Goldberg Disbarment02

 

WAUPACA REPUBLICAN

May 7, 1897

 

DISBARMENT PROCEEDINGS

Benjamin M. Goldberg on Trial for Various Charges.

Judge Fish of Racine Presiding.  Witnesses Examined.

The Case Sharply Contested.

 

            Waupaca County isn’t in it unless it has some long and expensive trial on hand periodically or semi-occasionally.  The walls of the Waupaca court house that was want to ring with the eloquence of Benjamin M. Goldberg when pleading as a prosecutor to send some one over the road for real or alleged misdeeds now rings out different ring to Mr. Goldberg’s ears.  He is on trial and has to answer to nineteen separate charges, preferred by a committee appointed by Judge Webb last October; charges which originated out of a petition drawn by Attorney A.L. Hutchinson, signed by one S.W. Sturling, alleging certain things which is noted in charge one.  The even promises to be the biggest legal battle ever fought in the state. Goldberg is one of the most influential lawyers in the state.  Since leaving Waupaca county he has settled in Milwaukee and is engaged in law with Charles W. Felker.  He is also building a thirty thousand dollar residence, and his popularity has been so great that in addition to his large law practice he was made corporation attorney of South Milwaukee, and, until superseded by the new incumbent, Attorney S.A. Connell, last January, he held for over a year the office of district attorney of this county at the same time.  The charges have all been published in the REPUBLICAN, also Mr. Goldberg’s answers.  He makes general denial as to the charges and will stubbornly fight to sustain it.

            Judge Fish of Racine, who was called in the case by Judge Webb, presides.  C.H. Welch of Milwaukee, Judge Fish’s court reporter, is present.  The prosecution is represented by the committee, Col. Gerrit T. Thorn of New London, F. M. Guernsey of Clintonville and F.F. Wheeler of this city, with the venerable Judge Cate as chief counsel.  Mr. Goldbeg is assisted by C.W. Felker and one of the ablest lawyers in the state, H.H. Hayden of Eau Claire as counsel and pleader.  Paul Thorn also takes the report in short hand for the committee.  The reportorial table is represented by Reporters Douglass of the Milwaukee Sentinel and Starkey of the Evening Wisconsin, and the home papers are looked after by Sturtevant of the Post, Carpenter of the Record and Holmes of the REPUBLICAN.  Other Chicago and Milwaukee and Oshkosh papers are “briefly” looked after by the staff as above noted.  Sheriff Munsert is assisted by Under Sheriff Peterson and Deputy Cornwell.

THE BATTLE OPENS TUESDAY.

            At two o’clock Sheriff Munsert called the adjourned term of court to order.

            H.H. Hayden, of Eau Claire, attorney for Benjamin M. Goldberg, rose and said he would like to ask if there was any order by Judge Webb calling in Judge Fish; if there is no such order he would like to have a stipulation and an order entered on the records nane pro tune.  Judge Cate hardly thought it necessary.  Judge Fish said he thought there would be no objection to having it entered on the record.

            Mr. Hayden read an affidavit in which Mr. Goldberg objected to George W. Cate acting as an attorney in the case where bribery is charged, in charge Number Fourteen.  Mr. Hayden therefore moved that Judge Cate be not allowed to act in the prosecution.

            Col. Thorn said that Goldberg’s answer to the Fourteenth Charge was that this court had no jurisdiction.  He argued that Judge Cate had a right to sit in this case on all the other charges.  Col. Thorn moved that the court pass upon the demurrer to the affidavit.

            Judge Cate asked to make an explanation.  Said the case mentioned was the Finsterwaid case – Waupaca County against Sheriff Peterson.  He knew nothing about the case, only to examine Mr. Goldberg, while he, Goldberg, was a witness.

            Mr. Hayden then offered the following affidavit and motion:

 

STATE OF WISCONSIN   }  ss

                Waupaca County.  )

In re Benjamin M. Goldberg.  In circuit court Waupaca County.

                And now comes the respondent Benj. M. Goldberg by Chas. W. Felker his attorney, and upon the record in this action and upon the papers filed or served thereon, objects to the Hon. George W. Cate appearing in the said matter as one of the attorneys or counsel for the prosecution, or prosecuting the same or aiding in the prosecution thereof in any manner, for the reason that the said George W. Cate is disqualified from so doing.”

                Dated May 3d, 1897,

                                                CHAS. W. FELKER,

                                Counsel for Benj. M. Goldberg, Respondent per H.

STATE OF WISCONSIN  }  ss

                Waupaca County}

In re Benjamin M. Goldberg an attorney of said court,

                State of Wisconsin, Waupaca County, to-wit;

                Benjamin M. Goldberg being first duly sworn on his oath say that among the charges against him set for trial on this day in said court there is one known and numbered as Charge Number Fourteen in which perjury is alleged against this respondent, claimed to have been committed in his giving certain testimony in a certain action therein pending and being tried in the circuit court of Waupaca county, Wisconsin.  That on the occasion of the giving of the said testimony complained of said George W. Cate was an associate attorney with this respondent in the trial of said case, engaged on the same side, and did examine this deponent at the time and on the occasion of his giving said testimony, and did question the deponent in said court, and by his said question did elicit and obtain the testimony complained of; and that during the said trial he did advise and counsel wit this deponent concerning the said case and concerning the said testimony, and concerning the other testimony given in said case relating to the said matters.

                                                                                                                                                 BENJAMIN M. GOLDBERG.

                Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3rd day of May, A.D. 1897.

                                                                                                                                                IRVING P. LORD,

                                                                                                                                                                Notary Public.

                Mr. Hayden then moved that Judge Cate be debarred from sitting in this case.

Judge Fish:  “I see no legal objection to Judge Cate acting as an attorney in this case in all the charges except the charge No. Fourteen.  We will proceed with the case until that charge is reached.”

            Mr. Hayden asked to have an exception noted.

            Mr. Hayden read a long affidavit setting forth that the respondent, B.M. Goldberg, had since March 9, the time when the fourteen chares were preferred devoted all the time possible in looking up papers, witnesses etc., that many witnesses had moved away in other states that the charges are malimalecious and false, but he is ready to go to trial and defend himself against the fourteen charges, but objects to having the five supplemental charges acted upon at this time.  He is willing, if he is not found guilty on any of the fourteen charges, to be tried on the five supplemental charges.

NEW LONDON PRESS EDITORIALS.

            Mr. Hayden also read an affidavit in which he charged that the committee, or some of them, had published in the New London Press a copy of the fourteen charges three days before they were filed.  He offered a copy in evidence marked “exhibit A.;” also a copy of the Press with an article “exhibit B.” criticizing Goldberg and that the article published was verily believed to have been published by the committee, or by some of them; also that the Hoxie and Teitz arrest article marked “exhibit C.” was prepared by the committee or some of them, published to prejudice this case.  Mr. Hayden read the article; also read an article from the Press marked “exhibit D.” headed “Mr. Goldberg active,” that the article is full of innuendos as and threats.

            Mr. Hayden made a motion that the said five supplemental charges be stricken from the record or deferred until after the fourteen charges were heard.  The committee had said that those fourteen charges, each one of which were sufficient to disbar the respondent.  He charged the committee with publishing articles to poison the mind of all who read them.

            Mr. Thorn:  “I am much pleased that this affidavit and charges accusing the committee have been read.  The accusations made in that affidavit we are prepared to meet.  We can give proof that two witnesses have been given money and spirited away.”

            Mr. Hayden objected, as not being germain to the case. 

            Mr. Cate rose and said:  “the charges are germain to the case.  No more ludrious scene ever occurred than this which Mr. Hayden had made this afternoon.  If Mr. Goldberg wishes to continue this case why don’t he proceed in the usual order?  He gives no valid reason, gives no names of witnesses absent, that can not be found.  I don’t know but your honor may take some stock in Goldberg’s affidavit why he should not proceed to trial on these five charges, I don’t’.  The newspaper articles read here, claiming that they were instituted to poison and influence the mind of the people.  They were read to influence the mind of him who sits upon the bench.  It is the sheerest buncombe.”

            Mr. Hayden:  Counsel should have learned wisdom from having occupied the bench.

            Judge Webb said he would permit those charges to be filed.

            The order of Judge Webb was that they should be tried unless there was sufficient reason why they should not be.

            The reason why we are not willing to got to trial with these five charges is because the committee has fourteen lives charged against us and after we have taken care of them and disproved them then we are willing to take up the balance. – After a little further sparrying.

