Perth Amboy evening news., 1915-08-18
PERSONALITIES IN
COURT SUIT HERE
Lawyers Battle in Verbal En-
counter in Unusual District
Court Action.

Action brought in the district
court Yesterday by Mitchell Berger to
recover S46S.63 ON a note given by
Joseph Ginsberg resulted in jury
verdict In favor of the defendant,
who was in reality Joseph Slobodien.
Technically the action was directed
through John w. Beekman against
both Ginsberg and Slobodien, but the
latter's counsel, Thomas Brown,
maintained that the suit had been
framed up in a manner that would
allow Ginsberg, who was formerly
engaged to Slobodien's daughter.
and William Kirschenbaum, to
further "bIeed'' his client. The
plaintiff was represented by former
Judge John w. Beekman. The case
one of the most interesting ever
heard in the district court, was con-
tinued for five and half hours and
was marked by bitter verbal encoun-
ters between the opposing lawyers
and the witnesses. Mr.. Brown OPEN
ly charged his opponents with en-
ploying shady legal rtethods, his as
sertions to this effect being especi-
ally broad when Leo Goldberger, an
other Perth Amboy lawyer, was
placed on the stand as witness for
the plaintiff. Goldberger hotly re-
sented the insinuation and fired back
similar charges as he asked the pro-
lection of the court from Browns
attack.
Jurors selected to hear the testi-
mony in the case were Joseph MassO-
pust, Walter J. Reilly, Samuel Di-
mond, Michael Zylka, Henry H. Petz,
Henry Timmins, Frank Neer, Fred
BRIGGS, William Harding, Henry M
Cullough, John McMurray and John
Olsen.
Joseph Ginsberg and William
Kirschenbaum, it appeared, were
conducting on State street an estab-
lishment for carrying on the New
Jersey Press, jewlery business and
a fire adjustment bureau. Ginsberg,
in order to obtain full control of the
business, gave note for $500 to
Kirschenbaum, with the Endorsement
of Joseph Slobodien, whose daughter
Ginsberg was engaged to marry.
Payments amounting to $3.50 were
made and Slobodien refused renewal.
The note went to protest at the Perth
Amboy Trust Company's bank. 1t
was then assigned to Leo Goldberger
and later assigned to Mitchell Berger,
who subsequently brought suit
through Beekman G Spencer against
the accommodation indorser and the
maker
Leo Goldberger, William Kirsch-
enbaum, s. L. Wagner, Joseph Gins
berg and Mitchell Berger were on the
stand for the plaintiff, while Attor-
ney Brown for the defense called
Stephen Somogyi, John Slobodien,
Theodore Degenring, Henry M. Ro-
senberg, Meyer s. Kempner and Pc
ter Clausen.
Berger proved to be the most dam
aging witness to his own case, when
he was asked to explain the method
by which he came in possession OF
the note He declared that as jani-
tor of the Rosetti building his sal
airy was twenty-five dollars a week
and up, and that not having a bank
account he carried all his money on
his person. The note, he claimed
was assigned to him upon payment
of $451.S2 cash, which was money
he collected for rents. In summing
up Attorney Brown brought out the
fact that Leo Goldberger, when on
the stand, had declared that he had
paid S467 in order to. obtain the
note, and he asked the jury If il
seemed likely that Goldberger would
be willing to lose money by the tran
saction in order to accommodate a
friend.
Mr.. Brown declared that Ginsberg
to whom he referred humorously as
that smiling lamb of love-" had in
weighed about $4,000 out of his pros
pective father-in-law, and he declar-
ed that as soon as this supply OF
money was shut off, Ginsberg imme-
diately went out of business. Not
content with this, Mr.. Slobodien's
attorney declared, Ginsberg and
Kirschenbaum had instigated a
scheme by which they could further
work the $3.50 out of his client by
holding him liable as the accommo-
dation indorser of Ginsberg,s note.
Part of the evidence was Rose
.Slobodien's note to Ginsberg break
ing off the engagement and asking
him to discontinue his visits to the
home of her parents.
{ Former Judge Beekman, in sum-
ming up, told the jury that their
only action consistent with the law
would be to find &srdict for the
plaintiff, holding that Slobodien, as
the accommodation indorser, was
liable for the obligation. He de-
olared that Slobodien expected to
assist his daughter by assisting his
prospective son-in-law, and that this
had prompted him to go on Gins
berg's note, which was; later dis
counted by the Perth Amboy Trust
Company. Every note may be trans
ferred, he avered, and Goldbergel
had succeeded to the right and had
later transferred to- Berger. Berger
the PLAINTIFF counsel declared, was
resorting to his legal right in bring
ing action against the accommoda-
tion indorser.
Judge Hommann gave his instruc
tions to the jury at 4: 40 o'clock ant
the jurors were out only seven min
utes before returning with verdict
for the defendant.