Oral History of Judge William Buenzli (“Judge Buenzli”) and William Bradford Smith (“William”) by Howard Young

Howard:            Good evening, I'm Howard Young and this is William Bradford Smith and Judge Buenzli. We are here today to talk a little about Dane County Bar history.

Judge Buenzli: Before we came in this evening, you were talking about the fact that years ago there were no law offices any place except downtown Madison. When I started working for Attorneys Crownhart and Murphy in 1934 all law offices were downtown except for two on the east side (Field and Rikkers, and Harris and Brandt).

There were no attorneys in any of the towns, villages or cities in the county except for Stoughton and Mt. Horeb. I think there were two law offices in Stoughton and one in Mt. Horeb. There were no attorneys in Sauk City which even at that time was a good-sized city. For many years, the only legal service available to the residents of these communities would be attorneys from Madison who would come out for a day or an afternoon once a week.

William:             I remember that, I think Curtis Farmer, he used to practice in Sun Prairie, at least when I started and Roy Hubble was a classmate of mine in law school so he started practicing in Sun Prairie. But aside from that, certainly practically all the attorneys were within walking distance of the courthouse, wherever the courthouse happened to be.

Judge Buenzli: As I said before, I started with Crownhart and Murphy in 1934 and was admitted to the bar in 1936. Curtis Farmer and Roy Hovel came along later, sometime in the 1940s. As I said before, when I started in 1934, there were law offices only in downtown Madison, on Madison's east side and in Stoughton and Mt. Horeb.

Howard:            At that time, what were the large firms in Madison?

Judge Buenzli: None of the law firms in Madison were really large at the time. Most of the law offices consisted of just the partners and maybe two or three associates. As I recall, some of the law firms were: Hill Beckwith and Harrington; Ela, Christianson & Ela; Aberg, Bell, Blake & Conrad; Bull, Biart & Bieberstein; Lafollette, Sinykin & Doyle; Stephens, Cannon, Kilmer & Cooper; Schubring, Ryan Petersen & Sutherland; Stroud, Stebbins & Wingert; Rieser & Mathys; Thomas, Orr, Isaksen & Werner; Spohn, Ross, Stevens and Lamb; Wilkie, Toebaas, Hart, Kraege & Jackman; Lowry, Beggs & Dawson.

William:             Aberg, Bell, Blake & Conrad.

Judge Buenzli: There was Lafollette, Sinykin and Doyle and before that it was Lafollette, Rogers and Roberts.

William:             The old Boardman firm. Back in those days it was?

Judge Buenzli: Roberts, Roe and Boardman.

William:             Spoon, Ross, Stevens & Lamb.

Howard:            That's the old Ross & Stevens.

William:             Yes.

Judge Buenzli: That law firm was originally Bagley, Spohn, Ross & Stevens.

William:             Bagley was a brother-in-law of Bill Evjue, wasn't he?

Judge Buenzli: Yes. Mrs. Bagley was Bill Evjue’s sister. When we talk about big firms back in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, we mean from two to five partners and two or three associates.

Howard:            So at that time did Foley & Lardner have offices here?

William:             None. None of the Milwaukee firms had Madison offices back in those days.

Judge Buenzli: It's a fairly recent development within the last 20 years.

Howard:            While we're on the subject, when did DeWitt, Porter start to go out?

William:             Let's see, that used to be-it was originally Immel, Herro, Buehner & DeWitt. Dewitt was a classmate of mine in law school who graduated in 1942.  But he moved up quite rapidly in the firm and gradually took over the practice of the senior partner. And I think really Dick Dewitt built that firm, for all practical purposes, because the old Immel, Herro, Buehner & DeWitt firm was nowhere near as large or as prestigious as it has become since.

Judge Buenzli: Another firm in Madison grew out of the old firm of Lowry, Beggs & Dawson. John Lawton and Dick Cates were associated with this firm and left there and formed their own law firm (Lawton & Cates). All the partners in the old firm of Lowry, Beggs and Dawson are now gone.

Howard:            That would have been about when Stafford, Rosenbaum started?

William:             The Stafford, Rosenbaum was a split off from the old firm of Olin and Butler. When they first split, it was Stroud, Stebbins, Wingert & Stafford.

Judge Buenzli:  There was a practice followed at that time that you don’t see today. A law firm such as Olin & Butler would continue operating under the original name even though the partners were both deceased. The partners in the firm felt that it was to their advantage to preserve that name.

Howard:            Well I guess Axley Brynelson is reviving that.

William:             Right.

Howard:            Bring back.                                   

William:             Petersen, Sutherland - the old firm was Schubring, Ryan Petersen & Sutherland. Great trial lawyers, great defense lawyers.

Judge Buenzli:  I agree with you on that.

William:             Right.

Howard:            Well, there’s Robert Murphy - Murphy & Desmond.

Judge Buenzli: That was where I went when I got out of law school. I started my apprenticeship in 1934 with Robert Murphy and Charles Crownhart. The firm was Crownhart & Murphy. I was a law clerk. The firm consisted of the two partners and the two law clerks (myself and Bill Nathansan, who is a prominent attorney in Chicago).  Now Charles Crownhart is gone and Bob Murphy is the senior partner in a big law firm (Murphy and Desmond).

William:             Judge, you mentioned the firm of Field & Richers.  A younger associate, later a partner in that firm, was John Brickhouse. And, for many years it was called Field, Rikkers & Brickhouse. The reason I chuckle some was that John Brickhouse and I tried our first jury case against each other in about 1946. He represented a fellow who was suing a client of mine for hitting him over the eye in a bar out on Williamson Street. 

My client was no angel, by any means, he was a former golden gloves boxer. He had hit the plaintiff once over the eye in this bar room disagreement. So the plaintiff was suing for $600. We counterclaimed for $600 to match it because of the names and questionable paternity that the plaintiff had used toward my client.

We went at it hammer and tongs and back in those days, at least, you could use the prior convictions to reflect on the credibility of the witness. So this plaintiff just dragged his foot across the floor of the old courthouse something awful. He had had infantile paralysis as a child, but he testified as to this incident. Then on cross examination I asked him about his previous offenses. Not by date, but by increasing severity. The next to the last one was mistreating a child. I never found out exactly what it was, but the jury sat up and took notice on that. The last one was rape and this fella had actually gone to Waupun prison for over a year for rape and the jury was just ready to tear him apart.

You remember Judge Reese, who tried the case. He called us into his chambers and said, now you boys have both had a lot of fun trying your first jury case against each other. You both of you have sense enough to realize that neither one of you is going to recover a nickel from this jury. Why don't you dismiss the case and save me having to bring the jury back to pay them fees tomorrow. Which we did and that's the way the case ended.

Judge Buenzli: I keep thinking of more law firms. Did I mention Bull, Biart & Bieberstein?

William:             That s right.

Judge Buenzli:  That firm broke up. I think Ben Full passed away and Bieberstein joined up with the Stevens firm.

William:             Stevens, Bieberstein, Cooper & Bremner, I think.

Judge Buenzli: Glenn Stephens was the senior partner. He was John Bruemmer’s father-in-law. He was on the school board for many years. One of our grade schools is named after him.

I keep thinking of some of the big law firms today, compared to the average size of the law firms when I practiced law prior to going on the bench in 1962. When I was practicing law, I knew all the attorneys and I knew them well. This was important to me as a sole practitioner. The fact that the law firms were small with two or three partners and the same number of associates made it much easier than it must be today for someone practicing alone. Today, there are not only large firms, but there are so many more attorneys. Not only don't the attorneys know each other, but the judges know only that segment of the bar that appear in their courts.

Since my tenure on the bench has been mostly dealing with criminal and traffic cases, I have lost touch with the attorneys that handle civil cases and probate matters. The other judges find that to be true as well. This is a far cry from what it used to be, but I am sure it is likewise for you Bill.

