Goldberg Benjamin08

Waupaca Republican

December 25, 1896

ANOTHER ATTORNEY TRIAL

A Petition to Haul Ben Goldberg Over the Coals

Courts an Investigation and Denies the Charge

The REPUBLICAN forgot to mention the sensation which was spring in the circuit court last week when A.L. Hutchinson, formerly district attorney and a practicing attorney at Weyauwega, presented a petition signed by S.W. Sturlin charging Goldberg with illegal acts and conduct unbecoming an honorable lawyer. Mr. Goldberg’s term as district attorney of this county for four years expires Jan. 1. He has been a prominent and stirring lawyer in this county for the last fifteen years. He came into prominence by his pugilistic knock out of two editors on the east side of the county in 1886, who had blocked affairs in the management of the Early congressional campaign. Later he ran for district attorney, was elected and made a lively contest in the prosecution of persons alleged to have been interested in the Mead murder; the jury, returning a verdict of not guilty. After which he vigorously prosecuted and had William Hanscom, one of the witnesses, convicted for perjury in the case, Hanscom maintaining that Goldberg concocted the testimony he was to offer. Later Goldberg moved to Milwaukee and entered into a law partnership with Charles W. Felker & Son. Mr. Goldberg maintaining the right to still hold the office of district attorney of Waupaca county to the close of his term. Goldberg has been as prosperous as he has been aggressive. His legal potato crop has held its own both as to quantity and income. He is building one of the finest residences in Milwaukee, said to cost when finished over $30,000.

We give a resume of the petition presented by Mr. Hutchinson which we copy from the Waupaca Post as it covers the point in the petition presented:

The petition was signed by S.W. Sturlin, who, in a lengthy complaint, avers that in the summer of 1895 he swore out a warrant against Lydia Woodard for trespass, and that she was arrested, tried in justice court and convicted, that she took an appeal to the circuit court, and furnished an appeal bond; that the case was placed for trial on the calendar for the October, 1895 term, and also for March, 1896 term and at both times the case was continued by Goldberg, as district attorney, without the knowledge or consent of the petitioner; the case was on the calendar for the October, 1896 term; that on October 21, Goldberg told Sturlin that if Lydia Woodward did not appear at the October term for trial, he would appear and leave the bond forfeited, and out of the amount collected would pay the fine imposed in justice court and the costs, but that in order to do so it would be necessary for Sturlin to pay Goldberg $22.75, and that if said amount were paid to him he would promptly attend to the matter; that Goldberg further said that if the bond was forfeited, he would collect this amount, and when collected would return it to this petitioner, and would also, in that event, pay to Sturlin part or all of the money he had paid to A.L. Hutchinson, who acted as his attorney in justice court; that Sturlin, being ignorant of the law, paid Goldberg $22.75 as requested; that Goldberg never notified petitioner or his attorney what was the outcome; that instead of having the bond forfeited, Goldberg dismissed the action without the knowledge or consent of Sturlin or Hutchinson, and contrary to the understanding; that Goldberg has never offered to return the $22.75 to Sturlin or to pay A.L. Hutchinson for his services in justice court.

The petition further alleges upon information and belief, that Goldberg has been guilty of fraudulent and unprofessional conduct as an attorney at other times, and has also used his office as district attorney for the purpose of fraudulently obtaining private gain and furthering his individual purposes.

Mr. Goldberg was indignant enough when he found that such a petition had been filed. To the Post editor he said:

“The whole matter is a complete surprise to me. All I can say is that the charge is false from beginning to end. I was employed by Mr. Sturlin as attorney in a civil action and he paid me $15 retainer, and at that time Hutchinson was Sturlin’s attorney. I had no understanding with him relating to any disposition of the criminal case against Mrs. Woodard. The preparation and presentation of that affidavit is the outgrowth of a prosecution in which I had been retained to prosecute against Mr. Hutchinson for one Julia Van Vorhies.”

He said also in conversation with the REPUBLICAN that there was dead loads of spite work mixed up in it, that he was entitled to the money Sturlin gave him it was a retainer fee; said Goldberg: “I am a candidate for U.S. district attorney for the eastern district of Wisconsin, and this whole thing has been hatched up to hurt my chances for the appointment.” Mr. Goldberg also said some uncomplimentary things about Mr. Hutchinson and District Attorney elect Connell, whom he thinks were the instigators of the petition.

To a Milwaukee Sentinel reporter Sunday he gives a general denial and charges the thing as being an outcome or outgrowth of his vigorous work in the Mead murder trial. To people up on this neck of the woods it hardly looks plausible that his work in that case would influence Mr. Hutchinson or Connell, as both of those gentlemen were right in accord with the efforts of the prosecution from first to last. The interview in the Sentinel gives the people a grist of “news” in that famous trial that has never before been published:

“It is a falsehood from beginning to end, manufactured by enemies, both politically and professionally, for a purpose. Since publicity is to be given to the matter, I have nothing to withhold. I arrived in Waupaca last Wednesday morning to try an equity case and while I was in court the clerk called me over to his desk and said he had something he wanted to show me. He produced an affidavit made by a man named Sturlin and filed by his attorney A.L. Hutchinson, last Monday, while I was in Milwaukee. The document read that I, as district attorney, during the time that a case of the state against Lydia Woodward, was pending in the Circuit court, had accepted from Sturlin $22.75 in consideration of which I was to declare the bond in the case forfeited and Sturlin, who was the complaining witness, as to receive his witness fees. The paper read that I accepted the money but failed to carry out the agreement and did not declare the bond forfeited.

