The conviction was a triumph for Detective Clifton R. Wooldridge who
has followed the men for years. The raid which resulted in the present
trial was made by Wooldridge and his men on February 11, 1906.
Philip Bulfer. Bulfer's pedigree from his home town is interesting.
Philip Bulfer was born and raised at Marshalltown, Iowa. His parents
live there and have for forty years. The young man was educated,
and when still a young man left for Omaha, Neb. There he started in
business with his brother, and in a short course of time they were
doing a good business, but finally broke up in a dispute with his
brother, resulting in a "skin."
Later on he became a messenger for some express company, operating on
B. 7 M. in Nebraska, and he ran through the State of Iowa for a good
many years. He left that job or was discharged.
He left there anyway and finally came to Chicago and married a school
teacher by the name of Mrs. Crary, from Goshen, Ind. After marriage
he moved to Chicago Heights and edited a paper there for some time.
Moved back to Chicago and became a reporter on the Chicago Times, and
finally started in a loan shark business, loaning money at reduced
rates and making it a business to fight loan sharks, loaning money on
personal property, afterward going into court and enjoining them.
He finally was arrested on many charges before Justice of the Peace
Fred E. Eldred, at Logan Square, on charges of obtaining money by
false pretenses, embezzlement, larceny and on many other counts.
Was held to the grand jury and indicted in the case of Detrich,
which was finally nolle prossed before Judge Stein, after making a
settlement with Detrich, who promised not to prosecute and was taken
care of so he could not be compelled to appear as a witness in the
Criminal Court. This occurred about 1897 or 1898.
He was also indicted one time for assault or attempt to kill Oscar
or Frank Arnold. Another compromise was made. Many times he was
arrested before different justices: Underwood, Wolff, Hogland,
Woods, Prindiville, Caverly and many others. Cases were disposed of
in some way. He was held to the grand jury many times, and finally
was arrested charged with conspiracy to cheat and defraud a school
teacher. Was indicted and had an accomplice--Theodore D. Courtney.
He was convicted and sentenced for three years. Was taken to the
penitentiary and there served as bookkeeper and tally-man for about
five months. Later was released from the penitentiary on a writ of
habeas corpus by Judge Farlin Q. Ball. Was taken to the county jail,
his case being continued from time to time, meanwhile was obliged to
remain in jail for about a year. Arrangements were made that if he
gave evidence to indict John W. Ronksley, Thomas D. Courtney and Isaac
A. Hartman, the State's Attorney's office would in some way be lenient
with him, and this he did. He gave evidence that caused the indictment
of the aforesaid persons.
They were afterwards placed on trial. Ronksley was fined $100 and
sentenced to six months in the county jail by Judge Horton.
Hartman was indicted several times in the same proceeding and placed
on trial before Judge Horton and was acquitted. Many indictments
against Bulfer have been nolle prossed, due to a settlement of some
kind.
The records will show that they have been nolle prossed. The Detrich
case will show dismissal for want of prosecution, but it was really on
account of settlement having been made. After these defendants were
convicted he was released without ever having a hearing on the habeas
corpus matter and gained his liberty on account of the state losing
jurisdiction. Since organizing the Landlords' Protective Association
he was arrested on complaint of A. D. Smeyer before either Caverly or
Prindiville at the Harrison Street Police Station and there discharged
on account of no prosecution. It was brought about by a settlement.
The arrest was made on account of his taking $3 appearance fee, which
he should have paid and filed appearance in the Circuit Court in the
case of Chicago Press, R. D. Smeyers vs. Barry Transportation Co. He
was arrested a great many times for obtaining money by false pretenses
from poor and ignorant people, who gave him $2 to get them a job, but
he failed to do so.
Patrick L. Tuohy was born in Ireland; came to Chicago about forty
years ago and located in Rogers Park.
He was a member of the School Board at one time. He is a politician.
He is a professional bondsman and is manager of the Chicago Mercantile
& Reporting Agency, also an employment and collection agency and
professional bond agency at 171 Washington street. They take a fee of
from $2 to $3 and agree to get employment, but few are ever employed.
This money is put into his pocket.
He has been engaged in many questionable concerns. Among them he and
his pals secured a charter for the United States Express Company and
tried to shake down the company and prohibit them from doing business
in the State of Illinois. The matter was taken into court and a
Federal injunction issued against them.
They have a habit of looking up firms, for instance, say the
Blackenberg Express Company, and get someone to do business with them,
then they will go in and see if they use a corporate title and force
them to settle in some way.
Bulfer and Tuohy were proprietors of the Chicago Mercantile &
Reporting Agency: Daubach was a clerk in the office and Burnett was a
solicitor for the company.