            Judge Fish:  “If the order amounts to a continuance I do not think there is cause shown, I shall deny the motion.  It may be subject to change.

            Mr. Hayden:  “I desire all exceptions taken.”

            Mr. Hayden:  “I wish to move at this time your honor, the striking out of all of the original fourteen charges for the reason that they have not been verified.  There is only the bare, naked statement of the committee verifying them.”

            Judge Cate: “Our answer to the motion will be simply that the committee waives.”

            Motion denied, and exception interposed by Mr. Hayden and noted.

            Mr. Hayden:  “I was asked, your honor, to amend charge No. 2 by adding to the same; “That of said monies the sum of $229.75, and also the interest $1.25 only was paid to, or realized by said Goldberg and on June 14, 1895, he paid to said Rasmus Nelson his full one half of the same including the interest which has accrued on the fifty dollar note to that date, being in all $230.62, paying said Nelson for the same $115.31 his full one-half thereof, and as respondent is informed and believes the balance of said moneys was collected by said Hoxie, and the said Hoxie paid said Nelson his full one half of same.”

            And also amends his said answer to said charge four, as follows viz: by adding to said answer the following;

            “And said ten dollars was paid by their respondent on April 10, A.D., 1897, to the county treasurer of Waupaca county.”

            And also amends his answer to the fifth charge by striking out from his answer heretofore serve the following:

            “That at Plopper’s request he, the said Plopper, living then in Clintonville, as a matter of convenience to Plopper the respondent, Goldberg, got the orders cashed, paid to Plopper the full amount, and the whole thereof, as soon as he got back to Clintonville.”

            And amends charge twelve the following:

            “That the terms and conditions of settlement made with Mr. Bouck, attorney for Jennings, was to pay $1,200 out of which all expenses and disbursements incurred in this investigation were to be paid, including a reasonable compensation to Mr. Felker.”

            Court then adjourned until 9 o’clock Tuesday morning.

TUESDAY MORNING

            Mr. Hayden read charge No. 5, where it was claimed that Goldberg altered a bill of Constable Plopper of Clintonville and retained a portion.  Also read the answer of Mr. Goldberg and stated the amendment as made yesterday.  Mr. Hayden stated that there are but few of such cases where an attorney’s non-professional conduct can be inquired into.  He cited an umber of cases where attorneys had acted irregularly but were not disbarred. In the Plopper case he claimed that Goldberg was, while supervisor, acting as agent for Plopper and not as an attorney.  Mr. Hayden demurred to this charge.

            Mr. Thorn said he would answer at length and his review would cover the demurrer to all three charges.  Mr.Thorn cited decisions where unprofessional conduct of attorneys was held to be sufficient for censure or disbarment, and read a review from the Central Law Journal, by H.D. Johnson, a lawyer of Idaho, covering points applicable to this case, giving particular stress on many points.  Mr. Thorn said that Mr. Goldberg while supervisor of this county put through a fictitious bill and b[pocketed the money.  If a charge is made for professional delinquency he should be examined here.  It is no defense against disbarment to claim that a criminal charge should be brought in the case instead of disbarment proceedings.

            Judge Cate said he thought this court ought to retain jurisdiction in this case in every particular until it had heard the proceedings.  This proceeding does not presume to punish Mr. Goldberg.  It is an inquiry to the charges preferred by the committee.  The object of this proceeding is to purge the bar, to rid it of those persons who are unfit to practice.  Judge Cate said Mr. Hayden had cited one or two cases in California.  California has a sort of moral code governing action against attorneys.  Judge Cate called attention to charge No. 1 in the supplementary proceedings in which Goldberg got a warrantee deed of land in his, Goldberg’s, wife’s name, and they sold the land and got the money for it before ever giving any services for it.

            Mr. Hayden rose and said that no lawyer had a right to make the statement that Mr. Cate has, after Mr. Goldberg had said that it was not true.  It was a disgrace in the face of that statement (meaning Goldberg’s denial) staring him in the face.  Mr. Hayden then read Mr. Goldberg’s denial.  Mr. Hayden got warm.  Judge Fish called Mr. Hayden down and said:  We will proceed on the merits of the motion and not on any outside argument.

            Mr. Hayden then toned down to the merits of the demurrer and said it was useless to put the county to so much expense on so many charges, where some of the charges should be tried differently under the rule of law.  The whole matter is a lie out of whole cloth, and we stand able to prove it.

            “And Your Honor, I desire to have the reporter enter an objection to Judge Cate acting as attorney in charge No. 14 where perjury is charged, as it is unprofessional.”

            Judge Fish said he had not examined all of the authorities but for the present the plea of jurisdiction would be over ruled.

            Mr. Hayden objected to the 14th charge for the reason that they do not show the material facts etc.

            The Judge over ruled the motion and exceptions were taken.

            Mr. Hayden moved that supplemental charge No. 1 be stricken out on account of its being a civil matter.

            Motion over ruled and exceptions taken.

            Mr. Thorn:  Your Honor, the first thing we wish to offer in this case is the whole record State of Wisconsin vs. Lydia Woodward.

            The above is the case which was the base of charge No. 1.

            Clerk of the Court Suhs was called to the stand and gave evidence as to the date of filing the warrant in the case and the return.  Read from judge’s minutes.  Page 3, State of Wisconsin vs. Lydia Woodward, malicious trespass, passed and continued.  Page 26, continued.  Page 36, case dismissed by district attorney.  Mr. Goldberg got the files in the case about two weeks before the October 1896 term.

            Mr. Thorn read the affidavit of S.W. Sturling, claiming that Lydia Woodward did cut and tear down certain fence, etc.  Mr. Thorn also read from Justice Mawhinney’s docket, where Mrs. Woodward was fined $5 and costs.  A.L. Hutchinson for the State and A.A. Connell for defendant, Lydia Woodward. Other papers in the case offered in evidence including the district attorney’s reasons for dismissing the case which were that the defendant had left the county, and that the evidence in his opinion was not sufficient to warrant a connection.

            Recess until half past one o’clock.

TUESDAY AFTERNOON

            D.W. Sturling was sworn. Is a farmer at Evanswood, 77 years of age.  Was complainant in the Lydia Woodward trespass case. Had conversation with Mr. Goldberg just before the court sat.

            Question: State what the conversation was between you and Mr. Goldberg.  Objection made and over ruled. Exception noted.

            Answer.  I asked Goldberg if it was possible to get along without my going to Waupaca. Said he thought I could.  I would do anything decent to settle it and get out of it.  By hearsay thought it was practically settled.  He said he would settle it for $25.  He figured and said, I can do it for $23.75.  Told him I did not think I had that much.  Went to Wood’s hotel and paid him the money.  Said he would go and see the bondsmen.

            Q.  What did he say, if anything, what he was going to do with the $23.75.

            Objected to and over ruled.

A.     He said he would pay it right out as soon as he saw the officers.  Gave him bills amounting to $25.  He paid back the change.  Have not heard from him since in regard, only hearsay.

He did not give me a receipt for the money; said the action would be dismissed right away.

            Cross examined by Mr. Hayden.

            Mr. Hayden called for the original petition; petition shown to witness; he said he signed it.  This was the petition in which the action was commenced by A.L. Hutchinson looking to an investigation of Mr. Goldberg.

            Borrowed $5 of Thomas Wilson to pay Mr. Goldberg.  Had between $30 and $40 the day I went to Weyauwega.  I went alone to Weyauwega that day.  I paid Goldberg out of the money I brought with me; paid back the banker before I went home.  Can’t remember, think it was in the afternoon.  Paid Goldberg about twenty minutes before I borrowed the $5; think I saw Goldberg at Hutchinson’s office between 1 and 2 o’clock; conversation with Goldberg did not last only from half to three quarters of an hour; did not know at the time that I borrowed the money that I had enough to pay Goldberg; my memory has been bad for five years. I had not paid Mr. Hutchinson when I talked with Mr. Goldberg.  He has been paid since.  Hutchinson did not say he would call it square if I would sign the petition.  Witness thought it none of Attorney Hayden’s business how much he had paid Hutchinson.  Half paid him $30 some time or another.  When I signed the petition I told Hutchinson what Goldberg had done with me in seeing about straightening it up. The clause in the petition where it reads that Mr. Goldberg had used his office of district attorney to fraudulently obtain money, etc., was Mr. Hutchinson’s, not mine.