William:             Right, right. Of course, there was a gap. I didn't start practicing until 1945 when I got out of service. So I was 11 years behind you in starting to practice law.

Judge Buenzli: Things had not changed yet when you started to practice. These changes came after I took the bench in 1962. I succeeded Judge Proctor as judge of superior court on January 1, 1962, and it was a little time before any change was noticeable. At that time, we had no big law firms like Foley & Lardner, Murphy & Desmond, or Habush & Habush.

William:             Davis & Rottier, now.

Judge Buenzli: Yes, I should know the name of the firm. I see it often on television.

William:             Certainly, you can recall very well that back from 1940 - earlier than 1947, Justice Courts would handle, but later the small claims courts did, and you were one of the justices of the peace that would conduct cases that involved up to $200 in value. I think small claims court started out with only a $200 jurisdiction in about 1947 and then gradually increased its jurisdiction to $500, and $1,000, and $2,000 and now up to $4,000 jurisdiction.

But the bigger the monetary value, the more likelihood there is that the parties will be represented by attorneys instead of on their own. 

Of course, back in the Justice Court days, we used to say J.P. stood not for Justice of the Peace, but Justice for the Plaintiff. Because the plaintiff, of course, was the one who started the suit and he chose the particular justice that he wanted to try his case realizing that the justice would usually rule in his favor and then it got to be customary for somebody who was really hip on the subject to start the case before a different justice realizing that if the defendant wanted to change the justice, as he was entitled to simply by requesting it, it would have to be moved to the next nearest justice and so the attorney would start the case before the justice that he didn't particularly want, hoping that the case would be transferred to the justice that he really did want.

Judge Buenzli:  This strategy didn't work very often because there were ten or more justices of the peace in offices around the Capitol Square, and it was a matter of dispute as to who was the closest justice. For this reason, when we had to transfer a case, we would call another justice who was able to fit the case into his schedule, and we seldom had anybody object. Another reason that this tactic wasn't used too often was because these justices were all attorneys and had the confidence of their fellow lawyers.

William:             Wasn't O. B. Porter a justice too?

Judge Buenzli: Yes, I think that O. B. Porter was a Justice of the Peace, I think I can recall most of the justices who had offices downtown. George Parish, Mort Melnik, Chuck Totto, Franklin Clarke, Fred Hillyer, Art May, John Culbertson, Randolph Conners, Bill Sieker, Ken Orchard, George Kroncke, Carl Flom. I can't think of any others. We were all attorneys, and we held court in our offices. The lawyers could bring their cases before any of the justices and the competition was keen. If you had a reputation for being unfair, the attorneys would not select your court, and if you favored an attorney or a law office, the other attorneys would file an affidavit of prejudice against you and the case would be transferred to another justice court.

William:  Back in those days, justice court, you had to wait an hour before you could take judgment, so I'm thinking of one collection - professional a lawyer, who would start a case against the same defendant in opposite ends of the county, scheduled for the same time. He would sit in his car outside of town # 1, say in Mazomanie, and if the defendant came in to appear there, he would have to wait an hour. But in the meantime, the collection agent could go to Stoughton and take judgment against him down in Stoughton and knowing that, that the defendant was sitting in the justice court in Mazomanie, waiting for it to happen. Waiting for the time to run out.

Judge Buenzli:  You are talking about bill collectors who were not attorneys. They tried tricks like that but the attorneys were wise to them, and if they did manage to get away with it, the attorneys would appeal to the circuit court. As I said, the competition between the justices was keen, and even though the fees paid to the justices were nominal, there were lots of cases and the fees were a good source of income. We received $3 for a default judgment and $7.50 for hearing a contested case that might last as long as a day and usually most of a morning or afternoon. It was an interesting time. $200 cases were numerous, and attorneys tried them. It is important to keep in mind that the overhead in a law office was small. A nice office could be rented for $20 to $25 a month, a good secretary was paid $10 to $12 a week, and add $5 for lights and telephone, and a sole practitioner had his overhead for the month. It didn't take too many cases to cover those basic expenses.

William:             Back in those days they were - what, really only four judges, weren't there? Two circuit judges, the county judge, who was primarily a probate judge, and then the minor criminal court judge, superior court as it was called in those days, in the old courthouse where the Dane County Parking Ramp is now located.

Judge Buenzli: Yes. We had two circuit judges, and their circuit included Sauk County. Since they spent part of their time in the other county, and since they heard only civil cases and felony cases, that left everything else to the Superior Court judge, the county judge and the Justices of the Peace.

William:             I remember that when the elder Judge Sachtjen made the comment that as soon as he - up in Sauk county - if he had a jury, the first farmer juror that he would see nodding he would dismiss the jury for the summer, because, of course, there was no air conditioning then. And the farmers were used to being out in the fields, they just couldn't keep awake, sitting in a courtroom, without any air conditioning.

Judge Buenzli:  I also remember going up to Baraboo on the train to try a case, and the judge would also be on the train because both circuit judges lived in Madison. In the summertime, we would probably drive to Baraboo for a trial, but in fall, winter and spring, we would take the train and so would our circuit judges. The attorneys in Sauk County always accused us in a good - natured way, saying that we probably discussed the case with the judge on the way up to Baraboo from Madison.

Getting back to justice court. By statute, all eviction cases were tried in justice court. It didn't matter if the property involved was worth a million dollars. The statutes also provided for jury trial in justice court, but required the party asking for the jury trial to put up the money necessary to pay the jurors.

Two attorneys had an eviction case involving a very large and very prosperous farm in Dane County. The two attorneys were Ed Rikkers and Louis Gunderson. The case was brought to my court, and the request for a jury trial was filed with me along with the jury fees. The justices had no jury panel like the circuit courts had so I requested the sheriff to summon a panel of jurors. The sheriff brought in fifteen jurors from the panel and six were selected. The jury selection took a whole day, and the trial lasted five days. I had room in my office for the jury to sit, and I was fortunate to find an empty office in the building for the jury to use for the deliberation. The case lasted all week, from Monday morning until Friday late in the afternoon. My fees for the case, by statute, were $7.50. My overhead for the time spent on the trial was, needless to say, more than that, so this was one time when being a justice of the peace was not profitable.

It was very interesting, however, and I welcomed the opportunity to get the experience. (I didn't know at that time that someday I would be hearing jury cases as a circuit judge, but I did know that everything you do while practicing law will probably be of benefit someday).

William:             That, of course, was right after World War II. That was when we had federal rent control superimposed upon the Wisconsin landlord tenant law and it was an absolute nightmare. I remember one case we wanted had a client who bought a house only to have a place to house her children. She was divorced. Had no business buying a home at all, but went out on a long shoe string. The seller of the property was a Madison lawyer who had tried to get rid of the tenant, but couldn't get rid of him so he sold the house to this woman to let her worry about it. We went at it hammer and tongs and the case finally - we couldn’t get anywhere.

The tenant claimed that his son was so sick that he couldn't possibly be moved, he had rheumatic fever. We later found out that same child was out on the streets in Madison at 11:30 the night that he was supposedly too sick to be moved. And we couldn't get through the rent control authorities at all until fortunately the rent control director came out of the door of the courthouse - it was on an appeal by that time. He came out of the door of the courthouse and saw the tenant, who by this time both the landlady and the tenant were living in this single-family home with each of their families, having to share the kitchen and the bathroom, and all the rest. The tenant was shaking his fist under the nose of the landlady when the rent control director - the federal rent control director came out of the courtroom. He saw that fist shaking and he said, “Well I couldn't really believe what Attorney Smith was telling me, but now that I've seen it with my own eyes, I’ll wash my hands of it.” And he did, and then we did get rid of the tenant in a couple of weeks or so. It was - the tension was horrible. People doubled up - having to live under circumstances that none of them liked. One landlord actually was literally killed by his tenant in an argument over how much the landlord would allow the tenant for washing the walls of the apartment.

