The Milwaukee Leader

THREAT MADE SAYS LAWYER IN TESTIFYING
State Makes Attempt To Have Change in Indictment.

An attempt by the prosecution to amend the indictment, and testimony by Atty. Francis Bloodgood that W. C. Zabel, former district attorney, had told him that he was going to "get the scalp" of Arthur J. Baum, downtown stationer, were the high lights in today's session of the trial of Zabel, Arthur J. Richter and Oscar Nebel, attorneys, and Russell Shipley, salesman, accused of entering into a conspiracy to threaten to extort $50,000 from Baum, basing their attempt on a criminal assault Baum is alleged to have committed on Mrs. Jane Borstadt Luther, Aug. 10, 1921, in her apartment, 555 Van Buren St.

Bloodgood was one of the witnesses called by the prosecution in the morning session in municipal court presided over by Circuit Judge Frederick Beglinger, Oshkosh.

Decision Held Up.
When the morning session closed Judge Beglinger had not ruled on the request of Francis E. McGovern, special prosecutor, for amendment of the indictment. McGovern's proposed amendment represented the defendants as threatening Mrs. Borstadt Luther with a view to getting her into "scandal and disrepute," basing the move on Baum's alleged attempt to attack her criminally.

Vigorous objection to the amendment was voiced by all attorneys for the defendants, Henry J. Killilea, W. H. Timlin, George Dutcher and Richter, who is defending himself.

Say Change Cannot Be Made.
Attorneys for the defense made long arguments and quoted the statutes liberally in an attempt to support their argument that the indictment must stand as returned by the grand jury and cannot be changed at this time.

"The amendment to the indictment does not state an offense and does not conform to the proof," said Richter. "The indictment cannot be amended without the sanction of the grand jury which returned it."

"Approval of the amendment to this indictment would mean stretching judicial discretion," said Killilea. "It cannot be assumed that this or that is what the grand jury might do. The indictment as returned by the grand jury must stand."

Why Change Was Asked.
McGovern explained that the purpose of his proposed amendment was to make the pleadings conform with the proofs.

Zabel's declaration that he was out to get Baum's scalp was voiced in the presence of Bloodgood when the latter, having been retained as counsel by Baum, went to the district attorney's office, Aug. 17, 1921.

Bloodgood related that he had seen...
CLAIMS ZABEL WAS OUT FOR BAUM'S SCALP

Continued From Page One.

Mrs. Borstadt-Luther and that he informed Zabel that it was his understanding Zabel contemplated criminal action against Baum.

Bloodgood said Zabel in that conference had told him Baum was a moral pervert.

When Bloodgood protested and suggested that Zabel should investigate before making such statements Zabel raised his voice in profanity. according to the testimony.

Started Defense.

"Zabel told me he was going to get Baum's scalp," said Bloodgood.

"Zabel said this was not the first instance of Baum's alleged improper conduct. When I left the district attorney's office I thought everything was settled for a criminal action against Baum and I started preparations to defend him."

"I was attorney for Baum and I went there in his interests." was Bloodgood's answer when, under cross-examination by Atty, Killilea he was asked if he had gone to the district attorney's office at the request of Baum.

Baum on Stand.

Baum. who resides at 2309 Cold Spring Ave., and is a member of the firm of Siekert & Baum. 381 E. Water St.. testified that he had never met Nebel until Aug. 15. 1921, when he visited Nebel's office at the latter's request.

"Nebel called me up at the Milwaukee Athletic club, and told me that he must see me at once on an impor- tant matter. When I reached Nebel's office Shipley was also there. Nebel told me that a certain married Mil- waukee woman was in very bad shape in the Riverside Sanitarium, and she claimed I was the cause of her con- dition. I told them that the thing didn't look right to me."

Hotel Party Mentioned.

"What did you say when they told you that they knew of your party in the Hotel Pfister prior to the alleged attack?" McGovern asked.

"I told them that I didn't know what they were driving at and that I didn't have anything to do with the woman's condition."

"What did Nebel say as you walked out?"

"He said. well. if you won't do anything in the matter we will get Zabel after you in the morning.'"

The witness. on cross-examination. admitted never having seen Zabel about it. He did admit, however, that Nebel had advised him to see the woman personally.

When He Met Her.

"You testified before the grand jury that you didn't know Mrs. Bor- stadt until Aug. 23, when the action was commenced, didn't you?"

"Yes. I met her the night we were out."

"You testified before the grand jury that the complaint against you was utterly false?" Richter asked.

"I did so testify, that there were no grounds for a suit."

Admission that he advised Mrs. Borstadt-Luther to leave the sani- tarium to get away from the present defendants was made by Dr. A. I. Rosenberger. assistant superinten- dent. Riverside sanitarium, when he was called to the witness stand.

Told Her to Leave

"Did vou advise Mrs. Borstadt to leave your institution?"

"Yes."

"What led you to do so?"

I felt it would be for her own good to get away from those who had bothered her before."

"You mean by that so she wouldn't be a witness in a case?"

"Yes."

"Did you advise her to leave after Baum had been there?"

"I did not know that Baum was at the institution until after the woman had left."

The witness corroborated testimony given Friday by Dr. Frank Studley, superintendent of the sanitarium, re- garding the visits made the patients by the defendants.

Left With Husband.

He also testified that he saw Mrs. Borstadt leave the institution in the company of Clarence Borstadt. her husband. whom she later divorced.

Atty. A. K. Stebbins. of Blood- good's firm, who handled the civil complaint for Baum, was the last witness called by the state. He testi- fied that on three different occaslons he had spoken with Nebel about the ciyil complaint and each time ad- vised the defendant that he was mak- ing a mistake. It was Nebel. he testi- fled, who told him that the civil mat- ter would be dropped.