            Wm. Woods called and testified.  He lived at Weyauwega and kept a hotel. Remember the circumstances of Mr. Goldberg being at my house with Mr. Sturling last fall.  Mr. Sturling said to Mr. Goldberg, “Here it is,” and he paid him bills; saw a $20 bill and, it was my impression a $5 bill; could not say how much change was paid back; cannot recollect positively as to the amount of money; I should say it was more than $20 and less than $25.  Mr. Goldberg I heard say, “I will see that this will be made all right.”  Mr. Sturling said it was his wish that he make it all right.  It was the morning train. I think, Goldberg took after receiving the money.  Bank opens about nine o’clock.

            Cross examination.  Keep a hotel; do not sell liquor; am not a prohibitionist; my recollection is that it was the morning train. Stood facing Mr. Sturling and Mr. Goldberg.  Have had no conversation with any member of the committee or Judge Cate; do not know why I was subpoenaed on this trial; was subpoenaed a couple of days ago; did not think anything about it particularly; do not remember who was in the office except Bellinger; think Mr. Vincent was there.  Sturling said to Goldberg:  “I hope you will have this matter at ended to,” and Goldberg said:  “You may rest assured I will attend to it; you need not give your self any uneasiness about it.”

            Fred Bellinger, a constable of Weyauwega.  Lived in that village forty-two years; stock buyer; saw Mr. Sturling and Goldberg together at Weyauwega, at Wood’s hotel, between three and four o’clock p.m. last October, 1896, about the time of court; saw Goldberg and Sturling at a table; Sturling handed Goldberg a bill or two; am not positive as to the amount; could not swear as to what was said; Goldberg got right in the ‘bus and went away.

            Cross examination.  Think I met Goldberg out in the street a few minutes before Sturling came in; think Goldberg told me he was waiting to see Sturling.

            A.L. Hutchinson sworn and testified as to the date being October 21, 1896.

            D.A. Ramsdell called and testified as to his being treasurer of Waupaca county; that no money was paid him by Goldberg for prosecution arising out of the case State against Lydia Woodward.

            Objection; exception noted.

            No cross examination.

            Barney Peterson under sheriff, was formerly sheriff, question and answer of like import.

            Sheriff M.L. Munsert was called and questioned; answer the same as before.

            Objection.

            No cross examination.

            Mr. Hayden said he would move tomorrow to strike out all of charge No. 1.

            Rasmus Nelson was sworn as first witness in charge No. 2.  Live in town of Union; had a wedding at out house on the 28th of April, 1895.  Lot of boys came to my house between 9 and 10 o’clock before the people had gone to bed; some were at supper; there was some kind of going on called a cha- rivari.

            Mr. Hayden wished to interpose an objection.  Over ruled.

            The charivari party staid till after 10 o’clock; they injured my wife on her wrist; saw Mr. Goldberg about it the 1st to the middle of May.

            Q. What did you go to see Mr. Goldberg for?

A. Because I wanted to go to see if there was anything to do about it.

Nothing said to him about damages sustained; after got through I asked him how much damage I had to pay Goldberg.  He said $5 and I paid $5 to him; I told him to put it on the county; he did not say whether he could do it or not.  I gave him two names of persons who were there; never had employed him before or since.

Cross examination.  I gave him the names of Albert Tellock and Gus Block; gave the names to Goldberg in the back room; Mr. Hoxie was not in the same room; did not talk with Hoxie that day.  Had some talk with Mr. Thorn this winter, Dec. 27; that was the first and last time I saw Mr. Thorn; nothing was said about what I was to swear to. Mr. Thorn paid me $2 for going to New London; Mr. Wheeler was there with Mr. Thorn.  I demanded of August Tellock and Mr. Block $10 damages before I saw Goldberg.  Goldberg said he would write to Tellock and Block.

The second time I was at Goldberg’s office Tellock was with me; Tellock gave his note to Goldberg for $50; Goldberg told Tellock he would keep the note and collect it. I  heard Goldberg tell Tellock that.  Tellock rode to Goldberg’s office with me; Tellock told me he had got to go to Goldberg’s office to settle on account of a letter he got from Gold berg.  Did not take any of the other boys to see Goldberg; could not remember all the names of the boys Tellock gave Goldberg.

Mr. Hayden wished to reserve the right to ask witness further questions on cross examination tomorrow.

Anton Dennison sworn.  Lives in town of Union.  Remember the occasion of Mr. Nelson’s daughter being married in April 1895; was then I received a letter from Goldberg about a month after the charivari.  He told me to come to Clintonville the 1st day of June as there would be a suit both criminal and civil commenced against me.  There was Ed Prill, Gus Block and Jerome Drew with me at Goldberg’s office.

Objected to; objection over ruled.

He asked me if we were the boys who were at the charivari; we told him yes.  He said that he must have $25 each. Mr. Nelson has to have $500 out of this.  He said Mr. Nelson had received a letter and he was going to take us to Milwaukee to find out who wrote it.

Q.  State what was said?

Objected to and over ruled.

A. Said if we did not pay what was assessed it would cost us more; that he had just settled a case over in Waupaca where it had cost $175 and he was going to stop this charivari business.  One boy, who was our age, Mr. Goldberg told him he would let him go if he never would get caught in such a scrape again.  I settled and gave $8 for me and my brother, Fred Dennison.

Cross examination.  The boys who were at Goldberg’s  office were all at the charivari.  They had pans, cans, bells, guns, circle saw, etc.  Did not see the trouble with Mrs. Nelson.

Richard Steinbock sworn.  Testified he lived in Union and was at the charivari; got a letter from Goldberg about a month after the charivari; told me to come at such a time or he would have me arrested.

Q.     What made you go to see Mr. Goldberg?

Objected to; objection over ruled.

The Judge.  Why did you go to Goldberg’s office?

Objected to by Mr. Hayden.

A.     To settle about the chavivari; the old man – dad – settled it; paid $15 each, father and myself.

Said if we did not settle Waupun would be open for us; said Nelson and Mrs. Nelson who was hurt had to have something; don’t remember how much; some were assessed high and some low; some were assessed $20, some $7.50, some $8.

            Cross examination.  Letter said must come and settle at such a time or would have us arrested.

            Mr. Hayden read from Mr. Goldberg’s answer a letter signed by Goldberg & Hoxie asking them to come and settle or civil or criminal action would be commenced against them.

            Gustave Block sworn.  Reside in town of Union.  Received two letters from Goldberg after the charivari; the first letter I destroyed, the second is here offered in evidence.

            Note given by Gustave Block for $20 payable to Goldberg & Hoxie in thirty days with endorsements, payment, etc., offered in evidence.

            At time he said Mr. Nelson must have $500.  He wanted $25 from each; I gave him my note and Mr. Chas. Heiderman signed it with me.

            Albert Tellock sworn.  Live in town of Bear Creek; farmer; am acquainted with Rasmus Nelson; live about a mile from him; was one of the parties named as being at the charivari; was there about three quarters of an hour; I got a letter from Mr. Goldberg; Mr. Thorn has it; also the note is my note; I responded to the letter; the letter was read.

            The letter bears the heading of “Law Offices of Goldberg & Hoxie, Ben. Goldberg, Geo. Hoxie.”

Clintonville, Wis., May 11, 1895

ALBERT TELLOCK, Marble, Wis.;

                DEAR SIR: - We have been retained by Rasmus Nelsen of the town of Union, to institute proceedings against you and others for an assault committed upon his wife, and for damages committed upon his property on the night of April 28, last.

                There is no question in my mind, from the statement made to us by Mr. Nelson but what you are liable for the deed at that time.  We will give you until Saturday, may 18, to settle this matter and expect you to call at our office on that day; if not we will institute suit.

(Diet. By G.)                                                                                                                          Yours Respectfully,

                                                                                                                                                                GOLDBERG & HOXIE.

$50.00                                                                                                                     Clintonville, Wis., May 18, 1895.

                Ninety days after date, for value received.  I promise to pay to the order of Goldberg & Hoxie at Bank of Clintonville, Wis., fifty dollars with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum, payable annually until paid.

P.O. Marble                                                                                                                                           A. TELLOCK.

                Due August 16, 1895.

                On the face of the note is a stamp of the “Bank of Clintonville.”

                                “Paid, July 20, 1895.

                                                                R.G. GIBSON, Banker.”

                Also an endorsement on the bank

                                                                “Goldberg & Hoxie.”