Howard:            So that was just after World War II?

William:             Right, from 1945, when I started to practice right after World War II until I think about 1950 something. I don't know just when federal rent control expired.

Judge Buenzli:  You are right, Bill. It was a nightmare, having federal rent control superimposed upon the Wisconsin landlord tenant law. The case you are talking about occurred after the war, but we had federal rent control during the war. You started your law practice after the war, but the rent control started in 1941 so we had it for four years before you encountered your problem.

Shortly after the war stated, the federal government set up the Office of Price Administration to control prices, and part of their mandate was to control rents and set up rules for landlords and tenants.  With the federal regulations added to state laws, we had a real mess. Of course, I reminded you before, all eviction cases were by statute brought in justice court. prior to this time many eviction cases were tried without attorneys because the landlords knew the eviction laws and many of the tenants were just as knowledgeable. With the new federal rules involved, however, most parties appeared with attorneys and many briefs were filed because there was little precedent to guide the court, and new law was actually being made.

It was an interesting time, and many attorneys voiced the opinion that it was a good thing that all justices of peace in Madison were lawyers. Not only were they all lawyers, but they were successful lawyers, and many had very good law practices. There were some like myself that were just getting started in the law practice (I was elected in 1938 and this was early 1941), but most of the justices had many years of experience.

Speaking of my election in 1938, it is interesting to know something about how this came about. In the spring of 1938, I was associated with Charles Crownhart and Robert Murphy in their law office, and I decided that if I was going to try to establish a law practice of my own it would be good to have something like a justice court to help me get established. My bid for election was successful, but I didn't set up my justice court right away.  Shortly after I was elected, I was appointed special counsel to Attorney General Orland S. Loomis, and resigned from the law firm of Crownhart & Murphy. From my election in 1938 until the end of the year, I was appointed several times by Judge Proctor to set for him in superior court, but didn't begin to do it on a regular basis until I started my law practice in 1939.

But I am getting away from what I was going to talk about, and that is my election in 1938 as justice of the peace. The law provided for a justice of the peace to be elected in each ward of the City of Madison. There were 20 wards at that time, but in some wards the office was vacant. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending whether we are talking about me or the incumbent, there was no vacancy in my ward, the Sixth Ward. The incumbent was a prominent lawyer named Virgil Roick who was well established and highly respected. He had formerly been the City Attorney for the City of Madison and had resigned to run for the office of justice of the peace in the Sixth Ward because, as I said before, the fees received by some of the justices were substantial. When I approached Attorney Roick and told him that I was going to challenge him, he said to me, "You will probably beat me because everybody in the ward is either related to you or they work for your father!"

He did try to get me off the ballot on the grounds that my nomination papers were filed improperly. At that time the state law had recently been changed and for the first time provided for primary elections for city candidates. Judicial offices were excluded from this requirement, however, I asked the City Clerk if I should file my papers before the primary election or just before the general election. He said he was not sure and he suggested that I file before the primary election, withdraw the papers after the primary election and file them again before the general election. I followed the advice of the City Clerk (I am sure that he asked the City Attorney for instructions) but my opponent brought a mandamus action against the City Clerk, demanding that he keep my name off the ballot.

I was not named as a party to the action, but of course I was the one most concerned about the outcome of the case. When the case came to court, the city was represented by Doris Lehner, an Assistant City Attorney. She decided to make a special appearance, why I don't know, and she decided that the way to do this was to remain in the spectator section of the court room and not go before the bench. The case was being heard by Judge A. C. Hoppman and in his court room the space between the railing that separates the spectators from attorneys was quite large. For this reason, Doris was a long ways from the judge's bench. Doris had been a classmate of mine in law school and she was a good student. Apparently, she had been told in law school that once you go beyond the railing in the court room you submit to the jurisdiction of the court and you no longer can make a special appearance. Judge Hoppman apparently didn’t subscribe to this theory, and he said to her, "What are you doing back there?" She explained her theory about the proper way to make a special appearance, but Judge Hoppman said not to worry, if she wanted to make a special appearance, she could do it right in front of the bench. Well, to avoid making a long story any longer, the Judge made short work of the matter by saying that the law was unclear and as long as the citizens of the Sixth Ward had indicated that they wanted me as a candidate by signing my papers, he wasn't going to deny them the right to have my name on the ballot.

Judge Hoppman as we all agree was a no-nonsense judge who wouldn't spend a lot of time on a technicality, but would get right to the heart of a matter. He was one of the most popular judges in the history of Dane County.

William:             Do you think Judge Hoppman's insistence on Doris Laner moving forward had anything to do with her being an extremely attractive young woman?

Judge Buenzli:  Well, she was a really attractive woman, and in law school she was an outstanding student.

William:             Married Leo Vaudreuil of, what, Kenosha, wasn't it? I think, and they practiced for many years. I don't know about the present.

Howard:            One question I had about the justice courts was, were all of the justices attorneys at that time?

Judge Buenzli:  All the justices of the peace in Madison were attorneys. There were some in the cities, towns, and villages around the county that were not. Many of the justices who were not attorneys were quite busy, and some such as Justice Pat Donahue in Stoughton did an excellent job and were highly respected by all the members of the bar.

Howard:            When was the transition to court commissioners to the small claims court and all that?

Judge Buenzli:  The small claims court was established in 1947. The office of justice of the peace was not abolished, but those of us who were hearing the majority of the cases had established our law practices to such an extent that we didn't see any need to continue, and the practicing attorneys found it more convenient to go to the courthouse to try their cases. They still could and did bring cases before the justices of the peace occasionally, but the practice of doing this didn't last long and most of the justices didn't bother running for the office again.

I was one of those who continued running for reelection because I was interested in being able to marry people and also to sit in superior court for Judge Proctor. I did become a court Commissioner for the circuit courts and for superior court in 1951 so I was authorized to perform these duties without being a justice of the peace, but I still ran for the office until I succeeded Judge Proctor as Judge of Superior Court in 1962. In fact, as a court commissioner, I served in the small claims court as acting judge on many occasions.

Howard:            As a matter of fact, wasn't the first judge of the small claims court elected from a position as a Justice of the Peace, Doug Nelson? I think he had been a justice of the peace downtown and then ran for the new judgeship and was elected to that.  Why was the perception so strongly in favor of the small claims court? What made it so much better than any of the others?

Judge Buenzli:  The movement toward a small claims court was not the result of any dissatisfaction on the part of the Dane County Bar, but was the result of the justice court system not working in the rural areas of the state. The attorneys in Madison were for the most part very satisfied with the system. The system didn't cost the county, city, or state any money. We held court in our offices, paid our own rent and paid for our own secretarial help, plus all our other overhead. We even paid for printing our own summonses which we distributed to all the law offices.

William:             Since small claims court was a creature of the legislature, I think much of the reason for it was because at least in the outlying counties, the justice of the peace was not working with the system, wasn't working as well as it was in the metropolitan communities. And there was enough pressure on the legislature to adopt this impartial court, called small claims court, at that time. And, of course, they only had $200 jurisdiction.

There were really relatively few people who appeared by attorneys, back in those days, in small claims court. I remember one instance in which there was a minor fender bender accident of some sort and the - I had my client drive the car into the old courthouse parking lot where the county parking ramp is now located and asked the judge to go out and look - the small claims court was in the basement, but he went out to the parking lot behind to look at the damaged car and came back in and said the whole car is not worth more than $75. I will not award more than the car is worth for the damage to the fender that was involved.

Judge Buenzli:  The first judge of the small claims court was Otto Douglas Nelson. He was a hard worker and did a good job.

William:             The court says small claims court became better known all the time. The professional landlords would devise a scheme of trumping up some kind of an objection to the plaintiff’s claims for refunds of security deposit and the clerk would draw the name of a judge who was just always too busy to hear small claims court cases. Those cases would hang fire for years at a time without ever coming on for trial. Finally, the legislature amended the statute to permit a court commissioner to handle the first appearances before the small claims court. And it really has worked out much better since that time.

