Hirschi v. Payson

• Decision Date: 17 April 1905
• Citation: 74 N.E. 383,215 Ill. 476
• Parties: PEOPLE et rel. HIRSCHI, State's Atty., v. PAYSON.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

215 Ill. 476

74 N.E. 383

PEOPLE et rel. HIRSCHI, State's Atty.,

v.PAYSON. ^*

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 17, 1905.

Information, on relation of C. J. Hirschi, as state's attorney, for the disbarment of Charles H. Payson as an attorney at law. Rule made absolute.

W. H. Stead, Atty. Gen., J. W. Kern, State's Atty., and C. J. Hirschi, Acting State's Atty. (O. F. Morgan and A. F. Good-year, of counsel), for the People.

Charles H. Payson, pro se.

RICKS, C. J.

An information on the relation of C. J. Hirschi, acting state's attorney for Iroquois county, was filed in this court for the disbarment of respondent as a practicing attorney and to strike his name from the roll of attorneys. The information contains 12 distinct charges, set out at great length and with particularity, each of which, except the first three, respondent in his answer denies.

The information and proof show that the respondent is about 50 years of age; that in September, 1877, a license was granted to him by this court to practice the profession of law during his good behavior in such practice; that in 1878 he went to Winfield, Cowley county, Kan., without, so far as the record shows, having done any active practice in this state up to that time; that on the 11th day of May, 1878, by an order of the district court held in said Cowley county, Kan., he was admitted to practice law in all the district and inferior courts of that state, and continued to practice there until his disbarment in that state, which occurred in December, 1879.

The three charges contained in the information which respondent does not traverse are that he was convicted of a misdemeanor in the district court of Cowley county, Kan., in December, 1879, was disbarred by the same court during the same month, and was convicted of a felony in said court in May, 1880. The misdemeanor of which respondent was convicted was the withholding of $163 intrusted to him by one Sarah Clark to be loaned and invested for her. Upon that charge he was tried by the court without a jury, being represented by himself and other counsel, was found guilty, and a fine of $100 was imposed, which he subsequently paid. The disbarment proceeding was predicated upon the same transaction, and to the information there filed he filed his answer denying the charge, and the cause was heard by the court, and he was again found guilty, and his name stricken from the roll of attorneys. The charge upon which he was convicted of felony was that of feloniously, knowingly, and designedly obtaining the signature of Lena McNeil to a deed to certain real estate in Cowley county, Kan., conveying the land to him, when the grantor intended, and he represented, that the deed conveyed the land to Martha E. McNeil, the daughter of the grantor. Upon that charge he was tried before a jury, being represented by counsel, and was found guilty and sentenced to a term of five years in the penitentiary. After serving a year and a half of that sentence, through the influence of prominent relatives and friends he was pardoned by John P. St. John, the then Governor of Kansas, upon condition that he should thereafter remain away from Cowley county, and that if that condition were broken he would be again arrested and required to serve his unexpired term.

During the year 1884 respondent returned to Illinois, and at Watseka, in Iroquois county, entered upon the practice of his profession under the license issued by this court. Up to 1891, so far as disclosed by the record, he was not charged with any dishonest or dishonorable act. In April, 1891, Albert W. Perry was the owner of certain property at Delrey, in Iroquois county, which was destroyed or injured by fire. The property was insured by the German Fire Insurance Company of Peoria, Ill. Mr. Perry employed respondent to collect that insurance, and agreed to give him $50 for his services. Judgment was obtained against the company by default for $400, the amount claimed. After the judgment the company sought by injunction to prevent its collection, and that case was taken to the Appellate Court, but was decided adversely to the company. Upon the dissolution of the injunction respondent was allowed $40 attorney's fees for his services in that case. The judgment and the $40 attorney's fees were paid respondent in full on the 4th day of January, 1893. On the 10th of March of the same year Mr. Perry went to Watseka, saw respondent, asked him about the judgment, and was advised by respondent that the company had 60 days from that time within which to pay, unless it chose to pay sooner. Mr. Perry waited until the 15th of May, and, not having heard from respondent, employed another firm of lawyers to investigate the matter, and learned from them the time of the payment to respondent. When approached about the matter by the new firm of attorneys, respondent insisted that he was entitled to more compensation than the $50 agreed upon for his services, and, though urged to pay what he admitted to be due, declined to do so. Suit was brought against him in June, 1893, and he paid $225.50 in cash and confessed judgment for $75 by way of settlement. The services of attorneys to collect from respondent the money thus held by him cost Mr. Perry $60.70.