               

            Goldberg asked where Block was.  I replied that I thought Block would not come. Goldberg said if Gustave Block would not come he would have a chance to send him to Waupun.  He says:  “Do you know what I can do with you?  I am going to fine you just $50.”  Goldberg asked witness if he had any money; I told him he did not; then Goldberg wanted to know if he could get any in the city; told him he did not know.  You can sign a note for ninety days; if you will tell me the rest of the boys names who were there I will give you the note back or reduce your note down to the lowest one.  Witness supposed this $50 note was to settle for the whole of them.

            Recess till 9 a.m., Wednesday.

WEDNESDAY

            Col. Thorn opened the morning session by reading a notice served upon the defense requiring the production of the register of the Hotel Elwood at New London for the year 1895, together with a letter from Mr. Rasmussen to Mr. Gold berg requiring the return of $25 paid by him by Anna Knudson.  He alleged in his petition that Goldberg had borrowed the register and had not returned it.  If the register or letter could not be produced they would ask the privilege of giving other evidence to establish the facts of the contents of the register and the letter.

            Mr. Hayden made an objection.

            Judge Cate in explanation said, in the fourteenth charge where perjury was alleged, that Mr. Goldberg testified to being in a certain place on a certain date, and they wanted the register to show the name of the driver who brought Mr. Goldberg to New London to establish the time.

            Cross examination of Mr. Tellock.  Nelson said his wife was injured; she was in garden but was not hurt; did not have hold of her, saw her the next morning; have consulted with the committee since coming to Waupaca; was with them Monday night.  Mr. Thorn or the committee did not tell me what to say.  Rasmus Nelson was not there; I paid the $50 note and think $1 interest; thought it was to pay for the whole crowd.  Mr. Hayden called for the note and letter from Col. Thorn; witness said I learned a few minutes after he gave the note that the $50 note only paid for himself.  Goldberg said he would settle with the rest.  Have known Nelson twelve years.  He told me to tell Gust. Block if he did not come he would set the ball rolling; could send him to Waupun.  Tried to settle with Nelson after got letter; told Nelson would go and settle the matter with Goldberg; cannot read only my name; my wife read the letter.

                Mr. Thorn wished to have the envelope as well as the letter offered in evidence.

                Tellock sworn and testified he lived in Bear Creek; was not at the charivari party; Mr. Goldberg wrote me a letter; the letter was shown to witness who identified it; letter offered in evidence.

                Mr. Hayden rose and read from the charge and objected to new evidence being produced showing charges and threats made to parties not named in the charge.  Objection over ruled.

                Letter same purport as the one received by Albert Tellock threatening to bring suit if he did not pay.  He said; “If you don’t settle you may have a chance to settle in the supreme court;” did not pay anything then but afterwards when my brother went I told him to settle as I never wanted any trouble; thought if Nelson would attempt to prove I better pay.

                Letter received by Tellock read by Col. Thorn and offered in evidence.  It bore the card of Goldberg & Hoxie same as the other letters and was as follows:

Clintonville, June 8, 1895.

ED TELLOCK Marble, Wis.;

                SIR:  Complaint has been made against you, as well as others, by Rasmus Nelson of the town of Union, charged with having committed an assault and doing damage to his property during a charivari on the night of April 28, last.

                You are requested to call at our office Saturday, June 15, and settle the matter, otherwise civil and criminal proceedings will be instituted.    Respectfully Yours,

(Dict. By G.)                                          GOLDBERG & HOXIE.

                On cross examination Mr. Tellock said he was not at the charivari but took his sister to the wedding and then went home.

            Gus. Tellock sworn and testified that he was a brother of Ed; that he received a threatening letter the same as the one received by his brother Ed; that he and his brother went to Goldberg’s office; told him my brother Ed was not there; witness was there but only up to the gate.  The last time was at Goldberg’s office.  Goldberg said he wanted $30 from us, my brother and I; I told him I thought that was too much.  He finally said he would let us off for $25.35, the thirty-five cents to go to Barney Peterson, Sheriff, to pay for telegram.  Paid for both myself and brother; the receipt for money was lost.

            Cross examination.  When I went to Goldberg’s office, the day I settled, I called for Goldberg; did not talk with Hoxie; do not remember of seeing him.  Went on foot that night to the charivari; was only at gate; Anton Dennison and Albert Tellock went with me; when the charivari begun I went home.

            Judge Cate objected to Mr. Hayden’s questions as to what Anton Dennison and Albert Tellock had with them. Objection sustained.

            Went over there at the invitation of the two named; went home because did not like the idea of the boys going on the premises.

            Adolph Winter swore.  Live in Union seventeen years; was at charivari; I got a letter from Goldberg right after that charivari; lost the letter; knew the contents of the letter at time it was received; about a week after went to Goldberg’s office to settle; my father went with me.  Goldberg said he wanted me to pay $25 or would send me to the reform school; father would not pay that much, then he came down to $10, afterwards to $7.50; father said that was all right.  Went a week after gave him the money and he gave me a receipt.

            Cross examination.  About a year after gave the receipt to Albert Tellock at his request; said he wanted to take it to New London; some of the boys said last Monday that Mr. Thorn had the receipt; never talked with Mr. Thorn about it.

            Herman Ernst sworn.  Reside in Union; have lived there eight years; worked out; am 19 years old May 23; live two miles from Rasmus Nelson’s; got letter from Goldberg after the charivari.

            Judge Cate showed witness a letter which was identified as the one received. 

            Mr. Hayden objected as incompetent.  Testimony received subject to objection.

            Letter similar to the one received by Tellock and others also.  Note given by Ernst for $10 offered in evidence.

            Objected to, and received subject to objection.

            Went to Clintonville as requested in letter.  Goldberg said to us boys; “I will tell you what I will do with you, I will fine you $20 a piece.”  I called him to one side; he said he would take $10; told him all I had was $4; he asked me if I had rather go to the reform school than pay $10; told him no; said he would take my $4 and I could pay him $6 later.  When went to pay Goldberg was not there; paid money to Hoxie and took receipt.

            Cross examined.  Gus Tellock and Otto Price went with me.  Goldberg said he could fine us $25 each but he said he guessed he could make it a “little easier for us”; would make it $20.  Do not remember of Hoxie saying anything to the boys.  Otto Price was let go without paying anything.  Do not remember about the reform school being mentioned only once.  Paid the $4 mentioned to Goldberg.

            Dell Meyers sworn.  Was at home at time of charivari; received letter from Goldberg & Hoxie soon after charivari; did not go to Goldberg’s office; authorized my brother Andy Meyers to go and see Goldberg for me.

            Andy Meyers was sworn; said he was not at the charivari; received a letter from his brother in relation to it.

            Testimony objected to but the court took it subject to objection.

            About four weeks after the charivari I went to Goldberg’s office; told Goldberg I came to settle for Dell Meyers and Henry Smith; asked him how much I could settle for; he said $50; told him I could not pay it.  He finally said he would settle for $29.55; he said he would throw off the fifty-five cents; I paid him $19 and promised to bring him down the $10 the next week; he did not give me a receipt as he said his books would show it; paid the balance to Hoxie in Goldberg’s office; never had any receipt for it.

            Recess taken until afternoon.

AFTERNOON SESSION

            Andy Myers on the stand.  Cross examination continued.  Think it was about four weeks after receiving the letter that I was in Goldberg’s office.  There was quite a few people there, but think none of the charivari people were there.  Do not remember the names of people there.  Only Goldberg and myself were in the private room.  Told him came to settle for the boys.  Said he wanted $50.  Said he had put out warrants in Barney Peterson’s hands, and if I would pay $30 for the boys he would call it square.  I paid either $19.45 or $19.65.  On the second interview I went to the office and told Hoxie I did not have the money that day. About a week after I paid Hoxie $10.  Never had any conversation with any of these gentlemen prosecuting.

            Re-direct.  The names of the three parties that Mr. Goldberg said Barney Peterson had warrants for were Dell Myers, Henry Smith and the Tellock boys.

            Barney Peterson was called and testified that he was sheriff in 1895.  The term of circuit court was in January.  Mr. Peterson testified that he never received any word or telegram from Mr. Goldberg to arrest any of the boys connected in the charivari case.

            Mr. Thorn asked to have one name added to Charge 2, Aug.. Arndt, as having paid money to Mr. Goldberg in the charivari case, the name having accidentally been omitted.