“I was informed that when Hutchinson filed the affidavit, Judge Webb refused to entertain the motion that a committee of three be appointed to investigate the charges. I was told that the judge had referred the attorney to the governor for action and that as far as was known nothing more had been done. The court was trying the case at the time and I immediately walked up to his bench and asked for permission to make a few remarks. I then demanded that the court comply with the request to appoint a committee to investigate my official conduct. I told the court that I had been a practitioner in this state for eighteen years, that I had never been accused of stealing a single penny before and that I did not propose to let this matter rest without a full investigation. I waived all technicalities, but explained that there was a certain element or clique of attorneys in Waupaca who were unfriendly toward me, as he well knew, and that I of course would not like to have these attorneys represented on the committee. All I asked was that an impartial committee be appointed. I informed Judge Webb that I would abide by his judgment in choosing the committee and that I had every confidence in his selections. At the time there were a number of Milwaukee lawyers in court and they all pronounced the move made by my enemies as the biggest piece of professional discourtesy they had ever heard of.

“That night I was approached by Hutchinson, the attorney for Sturlin. He told me that he wanted to speak with me but I warned him not to approach me. He, however, insisted on an interview and then proceeded to make a proposition to me that if I would give Sturlin back his $22.75 and pay him $25 attorney’s fees for his trouble, he would withdraw the affidavit and guarantee that the whole proceeding would be dropped. I cannot explain how I felt. I had never heard of such nerve and but for a deputy sheriff who stood close by we would have come to blows. I came to Milwaukee Thursday morning and is the last I have thought about the matter. My record in trhe past bears out the statement that I would not likely be bought up for $22.75 when I have refused opportunities when thousands were at my command. After the stand I took in the Mead murder case there is no one who will believe me guilt of such action as I am charged with in this affidavit.”

Mr. Goldberg then explained the enmity that exists against him both in professional and political circles in Waupaca. Four years ago he was elected district attorney of Waupaca county especially to prosecute the Mead murder case.

“Everybody knows my position in that famous trial. I was threatened, hounded, followed by agents of those implicated in the murder and nothing was left undone to make me resist from my vigorous fight to bring the guilty persons to justice. I had to guard every move I made and myself and Attorney J.V. Quarles, who also assisted in the prosecution, had even to employ detectives to guard us. We did not dare to stop at hotels for fear that our papers and documents would be stolen and had to engage rooms in a private house. We were hounded by spies, some of whom were armed. On the day of the arguments Mr. Quarles had to stop and insist that one of these agents be searched in the court. The man was searched and a weapon was taken from him. The sheriff had to sit in court with his hand on his revolver to prevent interference by friends of those interested in the trial. All this did not frighten us, and after the acquittal I proceeded to bring through to justice those who perjured themselves. Hancom is now serving a sentence in Waupun.

“My enemies have left nothing undone in an effort to injure me, but to this time they have failed in everything they have undertaken. When I was reelected to the office of district attorney it was expressly so that I could prosecute Hanscom. There were those who tried to defeat me. I knew that over $6,500 was spent for that purpose, while I did not spend 65 cents. When I established my business in this city two years ago, an effort was made to have me removed by the governor on the ground that I was non-resident of Waupaca county, but that move also failed for the people who elected me insisted that I send Hanscom to Waupun where he is now lodged for seven years.”

Judge Webb before court adjourned Friday appointed attorneys Gerret T. Thorn of New London, F.M. Guernsey of Clintonville and F.F. Wheeler of this city, a committee of investigation. They will give the matter their attention right after the holidays.

ATTORNEY HUTCHINSON’S STATEMENT

To the Editor of The Sentinel:

Weyauwega, Wis., Dec. 21. I have the article “Calls it Persecution”, in this morning’s Sentinel in which B.M. Goldberg talks about the charges preferred against him, and while to a stranger he tells a probable tale, to one who knows the inside of the proceedings his statements are simply amusing. Particularly that portion of his statement under the subheading “Blows Narrowly Averted”, greatly amused me and though he charges me with offering to guarantee that all proceedings would be dropped if he would pay me $22.75 for Mr. Sturlin and $25 for myself, thereby leading the public to believe that I made an attempt to extort money from him, a serious charge in itself and one which would warrant him in preferring charges against me if it were true, yet I have no fears that he will do so. I only wish to say the charges preferred against Mr. Goldberg are sworn to by S.W. Sturlin, a man nearly 80 years old and who is a man entitled to credit. The charges were not preferred by reason of any spite or jealousy entertained toward Mr. Goldberg, nor were they the outgrowth of anything connected with the Mead case, nor did Judge Webb refuse to entertain the motion to have a committee appointed to investigate the charges. What Judge Webb did say was that “any charges against Mr. Goldberg as district attorney were not within the jurisdiction of the court but should be reported to the governor who had sole power to act.” Judge webb knew ofh te charges contained in the petition before the same was prestned to the court and he so informed Mr. Goldberg in my presence, and it was not until after Mr. Goldberg was so informed that he asked the court to appoint a committee to investigate the charges against him.

S.A. Connell of Waupaca, district attorney-elect, was present the night that Goldberg says I approached him to make a proposition to him. Mr. Connell was attorney for Lydia Woodard, defendant in Mr. Sturlin’s case and Mr. Connell was consulted before the charges were presented to the court. Mr. Goldberg approached me at least three times and pleaded to have me withdraw the petition. The last time was in the presence of Mr. Connell; I called Mr. Connell into the jury room and Mr. Goldberg followed me, uninvited. He there said, “Hutchinson says he will withdraw the charges without consulting with Mr. Connell, but I did not say that I would withdraw them if Mr. Connell were willing. There were no words between us; there was nothing said that would have attracted the attention of a deputy sheriff had there been one near, and the statements of Mr. Goldberg are utterly false.

A.L. HUTCHINSON