The firm of Blaine & Fraser had been conducting business at Ashkum, in Iroquois county, some years, and obtained a judgment before a justice against a man and wife, by the name of Mathias, for $139.60. The firm dissolved partnership about 1891, and in their dissolution adjustment this judgment fell to Blaine, who lived at Kankakee. Blaine employed respondent to collect the judgment. In 1893 respondent collected $139.60 on this judgment. Fraser, not being interested, never heard of the collection or paid any attention to it. Although Blaine wrote respondent, he received no reply to his letter. In 1895 respondent became involved with a Mr. Beard, the editor of a paper at Watseka, and charged the latter with publishing libelous matters concerning him. At that time the conduct of respondent was being inquired into, and in the course of that inquiry it was ascertained that the respondent had collected the Blaine & Fraser judgment, and Mr. Blaine was then notified, and wrote respondent and demanded payment, but received no reply. During the trials in which respondent was prosecuting Beard, Mr. Blaine was present and demanded payment of the judgment, and respondent insisted that he had paid the same to Fraser. During the Beard trials respondent was a witness, and testified that he paid Fraser upon an Illinois Central train between Gilman and Kankakee within 30 days after he made the collection, and stated that he had the full amount of the money, and that that was an unusual thing for him. During the year 1895 steps were taken to file an information in this court to disbar respondent, and he then went to Kankakee, and, by payment of $20 or $25 to Blaine, effected a settlement with him. The information that was prepared in 1895 was submitted to the Attorney General, but was not filed in this court. Respondent was given an opportunity to meet the charges then contained in the information, and, among other things, he presented to the Attorney General what purported to be an affidavit of Mr. Blaine, in which he stated that full and satisfactory settlement had been made with him. Respondent claims that that original affidavit was lost in some manner, and upon this hearing he presented an office copy, but was unable to state before whom the affidavit was made. Mr. Blaine testified that he had no recollection of making any such affidavit. In his answer to the present information respondent stated that he paid that judgment to Fraser in a saloon in Kankakee within two or three weeks after it was collected, that he borrowed part of the money with which to make the settlement, and that Fraser stated it was just like finding the money. Fraser testifies that he never at any time paid him any of the money.

In 1891 Alton C. Wright employed respondent to foreclose a mortgage against one Starr. The mortgage provided for a solicitor's fee of $25, which Mr. Wright testifies was to be the fee that respondent should have for his services. At the June term, 1891, of the circuit court of that county, respondent obtained a decree and judgment in the foreclosure for $390.77. On that judgment there was paid to him July 21, 1891, $100; December 15, 1891, $185; August 25, 1892, $20; October 12, 1892, $28. On December 29, 1891, respondent paid Mr. Wright $100, and in September, 1892, paid him $100. Mr. Wright saw respondent many times and pressed him for payment, but respondent continuously put him off, stating that he was not able to make up the amount, or had not the time. In 1895, in one of the Beard trials, respondent stated that there was no doubt but that there was money due Mr. Wright. Mr. Wright testifies that since 1895 he has not asked respondent for it, as it seems useless to do so.

In 1892 Henry M. Hayen employed respondent to bring a suit in assumpsit in Iroquois county against one Rogers. Judgment was obtained at the March term, 1893, of the court, for $667. There were paid to respondent upon that judgment the following amounts: May 9, 1893, $250; August 8, 1893, $300; September 2, 1893, $145; February 13, 1894, $5.45-making a total of $700.95. June 19, 1893, respondent wrote Mr. Hayen in reply to a card inquiring as to the collection of the money, in which he says: ‘I wrote you some time ago to send me $75 on account. The judgment will be paid about August 1. I have made arrangements with Mr. Rogers, satisfactory to myself, whereby the money will be made for you as speedily as the law would compel him to pay it. As soon as the matter is settled I will notify you, and you may come over and we will settle the matter of ours. I was quite disappointed on account of your not complying with my request for fees.’ Waiting until after the 1st of August, and...