The first court commissioner is still the principal court commissioner handling those cases. And he decides cases "bingo" just as fast as he can. He destroyed the modus operandi of the two principal landlord defendants by scheduling cases for trial two days later - next Wednesday night, and so forth. They no longer had that four-year delay in trying cases and one of them has died and the other one is evaporated. I don't hear anything more about those professional landlords at all, anymore.

Judge Buenzli:  Wasn’t it Howard Hippman?

William:             Howard Hipprnan was the first and really took hold and has blossomed in that court. But he keeps pushing like all get out and, of course, now a days they have to have some of the cases tried by other court commissioners too, because there's too much work for him to handle alone.

Judge Buenzli:  That's right. The other court commissioners help out with the small claims cases, and so do some of us reserve judges. There is a difference in procedure however when a reserve circuit judge such as myself or Judge Bardwell hear the case. If a small claims case is heard by a court commissioner, the procedure is the same as it used to be in justice of the peace court. By that I am referring to the procedure on appeal. If a litigant appeals a decision of the court commissioner, the case is then heard by a circuit judge and the parties are given a trial de novo. If a litigant appeals a decision made by a circuit judge in small claims court, the case goes to the court of appeals for the district, and we both know that means more time and more expense for the parties.

Well, we've just about used up all our thoughts about justice court. Some of the cases we have worked on over the years as attorneys were very interesting. I was thinking about Eldon Blumer, who was killed by a train. Why don’t you go ahead and tell about that Bill?

William:             This fellow was - his car had broken down, somewhere near the Hartmeyer Ice Rink. He was running to his Saturday morning job at a filling station when a driver saw him running - they didn't do much jogging in those days, so the fellow headed west on Commercial Avenue, saw him running, and stopped and offered him a ride. He got in and as they crossed the tracks, the Northwestern Tracks by the Hartmeyer Ice Arena, the inbound Northwestern train killed both of them. We commenced a suit on behalf of the wife and children of the deceased passenger and eventually worked out a settlement with the railroad and the insurance company of the driver.

I will always remember the settlement was what seemed like a big settlement back in those days, but I think $12,000 as I recall it. Wrongful death case. It turned out that 1/3 of the $12, 000 was paid by the railroad and 2/3 was paid by the insurance company. And we eventually worked out that settlement but we had a lot of effort into bringing the case and getting it ready for trial and then finally working out a settlement. I think the first wrongful death case I ever handled involving that set of facts.

William:  [   ] night in the courtroom that I can rationalize it that I had 900 horses blaring in ears during World War II so much that I am somewhat deaf.

Howard:            Well, it is very good for recording purposes that you are nice and loud.

Judge Buenzli: Well, I 'm sure that's right - l know you are talking louder than I do and I'll make a point to talk a little bit louder .

William:             I'll see if I can remember to tone it down.

Judge Buenzli:  Well, where were we?

William:             We were discussing that settlement that we had worked out. We had some other interesting cases as well.

Judge Buenzli:  In the twenty-five years from the time, I was admitted to the Bar until I succeeded Judge Proctor as judge of superior court, I never had a partner. I shared offices with Attorney Bill Knudson for a short time, and my brother Howard planned to form a partnership with me as did my older brother Greg. Nothing ever came of it, however. Howard was an Assistant City Attorney and Greg was attorney for the State Banking Commission. Before we got anything going, the war came along and changed our plans. Greg left the Banking Commission to go into the family business with our other brother, Phil, and Howard went into the Air Force.

I'm afraid that I am getting off the subject. I want to make the point that over the years I established relationships with other attorneys or law firms so that I would have assistance when I had cases that were litigated or required a lot of time to seek out witnesses. The one attorney that I worked with most often before I knew you, Bill, was Bill Riley.

William:             Would it be interesting to recite how it was that I succeeded Bill Riley in working with you? Why don't you mention that.

Judge Buenzli:  Bill Riley was in law school with me and we had many contacts through our political activities so it was a natural thing for me to work with him on law cases. It all ended tragically, however, when he drowned while ice skating on Lake Wingra. You know the story, Bill, why don't you tell it?

William:             He saved his child, who was riding on his shoulders while he was skating. He saved the child by throwing the child to the solid ice but in so doing, the abrupt motion cracked the ice underneath him and he was drowned, was not able to come up to an open space where he could breathe so he was drowned there. That abrupt termination of his life, I had appeared before Justice Buenzli at that time, and we were casually acquainted in that connection, and so then I, for all practical purposes, succeeded to what Bill Riley's contact had been with Judge Buenzli.

Judge Buenzli:  If it hadn't been for that tragedy, we might never have worked together.

William:             Right. And then I took over your old office where you had been in the old Washington Building, where the glass bank is now.

Judge Buenzli:  When I became a judge in January, 1962 and you did a good job for my clients.

William:             I can mention a case that has fascinated me for the last year. I had a call from Florida from a woman who I have never met to this day, claiming that she had gotten my name from the World Wide Church of God. Well I have never had any contact from the World Wide Church of God and I don't know how any of its members ever got my name. But at least she reported that she was down there handling the funeral of her father who had died in Florida, living in a trailer court in Florida. And she was the only heir. He was divorced; she was his only heir. So, would I probate that he was nominally a Wisconsin resident, had divided his time between Florida and Wisconsin. And I agreed to do so. But, since we couldn't claim any live bodies in Wisconsin to act as personal representative in the estate, and it would have been very difficult for her to get appointed personal representative because she lived in California, I agreed to undertake it and liquidated some $50,000 or so of bank accounts in Wisconsin and so forth and turned over most of the money to her as the sole heir. 

Then it appeared - she revealed for the first time that maybe there was a wife living yet. We checked into it and verified that there was in fact a wife living down in Australia. The parties were separated amicably, but she had various Australian pensions to which she was entitled and didn't want to move to the states. And he had various American connections and wasn't interesting in moving to Australia so they were simply amicably separated although the daughter had sworn in the death certificate that and the proof of heirship and all the rest that he was divorced. Well, I demanded that she refund the excess money that she had received and I was gratified that she did in fact refund that excess money because as personal representative, I was afraid that I had advanced more money to her than I would be able to collect on behalf of the estate.

Then the next step turned out to be that she had a half-brother and it turned out that the half- brother had committed suicide at her apartment out in California. So, it's impossible for me to believe that she had forgotten his existence, but he was survived by a daughter. So, the ultimate result was that the widow in Australia inherited half of the estate, the daughter, the other quarter and the child, the adult daughter of the deceased brother, inherited the other quarter.

I neglected to say that it turned out also that she had been only a step-daughter of the decedent and therefore, technically not entitled to inherit anything under his Will, but we did establish that he had adopted her down in Iowa after marrying her mother. And so, OK, she was entitled to a one quarter interest. But I was really worried a great deal about having made partial distributions to a woman who at least for a while, looked as if she wasn't entitled to inherit a nickel. We finally got it closed up and just the other day I received the closing certificate from the Department of Revenue in regard to the tax exposure.

Judge Buenzli:  How long did it take to settle that?

William:             Oh, it was probably 9 months or something of the sort, but it was touch and go at that time. I eventually met the widow as she came up here to visit friends and so forth. A lovely woman and I’m very comfortable with the eventual outcome of the estate although I certainly worried a great deal in the course of the probate.

Judge Buenzli:  You did very well because I know - well we all know, many times when you have an estate that has no complications you still can't get the attorneys to settle it in 9 months.

William:             Right, right.

Judge Buenzli:  Though I heard very few probate cases during my years on the bench, I did hear hundreds of divorce cases, and many attorneys were careless about preparing and filing the final judgment in these matters. I decided to do something about it, and told my clerk to write to all the delinquent attorneys and tell them that the final papers had to be filed within 30 days or an order to show cause would be issued and they would be in contempt of court for failing to comply. It worked and the backlog was soon cleared up.

