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.