People Ex Rel. Adolph Moses v. Goodrich

• Decision Date: 30 September 1875
• Citation: 79 Ill. 148,1875 WL 8587
• Parties: THE PEOPLE ex rel. Adolph Moses et al.v.ALPHONSO GOODRICH.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

79 Ill. 148

1875 WL 8587 (Ill.)

THE PEOPLE ex rel. Adolph Moses et al.

v.ALPHONSO GOODRICH.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1875.

This was an information, filed in this court by Adolph Moses and others against Alphonso Goodrich, for a rule to show cause why his name should not be stricken from the roll of attorneys.

Mr. ADOLPH MOSES, Mr. ABRAM PENCE, and Mr. WILLIAM H. KING, the relators, pro sese.

Messrs. RICHMOND & CONDEE, and Messrs. O'BRIEN, BARGE & DIXON, for the respondent.

Mr. JUSTICE BREESE delivered the opinion of the Court:

On the eighth day of October, of this present term, an information, duly subscribed and sworn to, was filed in this court, and a rule thereupon prayed, against Alphonso Goodrich, requiring him to show cause, by the twentieth day of that month, why his name should not be stricken from the roll of attorneys of this court.

The information was filed by three members of the bar, practicing their profession in the city of Chicago, interested, as they allege, in upholding the integrity of the courts and of the profession of the law, and in the proper administration of the law.

The defendant is alleged to be a licensed attorney and counselor at law in the same city, practicing his profession in the courts thereof.

The information charges that defendant has been guilty of improper conduct in causing false and fraudulent advertisements to be inserted in divers newspapers published in the United States, inviting “so called” divorce business, and that he has, for years past, caused to be inserted in the daily newspapers in Chicago, anonymous advertisements, specimens of which are incorporated in the information, one of which, of August 9, 1870, is of the purport following:

“Divorces legally obtained, without publicity, and at small expense. Address, P. O. box 1037. This is the P. O. box advertised for the past seven years, and the owner has obtained five hundred and seventy-seven divorces during that time.”

Another advertisement in a daily paper of October 21, 1871, of the purport following:

“Divorces legally obtained for desertion, cruelty, etc.; fee after decree. Eight years' experience. Address, P. O. box 1037,” varied in the daily paper of the 28th, by adding, “Scandal avoided.”

It is further charged that the newspaper press of Chicago, having exposed the system of anonymous divorce advertisements, and fraudulent divorces, mentioned the name of Goodrich, as connected therewith, as “A. Goodrich, of Postoffice box 1037 notoriety,” after which, the divorce advertisements of defendant, as published in a Chicago daily paper of September 30, 1875, read in this way:

“Divorces legally obtained--not fraudulently. Fee after decree. Ten years' practice in the courts of Chicago. Address, P. O. box 1037.”

It is further charged that defendant, in the month of August, 1875, caused to be inserted in the “Daily Herald” of that date, a newspaper of large circulation, published in the city of New York, this advertisement:

“Divorces legally obtained for incompatibility, etc. Residence unnecessary. Fee after decree. Address, P. O. box 1037, Chicago, Ill.” And that defendant caused the same to be published in the New York “Daily Sun” of September 14, 1875, and in newspapers in various other States of this Union.

It is further charged, that defendant well knew the fact that no divorces could be obtained in any of the courts of this State without publicity, and that he used the phrases, “without publicity,” and “scandal avoided,” in his advertisements, to impress the public mind that he could procure divorces in the courts of Chicago without the proceedings being made public; averring that the several newspapers published in that city did then publish, and have always published, the proceedings of the courts, and that, for some time past, the practice of referring divorce causes to masters in chancery had been abolished. And it is further charged, that defendant well knew the fact that ““incompatibility” was not one of the lawful causes for divorce in this State, and that one year's residence in this State was required prior to filing a bill of complaint for divorce, unless the offense complained of was committed in this State, whilst one or both parties resided therein, and could only be had in the county where complainant resided.

It is then charged that these advertisements are false and scandalous, calculated to bring the courts of justice into disrepute and contempt, and were published by the defendant with the intention of deception and fraud.

The advertisements were admitted, in defendant's answer, to be his act, and a printed letter, purporting to have been issued from his office, 124 Dearborn street, Chicago, bearing his printed signature, and dated August 21, 1875, ostensibly in reply to a previous letter from some unknown person, but really intended as “a circular,” was also his act. In this circular, after enumerating the several causes for divorce, as specified in the statute of this State, he states, also, on his professional reputation, “incompatibility” as a cause. The “circular” also informs the party of the total amount of charges, one hundred and twenty-five dollars, twenty-five dollars of which was required in hand, and the balance when the decree, under the seal of the court, was placed in the hands of the applicant. If, however, the party preferred, no present payment was required, but a deposit in bank, or with an...