William:             We have a great many instances. It’s one of the real problems with probate court at the present time, trying to get these estates closed up that had been hanging fire for too long. Your mentioning that case reminded me of that you were the one who referred a Madison doctor to me many years ago for a divorce action.  Handled it. The predecessors to the family court commissioner, the old divorce counsel and so forth, had recommended that the custody of the 8-year-old boy go to the mother. I represented the father and we had really no practical alternative but what the mother would get the boy. She moved 100 miles away from Madison and took the boy with her. At least 2 years later, a former roomer there called for the doctor and said, "Is Sally (which was not her name, but we'll call her Sally) there?" “No, don't you know we’ve been divorced for 2 years.” “No.” Well, this fella, I’m sure had something to drink, I don't know just how much, but the doctor got hold of me on Friday night and I went back down to the office and tape recorded what turned out to be a 29 page transcript of the most sordid conduct I think I've ever heard of in a divorce case. As a matter of fact, when Justice Beilfuss was Judge, Beilfuss was later justice in my office, had to handle the case because it was too hot for the Madison judges to handle when we tried to change the custody of the boy.

When Judge Beilfuss introduced me to strangers, he would say, “This man Smith had the damnedest divorce case I’ve ever heard in my life.” When she came down to appear, she apparently took an overdose of sleeping pills at Portage at a restaurant coming down, knocked herself out and was in the old Methodist Hospital downtown having her stomach pumped out at the time we went ahead with the hearing and this former roomer testified to his conduct with her when, of course, relations with anybody but your spouse were grounds for divorce and all kinds of consequences. Judge Beilfuss waited 10 minutes after the hearing was over. He told the former roomer that if what was alleged in the affidavit was true, he could not be required to testify against himself in that connection. The man did go ahead and testify and Judge Beilfuss waited 10 minutes after the case was over before contacting the sheriff to arrest this fellow and he had disappeared and to the best of my knowledge, he has never shown up. But we did get the transfer of custody from the mother to the father in that particular case.

Judge Buenzli:  He ordered the sheriff to arrest him and charge him with adultery.

William:             Right, right, but waited 10 minutes to do so until this fellow had disappeared. He was a railroad roustabout, who oh, he was something.

Judge Buenzli: That was a long time ago because I was still practicing law.

William:             Oh, yes. You see, Sauk County had been taken away from the Dane County circuit district and added to the district to the north. And so he was a judge of Sauk County Circuit Court and was called in to hear this Madison case because it was too hot, involving the Madison doctor - it was too hot to handle the case, for any of our local judges to do.

Judge Buenzli:  Justice Beilfuss heard a murder case in early '62 involving the two men who killed a police officer.

William:             Yes.

Judge Buenzli:  He did a fine job and because of the widespread publicity, which was all favorable, he ran for and was elected to the State Supreme Court shortly thereafter. Attorney Harlan Hill from Baraboo was the prosecutor.

William:             I think so.

Judge Buenzli:  The prosecutor also benefitted from the widespread and favorable publicity, and he ran for and was elected to the bench in Sauk County. Both of the defendants received life sentences, but some years later one of them escaped and has never been found.

William:             Oh, yes, yes. As a matter of fact, my wife was on the jury panel involved in that case. But at that moment, I was chairman of the Extension Law Department at the University and when one of the defendants’ attorneys asked my wife my occupation, she told him that I was Chairman of the Extension Law Department and I think it was Vaughn Conway, representing one of the defendants said, "Oh, does he sell books for the extension division?" And my wife said, “yes, that’s part of his job.” Well, needless to say she was stricken from the jury panel. They didn't want an educated  wife of a university law professor to be on that jury.

Judge Buenzli:  I suppose not. Vaughn Conway was quite a defense attorney. Is he still practicing, or still living?  I haven't heard of him in years.

William:             I think he is, his brother Ken Conway died, but I think Vaughn is still living but not in active practice. His nephew Conway has taken over the practice.

Judge Buenzli:  Anything else?

William:  What else do you think of, Judge?

Judge Buenzli:  I will think of something else in a minute.

Howard:            Should we take a break. OK.

Judge Buenzli: Somebody says something and you think of a whole series of things.

William:             And I forgot again to tone my voice.

Judge Buenzli:  I didn’t tone mine up.

Howard:            Oh, it was a little stronger, I think it was better. 

Howard:            What does your practice consist of?

William:             Oh, this and that. I have a large range of practice. I’m into a lot of real estate transactions, labor disputes, and I do some probates, and the occasional traffic accident or traffic citation. Wonderful business out there in the municipal traffic court. There are a lot of lousy drivers out there. A great many of them are in great danger of losing their license, and then not being able to get to work.

Judge Buenzli:  Let me ask you, I don't know if I asked you or not, how do you feel about the Barman case?

Howard:            You did not ask me, and my feeling is that the charge was appropriate, and I think that homicide by misuse of a motor vehicle should be a crime and should be prosecuted as such. But I've heard many people say that many more outrageous cases have not been prosecuted, and there is no reason to single out this man.

Judge Buenzli:  I have heard many people say the same thing. In fact, there was an accident near the Village of Oregon, in Dane County at about that time in which two people were killed. A woman was driving along and started tuning her car radio. She took her eyes off the road and ran off the road, and hit a woman and her child who were walking along the shoulder of the road, and killed both of them. This was in the daytime and visibility was good. She was not charged with negligent homicide.

William:             I had never considered Attorney Eisenberg that great of a lawyer, but he certainly came out smelling like a rose in this case.

Judge Buenzli:  Think of the hours he must have spent in researching all those cases to prove that in the past no other drivers In similar situations were charged with negligent homicide

Howard:            Yes, that was quite a compelling argument. The whole family of Eisenbergs seems to be quite aggressive and have a good eye for publicity.

William:             Including the Milwaukee branch.  I remember, I guess you probably got a letter from Don Eisenberg. . .

Howard:            Maybe we should tape this here                                                      

Judge Buenzli:  That is a good idea. And Bill, why don't you recite the details about that case?

William:             We were talking about the recent Barman case in which a jury acquitted Mr. Barman of homicide by negligent use of a motor vehicle. Wasn't that the charge? Involving that accident up at Hwy. KP and 12 in the Town of Roxbury. I had driven that intersection many tines but I simply cannot understand why he would not have stopped for that stop sign. It is very clear, it is level. There is an old garage at one corner of the property, but I think there was no difficulty seeing around the corners or anything of the sort. Why he didn't stop I never understood. But we were commenting on the fact that Attorney Eisenberg, the son of the very famous Don Eisenberg, of Madison. Certainly, worked hard to establish that case as relatively minor in comparison with other accidents where somebody had been killed. Is that about the size of it, Judge - as you size it up?

Judge Buenzli:  Bill, you said that you can't understand how anybody can fail to see a stop sign. That reminds me of something that happened when I was hearing criminal and traffic cases during my years on the bench. I had a case in which some students were charged with breaking into a country church. Prior to the trial the defense attorney and the prosecutor agreed to view the scene with me. We drove out to the church on a bright sunny day in June during the noon hour. The assistant district attorney drove his car and the defense attorney and myself rode along. The scene was out in the country and we drove out the beltline and onto the interstate. I was sitting in the front seat with the driver, and the day was clear and the visibility was good. The driver was paying attention and was looking straight ahead. I was also looking straight ahead and I could see a construction barrier ahead of us. In fact, we had passed a sign that said, “Construction Ahead, Slow. Right Lane Closed.” As we got closer, he didn't seem to be slowing up. I said, "What are you doing?" He said, “Just driving the car.”   That time he had knocked over the first of the warning signs that were posted, and he still didn't slow up I said, "Didn't you see that?" And he said, "Didn’t see what?" I said, "You just hit a construction barricade, aren't you going to stop?" Then he slammed on the brake and stopped the car. He said that he was completely unaware of having missed the signs and didn't see the barricade. This driver was a young man with no physical impairments, driving along the highway on a bright day at noon, and he didn't see traffic warning signs, and didn't see a construction barricade. If he had hit someone, a person working on the road, and had killed that person, should he be charged with negligent homicide? If the driver had been drinking that is an entirely different matter. But in the cases was are talking about, alcohol is not a factor.

