position in which Mrs. Pfeil is said to have been found without any evidence of burns on the front of the tongue or mouth and without any evidence of the retainer.

"I examined the tongue and found two small areas on the posterior third indicating carbolic acid burning. The rest of the tongue was so decomposed that we could not tell whether carbolic acid had been in contact with it or not. It is impossible to administer a fatal dose of carbolic acid against the will of the person to whom it was given. It is possible for a layman to inject a tube. I think it would be quite difficult however and the tube might enter the trachea. It could be injected into an unconscious person but here again the difficulty would be great. It would be just as apt to strike the epiglotis and the trachea. It is very likely that the epiglotis would be injured. It is possible to chloroform a sleeping person but very difficult. There is an exciting stage during which the patient will object to the chloroform.

"A solar plexus blow would probably cause unconsciousness without leaving any marks. This could be easily administered by a layman.

Attorney Gillen then cross-examined the witness. In the cross examination Dr. Bock said: "At first the carbolic acid burn is hard to be seen but in three days ought to be visible. It is more pronounced. Two ounces would probably require several swallows. In one case that I attended the retainer was concealed, but there were burns on the mouth, the patient was spitting out saliva, there was a strong odor and the body was sprawled out on bed. In another the boy was on his side and there were burns on his lips. In a third, the carbolic acid had been taken from a tumbler. There were no perceptible burns at first. But the bottle was there as well as a bottle of whiskey. The carbolic acid had been taken with whiskey and though the odor was slight it was perceptible. A person who had been struck a solar blow resulting in unconsciousness could swallow. The scars I found were carbolic acid scars. Those scars are different from all others and they were carbolic scars.

On redirect examination Dr. Bock said: "the acid causing those scars was swallowed by the woman and not injected. I am certain of that because of the peculiar scar on the rear of the tongue. There are two scars separated from each other by about a third of an inch. That shows that a drop of concentrated acid remained on the two sections for some time. The rest of the tongue which is more decomposed in its posterior third is not burned that way because the contact with the carbolic acid was not as long. This peculiarity regarding the burns on the posterior third indicates to me that she swallowed the acid and did not receive it because of forced injection. It was a natural swallow and not a forced swallow that caused those two patches. The natural act of swallowing produces such scars.

Julius Feltmann testified that he had seen Julius Pfeil at the cheese factory on the morning of April 3 at about a quarter of seven or seven o'clock. He talked with him about ten minutes and Pfeil did not seem to be excited.

George Feltmann the brother of Julius corroborated the above testimony. In the cross examination conducted by District Attorney Collins he said he was not certain of the time because he had not looked at his watch and that he had he had not paid any particular attention to Pfeil's appearance.

Mrs. Kaestner the sister of the defendant then took the stand. She said she had gone to her brothers home on the day of the funeral and remained the next day to clean up. She washed the clothes of Mrs. Pfeil and had not noticed any spots on them although she had examined each piece. She always examined each piece of clothing before it went into the wash. That was a habit of hers she said. On the cross examination by Attorney Collins she said she had overheard the conversation of Pfeil with the Foeste children in which he said that he would not give Emma the clothes of her mother until they had been washed. They were soiled in this house he said and they would be washed there. Some of them already in the tub but most were still unwashed and dry.

At twenty-eight minutes after two o'clock this afternoon the last witness in the Pfeil murder case had been examined and a few minutes later the arguments were begun. The State produced but one evidence in rebuttal. The form for the jury will be either guilty in the first degree of murder or innocent. After a lengthy discussion Judge Kirwan granted three hours of argument to each side. Each of the five Attorneys in the case will address the jury. The arguments will be continued tomorrow morning when the case will go to the jury. The court room was crowded to its capacity when the arguments were begun by District Attorney Collins at eight minutes of three o'clock. All available standing room was occupied and many who could not gain admittance were turned away.

Finally Come to an Agreement of Not Guilty But With Understanding That There Would be No Hand Shaking on the Part of Jurors With Julius Pfeil

It has just been learned that the jury in the case of Julius Pfeil charged with the murder of this wife, stood six for conviction and six for acquittal on the first ballot. This was the lineup while several ballots were taken, and the arguments in the jury room were exceedingly warm at times.

Finally an agreement was reached of not guilty. It is said that there was an understanding that the jurors would not shake hands with Julius Pfeil

There was a vote taken in the jury room, independent of the verdict, in which the private views of the jurors are said to have been expressed, but which was to have no weight in their vote of guilty or not guilty submitted to the court.

Julius Pfeil, who was tried on the charge of murdering his wife, and acquitted, has sold his farm in the town of Rhine to Carl Giese. The deal was made through Arthur Feldman.

It had been rumored for some time that Julius Pfeil intended leaving this county, and the sale of his farm would indicate that he is going to leave the town of Rhine.

A rumor in circulation in Franklin today that Julius Pfeil and Mrs. Eimermann were married last evening.

Inquiry at the County Clerk's office indicated that no license had been issued, and Judge Paul Krez has issued no special dispensation. If they were married it was outside this state.

Return to the Sheboygan Page