            Mr. Hayden objected.  Court said would render a decision tomorrow.

            Henry Smith was called. He was very deaf, and Under-Sheriff Peterson took the stand to help him out.  Witness was in the charivari.  Got a letter from Goldberg; burned it.  Did not go to Clintonville to settle with Goldberg; Louie Smith went for me.

Q.     How much money have you paid on account of the charivari?

Objected to.  The Judge said he could answer, subject to objection.

Paid $20 to Andy Myers.  Told Andy Meyers to go down and settle the damages for him.

Louie Smith sworn. Live in Union; resides four miles from Nelson’s, where the charivari

occurred; was there.  Received a letter from Goldberg & Hoxie soon after the charivari; lost the letter about five weeks after.

            Cross examined by Mr. Hayden.  I wanted to take the letter up the river with me.  The signature to the letter was Goldberg & Hoxie; have no actual knowledge whether the letter was sent by Mr. Goldberg or not.

            Re-direct.  Judge Cate tried to bring out of the witness what witness went to see Goldberg for, and in regard to the settlement.

            Mr. Hayden objected to nearly every question.  Judge Fish allowed the witness to answer subject to the objection.

            Goldberg said he would fine the two of us $40.  Paid him $20 and told him my brother would bring his down in a few days.

            Re-cross.  Robert Scanlan went with me from near Wittenberg to Clintonville.  Don’t remember the time of day was at office.

            Jerome Drew sworn.  Live in Union; was at charivari; got a letter from Goldberg & Hoxie; letter lost; am able to state the contents.

            Cross examined by Mr. Hayden.  Do not remember whether under the signature was Goldberg & Hoxie per G. or per H.

            Re-cross.  Mr. L.C. Dilley went with me and we went to see Mr. Goldberg; was at the office June 1.  Letter said for me to come there; Dilley was there with me; some of the boys were there. Goldberg was there.  Goldberg said some of the boys had written to Mr. Nelson and he did not think he would settle now.  Mr. Dilley said he could prove that I did not have anything to do about writing the letter; that me and my brother had gone up the river four days after the charivari.  Goldberg said that if that was the case he would let us off for $10 each, so I paid him and took his receipt.

            Receipt read by Judge Cate as follows and offered in evidence.

            [Receipt on one of Goldberg & Hoxie’s letter heads.]

                                                                                                CLINTONVILLE, Wis., June 1, ‘95

            Received of Niron and Jerome Drew twenty dollars in payment for damages and claims I have against them, growing out of trespass committed by them on my premises April 28, 1895.

                                                                                                            RASMUS NELSON

Per Goldberg & Hoxie, his attorneys.

            Emil Jenske of Union sworn, Got a letter about a month after the charivari from Goldberg & Hoxie.  Letter is lost.

            Mr. Hayden interposed his usual objection and took the witness under his cross examination, bringing out the fact that he would not swear that Goldberg wrote the letter or signed it.  He tried to get the witness to admit that Judge Cate and the committee had a kid of a school, etc., but could not get much satisfaction out of the witness.

            Re-direct.  My father went with me to Goldberg’s office to settle.  Goldberg was there and several of the charivari boys.  Goldberg asked me if I was one of the boys.  Was 16 years old then.  Cannot remember what was said.  Goldberg said he wanted $10.  Father said it was too much.

            Cross examination.  Ed Prill, Albert Prill, Adolph Winter and Aug. Rosner were there.  All went out except Adolph Winter.  He went out when we did.  Can’t remember the exact words.  Goldberg said he would let two of us off for $15.  Father told Goldberg he did not have any money today, but he would bring in $7.50 for me.  Adolph Winter’s father was there.  Can’t remember what Mr. Winter said.

            Q.  Did Adolph Winter’s father say he would bring down $7.50 for his boy?  A.  Yes, sir.

            Mike Jenske sworn.  Live in town of Union.  At time of charivari lived two miles from Nelson’s.  Got a letter from Goldberg & Hoxie and went down with my son.  I knew what he was called for; went to Goldberg’s office.  Goldberg asked me if I wanted to settle that business for my son.  I said, yes. He wanted $10; told him it was too much.

            The witness was pretty nervous and the court quieted his nerves by asking him some leading questions, eliciting the fact that Goldberg would settle for $7.50 and that he would pay it the next week.  Then Judge Fish asked the prosecution to excuse him for taking the witness under his wing, incidentally remarking that he noticed the defense did not object so much to his questions.

            Fred Winter called, with W.C. Herman as interpreter.  Live in Union; have a son named Adolph Winter.  Son got a letter from Goldberg & Hoxie about 1st of June.  Went to see Goldberg at Clintonville; think it was about eight days after.  Went then to settle; my son went with me.  We came and sat down in Mr. Goldberg’s office.  He said, What do you want?  We came to settle about charivari.  He said some paid $30, some $25, some $20.  He wanted $10 from my son.  I thought it too much.  He said he would settle with my son and Jenske’s boy for $15.  Goldberg said that Mr. Nelson had said there were damages of about $100 to fence and trees; did not say as to any injuries to the woman.

            Emile Heiderman was another Union man who got a letter.  He was sworn and testified that he lost it.  When Mr. Hayden pumped him to the effect that he “threw it away purposely”.  Then Judge Cate took the re-direct and elicited the fact that witness went to Clintonville and after parleying on Goldberg’s price of $25 finally settled for $20.

            On cross examination Mr. Hayden attempted to show that witness attended “the committee’s school of witnesses” at the court room Monday evening.  Witness said A.L. Hutchinson was there and he talked with him.  Whereupon Judge Cate had Attorney Hutchinson stand up for identification.  Witness said, “He is not the man I talked with.”  C.W. Felker, who had just come in on the afternoon train, said in his dry way, “Judge Cate, please mark Hutchinson as an exhibit.”

            Albert Prill of Union, who lived a mile and a half from Nelson’s.  Got a letter soon after the charivari.  I went down to settle the charivari case.

            Q.  What did you go to Goldberg for?

            Objected to, and taken subject to the objection.

            A.  To settle with Goldberg.  Goldberg asked if we had come there to settle.  Told him yes. Goldberg said he had settled with Steinbock for $15, but he would settle with us four for $10 apiece.

            Ed Prill sworn.  Was one of the charivari parties; brother of Albert Prill.  Got a letter and put it in the stove after reading part of offer to settle.  Brother Albert, August Rosner and my father went to Goldberg’s office.  He said he let the Steinbock brothers off for $30 for the two, and he said he would let me off for $10, and I gave it to him and he gave me a receipt for it.  I gave the receipt to Albert Tellock some time in January or February, 1896.  Was present in this court room Monday night.  Alert Tellock told me Monday night that he had given the receipt to Mr. Thorne.

            Mr. Hayden called for it, but the Colonel could not find it at present.

            Will Riskey sworn.  Live in Union; am 20 years old; live about two miles from Mr. Nelson’s; got a letter; can give the contents of the letter; it was signed by Goldberg & Hoxie.

            Objected to by Mr. Hayden.  Taken subject to objection.

            Cross examination.  My brother and Robert Heyne went together to Goldberg’s office.  He said I will let the two of you off for $15.  I said I would not give but $10; he said if I didn’t pay he would send me to the reform school; I told him he could do so.  After a little he said he would settle for $10 for the two of us and I told him I didn’t have but $5 with me.  He wanted to know when I would bring him the other $5; I told him in about a week; he said all right; I handed Goldberg a letter, he read it and then said:  I will let you both off for $10; we talked both German and English.  Goldberg looked around the desk and got out the papers to send us to the reform school; was here Monday night nothing was said about what they were going to swear to.

            H.H. Hayden interjecting, “Just counting noses or taking an inventory.”

            Recess till 9 a.m. Thursday.

 

THURSDAY MORNING

            The Judge announced his decision in the motion of Col. Thorn, an amendment to charge No. 2, where a party who was at the charivari said paid money to Goldberg and was accidentally omitted from the names mentioned in charge 2.  The court said he would admit the amendment as to the amount but not as to any threats contained in letters received by young Otto Arndt.

            Otto was called and said he was at the charivari.

            Aug. Arndt sworn.  Live in Union; was at charivari; my son was there.  Mr. Arndt being not well versed in the English language, interpreter William Herman was called to assist witness.  The testimony elicited the fact that he went to Clintonville with his son in response to one of Goldberg & Hoxie’s letters; that he gave a note to Goldberg for $20, due four months after date of June 1, ’95, on back of note, June 8, 1895, paid $10, August 1, paid $8; witness said Goldberg said that was enough when he paid it.