William:             Your comment about going to see the scene involved reminded me that when I was a member of the tax appeals commission back in '81 to '85 if I heard a case involving the value of a particular building I would, on the way home from the hearing, I would drive by the  building to at least size it up and try to get some impression of what it looked like and so forth. The other members of the tax appeals commission felt that was highly improper for me to look at something in order to form some independent impression outside of the testimony that had been offered. So it’s debatable. I used to do it because I felt I had a better grasp of all the circumstances but that was frowned on by the other members of the tax appeals commission.

Judge Buenzli:  I think what you did was right. You just acquainted yourself with the facts rather than taking a second-hand source. As you well know, I used to do one of those in traffic court, I'd often go out after hearing a case. l’d go and see if the stop sign that the person missed was  hidden by the branches of the tree or not visible for some other reason - maybe the sign was turned or damaged in some way. Or maybe somebody was charged with an improper left turn or right turn or wrong lane turn or somebody could have thought the signs were misleading.  I'd go out and take a look and base my decision on my own personal observations.

 William:            As a matter of fact, earlier this evening the Judge and I were talking about a case that he handled where a long- time friend of mine who had a law degree but hardly practiced law at all appeared before the Judge on a turning violation at the so- called Union corners -the corner of Washington Avenue and Milwaukee Street. This man tried to explain his quandary on if or why he thought that his turn was proper. I’m sure this was before we had the right turn on red permitted. But the Judge listened to what he had to say and still found him guilty of the violation but two or three days later this fellow received a letter from Judge Buenzli saying, "I was sufficiently impressed by your argument about that case that I drove out myself and looked at that corner and I can see what you were talking about and so therefore I have vacated the conviction and here is a refund check for what you paid in the way of fees.” That seems to me to be elementary justice, but I realize that some people will complain about the fact that that's taking or considering evidence that is outside of the formal record.

Judge Buenzli:  Attorney Smith is right. This is elementary justice. I used to do that often. I would visit the locations where traffic tickets were issued, and if I found that a traffic direction sign was misleading or difficult to interpret, from a layman t s standpoint, I would call up the traffic engineer. The city traffic engineer at that time was John Bunch. He was very receptive, and when I would express my concerns and tell him that I objected to a particular sign, he would change it.

Traffic patterns today are very complex, and driving is difficult. When I started driving a car in 1927, nobody had to take a test to get a driver’s license. You would apply to the motor vehicle department, sign a statement that you had been taught how to drive, pay 25 cents and you received a license. At that time, you were not likely to get a traffic ticket because there were very few traffic laws to violate. We had one stop-and-go light, at the corner of University Avenue and North Park Street. We had only two intersections that had stop signs, and no signs prohibiting right or left turns. We also had no one-way streets.

About the only tickets issued were for speeding. Even speeding tickets were not issued too often because we didn't have radar (that didn't come until 30 years later, in 1957). The only way that a driver could be charged with speeding was to be "clocked" by an officer following him. This had to be done for a distance of several blocks. It was difficult to clock a car because it was necessary to go at the same speed that the offender was driving, and maintain an exact or close to exact space between the cars. If you shortened the space between the cars then you were going faster than he was. You had to maintain the distance between the vehicles - same distance usually for at least a block. As a result of this there were very few speeding tickets issued.

Of course, there were tickets issued for reckless driving and drunk driving, but even these were limited because we didn’t have chemical tests for people charged with driving under the influence. As a result, traffic court took only a few minutes each morning. Judge Samuel B Schein was the Judge of Superior Court at that time (having succeeded your former law partner Judge Stolen, Bill) and he told me that he only reserved about 15 minutes at 8:00 in the morning for these duties.

Today, of course, there are hundreds of cases every day. Between our City of Madison Municipal Judge, our Court commissioner, Todd Meuer, the Circuit Judges and all the Municipal Judges throughout the County, traffic cases make up a big part of our caseloads. In fact, a few days ago I read in the paper that they set up radar on Raymond Road and issued 50 tickets in two hours. The next day they set it up on East Johnson Street and issued about the same number. You know what that does to the traffic court caseload.

William:             As a matter of fact, I got my driver’s license several years after you got yours without showing up. My dad simply filled in whatever forms were necessary and paid the 25-cent fee or whatever it was and I got my driver’s license without taking any tests or even appearing before anybody at age 16 or what it was.

Judge Buenzli:  That reminds me of my brothers who started driving in the early twenties. They didn't even have to get a license. In fact, about 1925, when the idea of licensing drivers was proposed in the legislature, the Governor said it was nonsense and that if such a law was passed, he would veto it. The next legislature and the next governor, however, did make it a law, but didn't require any testing of those who applied for a license.

William:             And, of course, back in those days you didn't even think about carrying insurance for your driving or anything of that sort at all.

Your comment about common sense reminded me of a case that we had in the tax appeals commission back in 1984-‘85 somewhere along in there. A young woman, in Milwaukee, had filed a homestead credit claim and had received the amount of the credit.

Now she was a very beautiful young woman, legally blind. Glasses that were so thick that you could hardly understand her attempt to move around. She could see a little bit. She was receiving social security disability or whatever it was. Less than $400 a month. She and her mother were living on that $400 a month together. Her mother was a little better mentally and emotionally than the daughter. The mother tried to take the daughter with her on a job cleaning hospitals or apartments or hotels or whatever it was, but the daughter got into so much mischief while the mother was trying to work that she finally had to give it up. But the two of them were living in Milwaukee on less than $400 a month, paying, I think, $96 a month for rent, I’m sure that it was a subsidized rent under one of the federal rent programs or something of the sort.

But the State Department of Revenue demanded a refund of the homestead credit because the claimant had to be the one who paid the rent and the mother was the one who had paid the rent instead of the daughter. Well, the mother testified in the hearing that the reason she paid the rent was because the daughter couldn't see to sign a check or make out a check. They would deposit the daughter's monthly check in a joint account. The mother would write the checks out to pay the rent and other expenses and so forth, but the Department of Revenue insisted on the refund because it was the mother who had paid the rent instead of the daughter.

Well, when you realize that the Department of Revenue sent its own attorney over to Milwaukee to handle the hearing, the Tax Appeals Commissioner drove over as well and it was frowned on for us to take the department attorney lest it appear that we were in cahoots, the way you were talking about riding up on the train to Baraboo, so we drove separately. The court reporter went over the night before and stayed at a hotel in Milwaukee and had a nice meal there, all at state expense, involving a refund of maybe $250 or thereabouts on the homestead credit.

When I listened to that pitiful case, I simply ruled that the mother had paid the rent as the agent of the daughter and even the Department of Revenue attorney appeared relieved that I had so ruled although he had done what he could to establish the position that the department was taking, that the mother had no right to pay the daughter's rent and still have the daughter collect the homestead tax credit.

Judge Buenzli:  Well, that's true. A prosecutor can lose a case and not be the least put out about it because he realizes that the decision of the judge is right.  In the latter part of 1938, I served as Special Counsel for the Attorney General, who at that time was Orland S. Loomis. My job was to prosecute trade practice commission cases. The Trade Practice Commission was set up by the legislature to stimulate the state economy. As you know, we were still in the depression, and the theory was that it would be good for business if the state established minimum prices for certain goods and services and made it illegal for anyone to charge less than the price set by the state. That may seem strange now when we all are concerned about inflation, but at that time nobody worried about prices going up. The economy was slow and economists convinced the legislature that price cutting made the situation worse and prolonged the depression. So it became illegal to cut prices.

