FOUR ARE SENTENCED FOR LONG "GRAFT" RECORDS.
P. L. Tuohy, Philip Bulfer and L. E. Burnett Are Found Guilty of Systematic Fraud by Means of "Fake" Contracts—Their Clerk Is Fined $250—Many Poor People Appear As Witnesses on Fraudulent Employment Bureau Also Operated.
June 11, 1907, one of the most persistent and systematic "confidence" gangs that ever operated in Chicago was broken up for a few years at least, when Patrick L. Tuohy, Philip Bulfer, L. E. Burnett, and J. C. Daubach were found guilty of obtaining money under false pretenses by a jury in Judge Ball's court.
These men were organizers and managers of the Chicago Mercantile and Reporting Agency, with offices at 171 Washington Street. It was a "fake" employment agency with a side line of swindling by means of getting contracts on carbon paper. Bulfer, Tuohy and Burnett were sentenced to the penitentiary, while Daubach, who was only a clerk, was fined $250. The sentence in prison is from one to five years.
Triumph for Wooldridge.
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.
[PANEL HOUSE THIEVES.]
Among the many dangerous and curious characters who live by their wits in a great city none is more interesting to the outsider than the blackmailer. To the reader of sensational literature the ideal is a person who holds some great family secret which he turns into money at rapidly narrowing intervals. Although this character is generally overdrawn, no one familiar with city life pretends to doubt his existence. The blackmailer is a well known character in all large cities, and certainly the arch swindler of the day.
Blackmailers are ever on the alert to learn anything detrimental to a person's character, and let them once obtain this, they fatten on it. Men's passions are taken advantage of by that particular class of thieves known as "badgers," and their operations are very rarely followed by exposure or punishment. A pretty woman is the bait used by these thoughtful rascals, who know full well that where a hundred men will resist a burglar, scarcely one will resist a robbery where disgraceful publicity must surely follow.
Briefly the mode of procedure is as follows: A house is rented in a quiet side street, not far from the principal thoroughfare. One man, occasionally two men, run the house—that is, they do the actual stealing, while they have from three and often as high as a dozen women out on the street picking up the victims.