            Clarence Perkins, of Union, was called and said he paid Goldberg $7.50 for his share of the damages in the charivari.

            Robert Bahr, of Union, testified that he got a letter for his brother Otto soon after the charivari; read it and never gave it to his brother; letter lost.

            Mr. Hayden interposed an objection, one of the grounds being that Otto never saw the letter.

            Letter was about as the others; I went to Clintonville June 8, and saw Goldberg who took me in a private room; he told me he had made it a point to charge all those of 18 years $20 but seeing it’s you I will let your brother off for $10.  Witness testified he paid the $10.

            Ernest Kofnaetka sworn.  Had a brother Jake at charivari; (same as noted in charge 2 as “Jake Krumke”) got a letter; it said; “come and settle the matter” by Mr. Goldberg; it was signed by Goldberg and Hoxie; went to Goldberg’s office with my father and brother about the middle of June; I took out $3 and said this will settle for me.  He said, “Is that the way you talk to a lawyer?”  He sent out for Fred Hess the city marshal; I paid Goldberg $10 and the marshal fifty cents.

            Receipt dated at Clintonville June 15, 1895.  This is to certify that Ernest and Jake Coinatka have settled claim of Rasmus Nelson.                        Signed,             GOLDBERG & HOXIE.

            John Miller is another Unionist who got a letter and lost it.  He went to see Goldberg and paid $7.50.  Winters tried to get back fifty cents to buy a glass of beer but Goldberg could not see it and looking kindly said he ought to have charged the boys $20 and there would not be any kick coming.  Mr. Arndt paid $20 but thought it too much.

            Cross Examination.  Don’t know about Arndt’s paying $20, only what he told me.

            Julius Henchill, of Union, was another who got a letter.  The postmaster at Symco read it to him.  He went to Clintonville to settle up for the charivari business.  He asked me how old I was, and he said you are just right to go to the reform school; he said he would settle with me for $7.50; I paid him $5 and promised to send him $2.50 in a letter; never sent the balance to him.

            Cross examination.  Never gave me a receipt.

            The Court.  How old are you?

·      I was 18 years old.

            Aug. Rosner was another who, under the usual plan, paid $10.  On cross examination the witness said he gave the note to Albert Tellock; he wanted to give it to a lawyer in New London; don’t know who.

            Ernest Riskey, of Union, got a letter marked H. Riskey and sent it back; went to Goldberg’s office; testimony about the same as given by his brother Will, as to amount paid, threats of reform school, etc.

            Mr. Felker cross examined witness and asked him if he was ever in the reform school; witness said, “no sir.”  Mr. Felker said:  “You ought to thank God you escaped.”

            Robert Scanian sworn.  Said he was at the charivari and afterward got a letter; went to Goldberg’s office and settled June 1, ’95.  Goldberg wanted $20; I paid him $10.  Later had conversation with Goldberg; he said he wanted me to pay that other $0; told him I never would.  Talked afterward with Goldberg between October 20 and 23 at my house.  Goldberg was in Union on a school house case.  I twitted him of not giving Mr. Nelson the money he had collected by the boys.  He said he had.  I told him I could prove he had not got it, and I would get a horse and buggy and go with him and see Mr. and Mrs. Nelson and prove it.  He said, I will give you back your ten dollars and make a test case of it.  I took the money and thanked him very kindly.  Father said tome, You better give Goldberg the $10 and let that settle the case in full.  Goldberg did not take back the money.

            Cross examination.  I accused Goldberg of not giving Nelson back his money.  I had not talked the matter over with Nelson or his wife.  I knew that Nelson had told others about it.  I had talked with A. Tellock about it.

            Rasmus Nelson was recalled and testified that he never received any of the moneys collected by Goldberg from the boys in the charivari matter. Neither had he made any claim for it.

            Objected to, but the objection was over ruled.  There was some discussion and the witness was allowed to retire while it was being talked over.

            On cross examination witness testified as to going to Goldberg’s office April 18.  Goldberg & Hoxie never done any business for the witness except the charivari matter.  Witness testified that he never took his wife to Goldberg’s office.

            Judge Cate objected to Mr. Hayden’s assuming that witness ever took Albert Tellock to Mr. Goldberg’s office.

            Witness said Tellock rode over with him.

            Col. Thorn asked permission to take up charge No. 12 Friday morning, on account of receiving a letter from Mr. Bouck, a witness, stating that it would be better for him to get-away.  It was agreed to.

            A recess was then taken until 1:30 p.m.

 

            The afternoon session opened with a recall of Rasmus Nelson who testified that Goldberg & Hoxie, or either of them, had ever paid him or his wife money.

            Frank Laplin said his mother paid Goldberg $7.50 for him.

            Then charge No. 3 was taken up.  This is the one where Gilbert Minton was arrested in Nov., 1895, for passing a confederate $10 bill (on one side and Golden Eagle clothing store on the other) at Rutherford’s saloon for fifteen cents worth of beer and receive $9.85 lawful money in change, Goldberg receiving $75.  The $50 of the amount to the county until after Dec. 31, 1896, the action was commenced against him.  Mr. Chamberlain, who was justice of the peace at the time, Gilbert Minton’s wife, who was Miss Bergin, and J.R. McCloy, Minton’s bondsmen, A.L. Hutchinson, S.A. Connell and Wm. Rutherford all give testimony to establish the facts of the “Spurious Money Case” and the way in which it acted as a key to “set the ball rolling”, was all brought out and will appear in a more extended resume of the testimony next week.

 

            The Jennings tax case, better known as charge No. 12, will come on this morning.  This is the case in which Goldberg effected a settlement with Jennings for $1200, retaining $500 for reasonable fees for Goldberg & Felker, paying the balance, $700, to the county treasurer.  Gabe Bouck, the famous Oshkosh attorney, is a witness in this case.  Mr. Hayden will “object” and Felker will quote scripture and Judge Fish will keep them all on their equilibrium.

 

·         *  *  *

 

            The judge, the lawyers, reporters, editors and a number of business men are invited to take a ride on Mr. Baker’s new steam yacht this evening at the Chain o’ Lakes.  Supper at Grand View, the outside people being the guests of the Waupacans.

 

            Judge Cate said he thought they would reach the end of the prosecution by Saturday night.  Goldberg’s defense is an unknown quantity so it is hard to say when the end will be reached.  It is thought however, it will close by the 15th.

 

            Court reporter Spencer is with Judge Webb at the Wautoma Court.

 

B.M. GOLDBERG’S ANSWER

He Makes General Denial of the Five Supplemental Charges.

IN CIRCUIT COURT, WAUPACA COUNTY,

            In re Benjamin M. Goldberg

                        An Attorney of said Court.

           

            And now comes the said respondent, Benj. M. Goldberg, and makes answer to all and singular the matters and things set forth in the supplemental charges, numbered One, Two, Three, Four and Five, made and filed against him, upon motion of Gerrit T. Thorn and Fred F. Wheeler, two of a certain committee, under and in pursuance of an order made by said court of date April 9, 1897; and answering the same, as to said supplemental charge Number One, alleges:

            That on the 21st day of September, 1893, Hugo Pleschner was arrested, charged with having killed and murdered one Carl Harmer, and that thereafter, or on about the 15th of November, 1893, Pleschner employed this respondent as his attorney to take charge of his said cause and to prepare his defense therein and render and perform such other services in and about the preparation and trial thereof as was necessary for the purpose of procuring a fair and impartial trial for said Pleschner and his possible discharge and release.

            That a short time after said employment, respondent inquired of Pleschner what means, if any he had, with which to pay respondent for his services and expenses and for the looking up, consulting with and procuring of witnesses, and for the preparation of said trial.  That Pleschner informed respondent that all the property or means he had was a homestead of one hundred and sixty acres of land in the county of Langlade, of the value of five hundred ($500.00) dollars, but that he had no patent for the same, his paper having been lost or miscarried.

            That thereupon, respondent communicated with the register of the land office at Wausau, Wis., and visited said land office for said purpose and finally secured a patent in the name of said Pleschner upon said land.

            That thereafter, in a conversation with Pleschner – who, all this time, was confined in the county jail of Langlade county – arrangements were made whereby Pleschner was to, and agreed to, give respondent a deed of said property, so that respondent could and should sell the same and use the proceeds in said defense, and that a deed was drawn by this respondent in the name of Jennie Goldberg, the wife of this respondent, as grantee, and that the execution of said deed in the name of said Jennie Goldberg, was taken for the purpose of enabling the respondent to take the acknowledgment thereof.