The Trade Practice Commission set up standards for many trades including barbers. For barbers it was decided that 50 cents was the minimum price that should be charged for a haircut. That was fine for the barbers in Madison, Milwaukee, and all other metropolitan areas, but not good at all for barbers in small towns where they never charged that much. In many small rural areas the usual charge was 25 or 35 cents. The Trade Practice Commission had investigators who would visit barber shops to see if they were complying with the law. When they found a violator, the matter was referred to me for prosecution. I would bring an action against the barber in circuit court asking for an injunction ordering him to comply with the law or face charges of contempt of court. If he failed in the future to comply with the court order, I would proceed to ask the Circuit Judge to impose a fine or a jail sentence.

I had such a case in Chippewa County before Judge Wickhem. The defendant was a barber in a small town east of Chippewa Falls. I believe the town was Stanley. He was the only barber there and he said that he had never charged more than 25 cents for a haircut and his attorney argued that he wasn't harming the economy because there were no other barbers in the town or even in the adjoining communities. Of course, being the fearless prosecutor, I argued that the law is the law and the legislature in its wisdom had decided that this is the way it should be. The Judge said that he couldn't change the law even though he thought it was nonsense and he said he would grant the injunction. So, I had won my case. However, the Judge said to all of us at the hearing, and this included the defendant and his attorney "if this order is violated, I am going to do nothing about it.”

I started out by saying that a prosecutor can lose a case and not be put out by it. I didn't lose this case, but I don't feel that I exactly won it either. I think the Judge did the right thing. In fact, the Trade Practice Commission was abolished shortly thereafter when a new administration took over the reins of state government.

William:             Now is that the Judge Wickhem who was later on the Supreme Court?

Judge Buenzli:  No, it is not the same one. The name is the same but I don't know if they are related. I think the Judge was right. It was really a waste of time to send me up there to prosecute this case. This man's violation was not harming anyone. He certainly wasn't contributing to or causing the depression that was afflicting us. In fact he was a victim, and if the law was enforced it would have put him out of business.

William:             Yes, I remember one case that intrigued us a great deal. You would remember that the Monona Hotel existed on what is now Martin Luther King Blvd. But in the middle of the block behind what is now the M&I Madison bank. The first block off the square between the bank and the old Elks Club.

The owner of that Monona Hotel made his living from the Indian Room restaurant that was located in it. A good place to eat and they did quite a business. The hotel itself was a loser. He didn't make enough from operating rooms there to keep the place going. So he rented the place, this was about 1955 or ‘56, around in there. He rented the hotel part to a professional hotel operator from Memphis, as I recall it. The first month the man was there he made money operating the hotel and he made a good deal of money from then on.

In the meantime, the old bank of Madison had combined with the Union Trust Company to form what is now the M&I Madison bank and they needed a drive-up window. Where they had been down in the old Gay building, near the Grace Episcopal Church, there was no place possible to have a drive-in banking facility. So they consolidated that they wanted to build a drive-in banking facility where the present one is now located, but they had to get rid of this tenant who had, I think, either a 10-year lease with a 10-year option to renew or a 20-year lease with a 20-year option to renew. And so while he was in the hospital with a bout of ulcers - the tenant, the lessee of the hotel was in the hospital with a bout of ulcers, the landlord wrote out a sheet of paper alleging a bunch of violations. Failure to pay electric bills, or whatever else it was. He put it on the desk. The tenant never did find the notice until he was cleaning out after this coup had occurred. The notice had slipped off the desk and down behind the desk, so he never did see it.

So about 6:40 on a Friday morning, a man came in with his coat up around his head and a hat pulled down over his face - the night clerk later testified that he thought he was about to be robbed - the way this fellow looked and acted - but he bought a paper and sat in the window of the hotel out facing Monona Avenue at that time. He later testified that he was hired only to observe what went on, not to participate in any way. But then at 6:50 the owner of the place came in and told the night clerk - you can leave, I’m taking over. And the night clerk, having received his paychecks from the owner for many months, figured it was OK, so he relinquished the possession of the desk which turns out to be the possession of the hotel from a legal standpoint. But he did go back and knock on the tenant’s door and said the landlord is here and said he's taking over - I trust that it’s OK. Well the tenant came up in his bathrobe and tried to wrestle the possession of the desk - the hotel desk back from the much burlier landlord. He didn’t succeed in doing it.

I neglected to say that the elevator operator arrived two hours early that morning and one or two other employees all did. We contended that was a forcible possession - that was taking forcible possession against the poor tenant all by himself. But the trial court, I think that was small claims court at the time, I believe Judge Plum, presiding. He held that there was not sufficient evidence of a forcible possession and the Supreme Court eventually did as well. I guess circuit court existed too. I think there was an appeal to the circuit court. Then the Supreme Court.

I heard later that one of the Supreme Court Justices told the partner of the attorney who had engineered this whole coup, that even though he had prevailed on it, sometime he was going to stop a bullet for doing that sort of thing. But that was the famous case of the Supreme Court decision of Simheizer v. Farber.

But I will always remember, it was just when I was moving out to the extension law department at the University, but I continued to handle that having represented the tenant. We lost all the way up, but ultimately what we were really after was collecting treble damages for the forcible entry because we had been offered, I think $20,000 for the lease if we could assign the lease and ultimately settled for I think around $16,000, or something.

Judge Buenzli:  That was part of the story of the expansion downtown because in that particular block we had the bank on the corner of West Main Street and Monona Avenue, right in back of the bank, the Monona Hotel, then the G. A. R. Hall, and then the Elks Club. They are all gone now. Now the bank has all of that property. The bank had no place to go and they needed the space. Around the corner on West Main Street they were right up against the building that houses the Badger Candy Kitchen, and next to that is E. W. Parker Jewelry store. And I think there was another building next to Parker's that is gone now.

William:             Yes, the M&I Croedemont, or M&I Mortgage Company has the old Design Boutique Building in the middle of that block. And, of course, there's the Anchor parking ramp.  Anchor itself which has, of course, expanded to the east.

Judge Buenzli:    The Hendrickson family owns E. W. Parker Jewelry and they own the building that they are in. It has been rumored that they sold the building to the bank, but that is not true. Mrs. Hendrickson and her son have both told me that they have no intention of selling the property. I don't know who owns the property that the Badger Candy Kitchen is in.

William:             There is an interesting tale with regard to that. You remember Fred Wrenchler, the florist down on State street - the principal florist in Madison, in his day. He owned the building containing the Badger Candy Kitchen. The Bank of Madison did not realize the advantage of owning the property right next to it. So in about, oh I think about 1971 give or take a little bit, I contracted to buy that building containing the Badger Candy Kitchen, from Fred Wrenchler, who would not sell to me unless I would give the tenant six months’ notice to vacate instead of the one month that the law would have allowed. Agreed to that. And during that six-month period that I owned it the Bank of Madison had a change of management and the new management realized what fools they had been not to buy that property to protect themselves .

Because I had the legal authority to build a ten-story building smack up against the west side of the Bank of Madison and cut off every window. Didn’t have the finances to do it, but I had the legal right to do it. So they bought my land contract away from me on a nice lien to me, but they have continued to own that. But they also had bought, in anticipation of this expansion along the Main Street, they had bought the Design Boutique Building and they then owned, on both sides of the Parker Jewelry Store, but the Parker Hendrickson Family were not willing to sell and have not been willing to sell. If I had had more intuition, a better sense of the future, I would have insisted on trading the Badger Candy Kitchen building for the Design Boutique Building which would have served my purposes just as well to have an office there in the middle of the block backed up to the Courthouse instead of the Badger Candy Kitchen, didn’t hold out for that. I simply got my land contract and let it go.

To the best of my knowledge, the Madison Bank owns both sides of the Badger Candy both Sides of the Parker Jewelry Store, but the Parker and Hendrickson Family have been there for at least 75 years.