Bulfer was the apparent head of the concern--in fact the brains and
dominating spirit.
Tuohy's name appeared as manager on the letterheads of the company and
he was plaintiff in all suits brought upon alleged contracts.
Burnett, as solicitor, called upon small merchants and solicited
accounts for collection upon representation that the Chicago
Mercantile & Reporting Agency would deduct 25 per cent in case of
collection.
If a merchant gave Burnett some bills to collect he (Burnett) would
ask the merchant to sign his name on a piece of paper giving authority
to the Chicago Mercantile & Reporting Agency to collect. Or if a
merchant upon whom Burnett called would say he had no bills, Burnett
would secure his signature upon representation that he must show his
company that he had called upon him and solicited.
Each witness with but one exception testified that no contract was
shown him and that he was not told by Burnett that in signing his name
he was putting it to a contract to furnish the company with at least
25 valid claims during the next thirty days following and to pay the
company a fee of $20.
Louis Perlman, the complainant-witness in the case tried, testified
that he gave Burnett a claim for $2 to collect and at the solicitation
of Burnett signed his name to a paper giving authority (as explained
by Burnett) to the company to collect. Nothing was said to him about
a contract, but at the expiration of 30 days he received a letter
from the Chicago Mercantile & Reporting Agency, signed P. L. Tuohy,
manager, that he was indebted to the company in the sum of $20. Upon
calling at their offices to ascertain the cause of such indebtedness
he was shown a contract signed by himself, agreeing to furnish the
company 25 claims and obligating himself to pay $20 on that day. The
victims were all men and women of the poorer classes, mostly small
shopkeepers, and such tradesmen in the outlying districts.
Perlman said that was the first time he had ever seen the contract,
for when he signed his name at the request of Burnett there was no
printing in sight and nothing was said about a contract. Although
Perlman had given but one claim to the agent of the company, and that
for the sum of $2, which had never been collected, he was threatened
with suit by Bulfer when he called at the office of the company, and
finally compromised by the payment of $5. No service had been rendered
him whatever and yet he was compelled to give up $5 to have the
alleged contract canceled.
The state called about 17 witnesses, all of whom had similar
experiences to that of Perlman. Several testified that they told
Burnett they had no bills to give him, but at his request signed
their names so that the company could know how many people he had
called upon in the course of a day, and yet each was notified at the
expiration of 30 days that he or she was indebted to the Chicago
Mercantile & Reporting Agency in the sum of $20, and each was
compelled to pay from $5 to $12 to have the alleged contract canceled,
although no service had been rendered to any of them.
One witness testified that he had refused to compromise and he was
sued before a justice of the peace friendly to the company and
judgment was rendered against him for $20 and costs, amounting in all
to $20.50, for which no services were performed and for which he got
not the slightest return.
Daubach was merely a clerk in the office, but when a victim called at
the office in response to a letter signed by Tuohy, Daubach would tell
him the amount must be paid, although the victim would declare to him
no service had been rendered to him and that he had no knowledge that
he had signed a contract. The victim would then ask to see Mr. Tuohy
and Daubach would take him to Bulfer's desk and say, "This is Mr.
Tuohy," and the victim would have to settle or submit to a judgment on
the alleged contract at the hands of the justice of the peace friendly
to the company.
Although the indictment charged a conspiracy to obtain the signature
of one Louis Perlman to a written instrument, the state introduced
evidence, and rightfully so, to show similar acts of the conspirators.
It was demonstrated clearly, by the evidence that Bulfer was the
leading spirit of the conspiracy; that Tuohy's name appeared on
the letterheads as manager and all letters sent to victims bore his
signature; that Burnett got signatures by means of false pretenses,
for each witness claimed that the "contract was covered up and they
were shown just the part of the paper on which was the space for
signature; and Daubach performed many acts in furtherance of the
conspiracy.
Bulfer and Tuohy did not go upon the witness stand. Burnett testified
that he always showed the full contract to prospective clients, but
was not called upon to explain its contents; he testified further that
he received from the Chicago Mercantile & Reporting Agency $2.50 for
each contract he brought in and he secured as high as six a day.
Daubach testified that when the objectors came into the office and
complained he would tell them they could compromise and get off
cheaper and admitted turning them over to Bulfer when they asked for
Tuohy.
So that it appeared conclusively that each in his turn performed some
act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
The case was called for trial on the 6th of May, 1907, and was
concluded on the 8th of May, 1907. The jury returned a verdict of
guilty as to each and fixed the punishment of Bulfer, Tuohy and
Burnett at imprisonment in the penitentiary, and fixed the punishment
of Daubach at a fine of $250.