            That said Pleschner never paid or delivered to this respondent anything whatever except the above mentioned deed.

            That Pleschner knew the contents of said deed and executed and delivered the same, and that thereafter, with the consent of said Pleschner, said land was sold to the Paine Lumber Company, of the city of Oshkosh, for the sum of three hundred and fifty ($350.00) dollars, that being the best price that had been offered, and the best price that could be obtained for said land.

            That after the receipt of said three hundred and fifty ($350.00) dollars from the Paine Lumber Company as aforesaid, respondent called upon said Pleschner for the purpose of obtaining names of witnesses and to further consult with him and did consult with him about the defense and told Pleschner at that time that he was going to interpose a defense of insanity and said Pleschner then did give names of some of the witnesses.

            That a short time thereafter, when respondent again visited said Pleschner.  Pleschner informed respondent that he did not desire his services any longer; that he was going to have another attorney because he did not want to be made out crazy.

            That Pleschner employed W.F. White, an attorney of Antigo, Wis., to defend him in said cause.  That Pleschner sought to have W.F. White appointed by the court to defend him in said cause.  That Pleschner sought to have W.F. White appointed to the court to defend him, but Judge Goodland refused to do so, stating that he understood that this respondent had money or property in his possession belonging to said Pleschner.

            That thereafter, on the 14th day of September, 1893, Pleschner made, executed and delivered to W.F. White, his said attorney, an order in words and figures following towit:

                                                                                                            “Antigo, Wis., Sept. 14, 1893

To B.M. Goldberg:

            Please pay to W.F. White any money or property in your hands belonging to me, the same being hereby, for value received, assigned to said W.F. White.

                        (Signed)                                                                       Hugo Pleschner.”

            That on the 30th day of September, 1893, respondent was presented with the above mentioned order and a draft attached to the same, through the Bank of Clintonville, Wis., which draft was in words and figures following towit:

“$200.00

                                                Antigo, Wis., Sept. 29, 1893.

            On demand, pay to order of the Bank of Antigo two hundred dollars with exchange, value received, and charge to the account of        W.F. White.

To B.M. Goldberg,

                        Clintonville, Wis.”

            And that on said day, upon the presentation of said draft, the same was paid by said Goldberg and was paid out of the proceeds of said sale to the Paine Lumber Company.

            That the following endorsement was upon the back of the draft:

            “Paid Bank of Clintonville, cashier, or order, for account Bank of Antigo, Antigo, Wis., L.K. Bucknam, cashier.”

            That Pleschner was convicted of man-slaughter in one of the degrees upon the first trial, said verdict having been set aside, and upon the second trial he was acquitted.

            That said Pleschner, on the 12th day of November, 1894 commenced an action in the Circuit Court of Langlade County against respondent and respondent’s wife, demanding judgment for the sum of sixteen hundred ($1600.00) dollars, with interest.  That the complaint and answer in the said action are as set forth, viz:

           

CIRCUIT COURT – LANGLANDE COUNTY.

 

                Hugo Pleschner, plaintiff, vs. Benjamin M. Goldberg and Jennie Goldberg, defendants.

                The above named plaintiff for a cause of action against the above named defendant alleges as follows:

I.

                That the above named defendant, Benjamin M. Goldberg, is now and for along time past has been a practicing attorney-at-law in the city of Clintonville, state of Wisconsin; and the other defendant Jennie Goldberg, is now and for a long time past has been the wife of said Benjamin M. Goldberg.

II.

                That the plaintiff is a German and can neither read nor write in the English Language.

III.

                That on or about the 1st day of December, 1892, he plaintiff requested the defendant, Benjamin M. Goldberg, to be his attorney in a case brought by the State against the plaintiff, in said Langlade county, and said Goldberg said he wanted plaintiff to secure the payment for his services, and plaintiff replied to same, that he had no property or means to secure him, except a homestead in said county, which he had heretofore proved upon, and that a Patent therefore was then due him from the Government; and said Goldberg replied thereto that perhaps plaintiff could give him, Goldberg, a mortgage on plaintiff’s said homestead lands to secure said payment, and that he, Goldberg, would examine into the matter; and in a few days thereafter said Goldberg again called on the plaintiff and requested Plaintiff to sign an order for the patent aforesaid to be delivered to him, said Goldberg,  and plaintiff then and there signed such an order; and thereafter, about the 21st day of December, 1892, said Goldberg again called on the plaintiff with another paper and requested plaintiff to sign it, saying he was in a great hurry and had no time to spare, and plaintiff signed the same, having no explanation of or knowledge of the contents or of what it was for, but believed it was about plaintiff’s defense in said action aforesaid.

IV.

                That about the 15th day of January, 1893, the plaintiff learned from other persons that said last mentioned paper was a deed of conveyance of the plaintiff’s said homestead lands, by the plaintiff to the said Jennie Goldberg; and on the 3rd day of February, 1893, ascertained that such a deed as aforesaid was duly recorded in the Register’s office of said county, which was the first time the plaintiff knew of the existence of such a deed as aforesaid , and plaintiff immediately wrote said Goldberg that he would have nothing more to do with him whatever and demanded a return of a deed of said lands aforesaid; and about the 1st of March following said Goldberg again called on the plaintiff to inquire as to plaintiff’s defense in said suit aforesaid, and plaintiff then and there told said Goldberg again, he would have nothing more to do with him whatever.

V.

                That plaintiff’s homestead, which he proved upon as aforesaid, is described as follows:  The southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of section No. eight, and the south west quarter of the southeast quarter of section No. nine, all in township No. thirty-three north, range No. nine east in said Langlade county, being the same lands described in the deed purporting to have been given by the plaintiff to said Jennie Goldberg aforesaid, and said Jennie Goldberg, on the 19th day of March, 1893, conveyed by deed the same lands to the Paine Lumber Company.

VI.

                That the plaintiff was imprisoned by said County from the 21st day of September, 1892, until the 26th day of March, 1894, and that to the knowledge of said B.M. Goldberg.

VII.

                That plaintiff was creditably informed and which he verily believes to be true and so charges the fact to be, that said B.M. Goldberg on or about the 1st of June, 1893, informed the judge of said court, that he, Goldberg, had means in his possession belonging to the plaintiff, intending thereby to prevent this plaintiff from having an attorney appointed by said court to defend the plaintiff in his plaintiff’s suit aforesaid, and also intending thereby to force the plaintiff to draw on him, Goldberg, for means to procure an attorney and by reason thereof the court did refuse to appoint an attorney for the plaintiff and plaintiff was thereby forced against his will to draw on said Goldberg for means to employ an attorney, as the plaintiff had no other way of getting an attorney, and said Goldberg well knew that fact.

VIII.

                That the lands and improvements thereon aforesaid are now and were at he time of said pretended sale aforesaid worth the sum of Sixteen Hundred Dollars ($1,600.)

IX.

                That the defendants, B.M. Goldberg and Jennie Goldberg wrongfully and fraudulently obtained plaintiff’s signature to the deed aforesaid and thereby wronged and defrauded the plaintiff out of his lands aforesaid, to the plaintiff’s damage of Sixteen Hundred dollars.

X.

                Wherefore, plaintiff demands judgment against said defendants for the sum of Sixteen Hundred Dollars with the costs and disbursements of this action.

                                                                                                S.S. HAMILSON, Plaintiff’s Attorney.

STATE OF WISCONSIN             }

                LANGLADE COUNTY } ss

                Hugo Pleschner, being duly sworn, says that he is the plaintiff in the above entitled action, and that he has heard read the foregoing complaint and knows the contents thereof and tha the same is true of his own knowledge, except as to those matters and things therein stated to be upon information and belief, and as to those matters he believes it to be true.

                                                                                                HUGO PLESCHNER.

                Subscribed and sworn to before me this 31st day of October, 1894.

                S.S. HAMILTON, Notery Public, Wisconsin,

IN CIRCUIT COURT – WAUPACA COUNTY.

                Hugo Pleschner, plaintiff vs. Benjamin M. Goldberg and Jennie Goldberg, defendants.

                Benj. M. Goldberg, one of the above named defendants, for his separate answer herein, admits paragraph one of said complaint and specifically denies paragraph two thereof, and avers that the plaintiff at the times averred in said complaint, could read and write the English language.