Judge Buenzli:  And they don't want to sell, and they don't intend to. I was in their store recently and the Hendrickson's son, that would be the grandson of the owner, I think.

William:             E.W. Parker.

Judge Buenzli:  They were saying, that is John Hendrickson and his mother, they were both saying that these reports that they have sold the building are intended to hurt their business by driving customers away. Mrs. Hendrickson showed me some newspaper articles to the effect that the building has been sold. She said that no reporter called them to confirm any story. In fact, she said that they have made it clear that they have no intention of selling the property or of going out of business.

William:             The long-time manager of Parker Jewelry Store is John Hendrickson who we call “Jake.” He worked with me at the State Journal while I was in law school, handling motor routes and so forth. He, on one occasion, somebody made off with some jewelry or a watch or something of the sort and John Hendrickson took out after him and tackled him and held him until the police were able to get there. Hendrickson is not about to fool around with people. He ran a good business, but he certainly protected the Parker family interest.

Judge Buenzli:  It is an institution that has been there for many years, and people come to the store even though parking is very limited. They have two parking places in the back of the building, but the back door is locked. The people in the store can't see you, but there is a little sign in the window that tells you to rap on the window with your keys and they will come let you in.

In spite of the inconvenience, they haven't lost their customers. Many customers have done business with them for years and their families before them. Myself and my wife are good examples. They don't have a large volume of customers, but many purchases are substantial. particularly wedding and anniversary gifts.

I don't know how we got on this subject.

William:             I think it was reminiscing over the drive-through facility at the bank, nearby.

Judge Buenzli:  And the Monona Hotel.

William:             Right, right .

Howard:            How downtown has changed or not changed over the years.

William:             Right.

Judge Buenzli:  The Monona Hotel, the G. A. R. Hall and the Elks Club were all on Monona Avenue, for many years. All those buildings go back to the years prior to World War I. In fact, when my mother's brother, Bill Carey, went into service in 1917 or 1918, he was the Exalted Ruler of the Elks, and because of that, many members of the lodge, accompanied by the Elks band, paraded from the Lodge down to the Northwestern depot when he left for the army.

The Elks band was a part of all the parades in Madison for many years. I can still remember seeing them with their white uniforms with gold buttons. When I was a kid and saw them marching and then was told that my uncle Bill was the Exalted Ruler of such a wonderful organization, I made up my mind that I would be a member someday, and I did join 53 years ago.

Of course we don't want to forget the other fraternal groups. The Moose and the Eagles both had big club houses downtown.

William:             I think the Eagles were located where the City-County Building is now located.

Judge Buenzli:  That was the Eagles, that’s right. The Moose were somewhere else. They were down on Wilson Street. All these lodges were downtown, and most businesses including all the big stores were downtown. An as we said before, all the attorneys with the exception of a couple on the eastside, were downtown. Most of the doctors and dentists were also downtown, and everybody could get to these places with public transportation.

Public transportation was convenient and cheap, and many people, including myself, took the bus to the office. Now, everybody drives and you locate your office where you can have parking for your clients.

William:             Through World War II, the street cars and buses charged a nickel for each fare and they did a big business moving people at a nickel a fare. But more and more people got dependent on the cars.

As a matter of fact, one of my lost battles on the city council between 1961-‘67 was to try to exempt the application of the parking meters downtown on Saturdays. Let the merchants have the business on Saturdays because the state offices were not open, and so forth. But I never was able to convince the majority of the council to go along with that. So more and more businesses moved out to the shopping centers where they could have plenty of parking right at their door.

I remember one particular instance when somebody was in the old Hub, there just near the present 30-On-The-Square location. The clerk said, just a moment, I’ll be back and the clerk went out and put a nickel in his meter at the curb that had deprived the customer of the right to use that space and the customer never went back to the Hub anymore. Being so peeved that the clerk monopolizing that space on the street. That, of course, was when parking was permitted on both sides of the square at that time.

Judge Buenzli:  Well, that's the history of what happened to downtown Madison, I think, as well as many other cities. You being on the City Council were better, more aware of that than most of us.

William:             Right. Another one of my lost battles was hoping, or trying to extend what is now Campus Drive all the way through the University Campus alongside of the railroad track and clear downtown. In order to vacate both University Avenue and Johnson Street, through the Campus, keep the north south streets open to serve the buildings, but eliminate the through traffic through the Campus and I couldn't convince enough people that made any sense either. We could have had a much more compact campus, if we'd been able to building the University building right in the middle of what is now University Avenue and Johnson Street, instead of having to allow high speed traffic through then. Even though it works out probably as well as could be expected now.

Judge Buenzli:  So, Bill, your career on the City Council has covered a lot of different areas.

William:             I should add, since this is a legal program, I should add that when I was chairman of the Extension Law Department, we began publishing the model jury instructions which are now used throughout Wisconsin and copied in many, many other states. I wish I could claim the responsibility for the idea.  I cannot. You will remember Professor John Conway.  A brilliant strategist.  But it was Professor Conway who’d conceived the idea of standardizing jury instructions and got the support of the then Chairman of the Board of Circuit Judges of Wisconsin, Andy Parnell, of Appleton.

Andy Parnell ordered the best trial judges in the state to attend one of two sessions that we put on at the then new Wisconsin Center building to get started in standardizing those jury instructions and he cracked a real whip on those judges, but he got some great results on those model jury instructions. They are now included in Shepard Citations, Shepard's Wisconsin Citations, and are a great asset. You've used them in your work as a judge and they tend to be invaluable for reference purposes for the cases that are cited in them as well.

Judge Buenzli:  Absolutely. Standard jury instructions are easier for the judge to give, fairer for the parties, and they enable the jurors to understand their obligations and duties. And when you take into account that most jurors have no legal background or experience, and very likely have never been on a jury before, a good clear instruction is very important.

William:             And one of the great advantages is that the number of reversals because of improper jury instructions have practically disappeared. It used to be that every individual judge’s instructions were subject to appeal and complaint about this or that or the other thing

While we're discussing it, it would be a good thing to pay tribute to Judge Dick Thorton, who you knew, of Lancaster. A brilliant judge who insisted, he was a member of the Judges' Committee for many years, but he insisted on using this word which had only one meaning instead of this synonym which had two meanings. And how could the jury decide which meaning was intended. He drove the other judges practically berserk worrying about those details. But he said, I don't know how many times I heard him say, “I want these instructions to be as nearly perfect as we can possibly make them and I was going to insist on them even though you other judges are exasperated with my dotting the "I” s and crossing the "T' s" and all the rest.” The civil jury instructions in which he was one of the prime movers, have been among the greatest things the University ever did.

Judge Buenzli:  That's right. And he won the respect of all the judges.  I don't know of any judge who had the respect of everybody as completely as he did.

William:             Right.

Judge Buenzli:  Everybody recognized him and they liked the man. He was a very easy man to like.

William:             Right.

Judge Buenzli: It was always a pleasure to work with him on something because even though he was demanding, he was a very charming person and he liked to work.

William:             He was frequently called on by the State Court Administrator to handle the hot potato cases that local judges didn't dare handle because of their acquaintance with one or other of the parties or something of that sort.

Judge Buenzli:  I recall that he was always willing to serve on committees, and certainly was on more than most other judges. He was always willing to go to another county to help a judge who was behind on his calendar. Wherever he is now, I hope he knows that we appreciated everything he did.

William:             You betcha.

Judge Buenzli:  Well, I can't think of anything else right now, so unless you have something more, Bill, I suggest we adjourn and maybe try this again soon. I am sure that I can remember many more cases that we worked on together, but now none of them come to mind at the moment.

Thank you, Howard, for taking the time to listen to a couple of old lawyers ramble on about their memories. I hope someone finds it of some value in the future.

William:             Well, thank you, Howard, for the opportunity to reminisce.