                And further answering said complaint and as a defense thereto, this defendant avers that on the 21st day of September, A.D., 1892, in the county of Langlade and State of Wisconsin, the plaintiff killed and murdered one Carl Harmer, and that thereafter he was arrested by the authorities of Langlade County, confined in the county jail, charged with the murder, and that thereafter, on or about the 15th day of September, 1892, the plaintiff employed this defendant as his attorney, to take charge of his said case and to prepare a defense therein and render and perform such other services in and about the preparation and trial thereof, as was necessary for the purpose of procuring a fair and impartial trial for the plaintiff, and his possible discharge and release; that at the time of the said employment, plaintiff informed this defendant that he had no means with which to pay for such services, other than 160 acres of land which he had homesteaded in the county of Langlade, and which was of the value of Five Hundred Dollars ($50000) that plaintiff would give this defendant a deed of said land so that defendant could sell the same and get his pay out of it.

                That thereupon, plaintiff informed this defendant tht he did not have his patent and that he had lost this receipt which he had received from the Register of the Land Office at Wausau; that, at the request of the plaintiff, this defendant prepared the necessary affidavits, showing the loss of said receipt and procured plaintiff’s patent to said land, and that thereupon and thereafter, plaintiff made, executed and delivered to this defendant, a deed of said premises, for the consideration of One ($1) Dollar and other valuable consideration, said deed having been executed in the name of Jennie Goldberg, the wife of this defendant; that the execution of said deed, in the name of Jennie Goldberg, was taken for the purpose of enabling this defendant to take the acknowledgment thereto, this defendant being a notary public at that time.

                And this defendant specifically denies that plaintiff had no knowledge of the contents of said deed but avers and charges the fact to be that said deed was read to him and that he knew the contents thereof and that he duly acknowledged the execution of the same.

                And that thereafter, with the consent of the plaintiff, this defendant saold said lands to the Paine Lumber Co., of the city of Oshkosh, for the sum of Three Hundred and Twenty-five Dollars ($325.00); that said lands were not worth more than Three Hundred and Twenty-five dollars at that time; and that thereafter, the plaintiff duly ratified said sale and duly ratified all of the acts of this defendant in relation thereto.

                And further answering, this defendant avers that after he had prepared defense of said Pleschner and was about ready to bring the case on for trial, said Pleschner became dissatisfied with this defendant and informed im that he did not desire his services any longer, and that thereupon this defendant ceased to render or perform any more services for the plaintiff.

                And further answering, this defendant specifically denies that he and his wife, Jennie Goldberg, or either of them, wrongfully and fraudulently obtained plaintiff’s signature to the deed hereinbefore referred to, and specifically denies that they or either of them, wronged and defrauded plaintiff out of his lands or in any manner attempted to injure or wrong plaintiff in the manner and form, as averred in said complaint.

                And further answering, this defendant avers and charges the fact to be that thereafter, to-wit, on the 14th day of September, 1893, and before the commencement of this action, the plaintiff duly assigned his alleged cause of action against the defendants, arising therefrom, to one W.F. White, who is now the lawful owner and holder thereof, and that the plaintiff is not, therefore, the real party in interest.

                And further answering, this defendant avers and charges the fact to be that he is not indebted to the plaintiff in any sum whatever, by reason of the conveyance hereinbefore described in said complaint; that this defendant has paid said W.F. White in full before the commencement of this action, and is, in no wise and upon no account whatever, indebted to said White or to said plaintiff.

                And further answering, this defendant denies each and every allegation in said complaint contained, save us heretobefore admitted, qualified or explained.

                Wherefore this defendant demands judgment of this court, dismissing plaintiff’s complaint, and for his costs and disbursements herein.  GOLDBERG & HOXIE, Attorneys for Defendant, Benj.M.Goldberg.

STATE OF WISCONSIN                }

                MILWAUKEE COUNTY } ss

                Benj. M. Golderg being duly sworn, on oath deposes and says that he is one of the defendants in the above entitled cause; that he has read the foregoing answer and knows the contents thereof, and that the same is true to his own knowledge, except as to those matters therein stated upon information and belief, and as to those matters, he believes it to be true.

                                                                                                                BENJ. M. GOLDBERG

                Subscribed and sworn to before me this 3rd day of February, A.D., 1896.

                H.C. TEEL, Notary Public, Wisconsin

 

            That the matters and things in said complaint complained of by said plaintiff are the same matters and things complained of and alleged in the said supplemental charge Number One.

            That said action is now at issue upon said complaint and answer and pending and undetermined in said court.

            And further answering, respondent denies each and every allegation in said supplemental charge Number One contained and such and every part thereof except as heretobefore set forth and admitted.

            And for answer to said supplemental charge Number Two, this respondent avers:

            That in the month of September, 1895, a criminal complaint was made before A. Stewart, Esq., a justice of the peace in and for the city of Clintonville against F.E. Breed, for aiming a gun at another, under Section 4391.

            That some time in the month of October, 1895, the case was brought to trial before said justice and a jury.  That Nels Gunderson, the complaining witness, was required to file security for costs and that he deposited with said justice the sum of twenty-five ($25.00) dollars for costs.

            That the result of the trial was a conviction of Breed and that thereupon and thereafter, at the request of Gunderson, respondent demanded of said justice his said twenty-five dollars so deposited and that the same was paid to this respondent and that he immediately thereafter repaid the same to said Gunderson.

            And except as herein admitted this respondent denies each and every allegation set forth in supplemental charge.

            And for answer to said supplemental charge Number Three, this respondent says:

            That in the month of September, 1893, the firm of Goldberg & Hoxie were employed by one Diana Cowen to bring an action for divorce against her husband, Felix Cowen.

            That said action was commenced by service of a summons and complaint upon said Felix Cowen, the defendant, on the 19th day of September, 1893, said firm of Goldberg & Hoxie having agreed with said Diana Cowen to bring said action and to prosecute same to a final judgment for the sum of fifty ($50.00) dollars, and that on or about said 19th of day of September, 1893, an agreement having been effected between said husband wife as to the amount of alimony said Felix should pay to said plaintiff, Diana Cowen, towit:  the sum of three hundred ($300.00) dollars, being one half of the sum agreed upon for obtaining said divorce, and that said Felix Cowan and his said wife, Diana Cowen, were to make, execute and deliver to said Benj. M. Goldberg a real estate mortgage upon a forty acre tract of land owned by said Cowen for said sum of three hundred and twenty-five ($325.00) dollars, and that this respondent, by reason of the premises, paid to Diana Cowen the sum of three hundred ($300.00) dollars, and ever since said 19th day of September, 1893, this respondent and the said firm of Goldberg & Hoxie have been ready and willing to proceed and procure judgment in said divorce proceedings, but that after the payment of said money, the said Diana Cowen refused to permit Goldberg & Hoxie to proceed in said action.

            And for answer, this respondent denies each and every allegation in said charge Number Three contained and each and every part thereof except as hereinbefore set forth and admitted.

            And for answer to the fourth supplemental charge, this respondent says, that some time in the month of October, 1896, the firm of Goldberg & Hoxie were employed by Annie Knudson to try and get one Will Rowe from the State of Minnesota into the State of Wisconsin, and to get a civil warrant against him for his arrest for seduction under promise of marriage.

            That at that time she paid Goldberg & Hoxie the sum of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for such services; and they were unable, after making efforts for such purpose, to accomplish the same.

            That in the latter part of November, A.D. 1896, this respondent determined to arrest said Will Rowe upon a complaint of said Annie Knudson, and a warrant was thereupon issued upon such complaint, a requisition upon the governor of Minnesota, and said Rowe was arrested in such proceedings and brought to Wisconsin, and upon arriving here he married the same Annie Knudson; and this respondent thereupon returned to said Annie Knudson, after her said marriage, the said sum of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) which Goldberg & Hoxie had been paid for said services which they had been unable to perform.

            And further answering this respondent denies each and every allegation in said fourth supplemental charge contained, and each and every part thereof, except as hereinbefore set forth and admitted.

            And for answer to said supplemental charge Number Five, this respondent denies the same and each and every allegation therein contained, except the pendency of the action, the trial thereof and the attorneys employed therein, as therein named and set forth.

                                                                                    BENJ. M. GOLDBERG,

                                                                                                Respondent.

            CHAS. W. FELKER, of Counsel.