Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1878-11-13
GETTING A. PARDON.

Hhot 1T Costs I'm IHissossrt-You Must PG2l
for 1T If You SO Contract.
A very curious case was decided in the st.
Louis circuit court, involving the question as
to the right of conyicts to convey property,
and the validity of a money contract to pro-
cure pardon.
On Oct. y, 1872, John Mcguire stabbed
aud killed John Ryan at the corner of Nine
teenth and Biddle streets. In July, 1873,
Mcguire pleaded guilty to murder in the Sec
ond degree, and his wife as an accessory.
They were sentenced to the penitentiary,
one for twelve years and the other for
ten years. Shortly after his arrest, Ma
guire conveyed his property, by warranty
deed, to John I. Martin, his attor-
ney, and took deed of trust for part of the
purchase money. A portion of the money
was paid to the attorney, and the balance
thereof to Thomas Cleary to expend as Ma
guire saw Fit. Mcguire was conveyed to the
penitentlary about the LIST of August, 1873.
Before he was taken there he gave to his
other lawyer Cleary, the sum of $4,000, as
testified to by Cleary and others who witness
ed the transaction. The money was given
him for services he was to render in pro-
curing and assisting in securing his release
by pardon from the penitentiary. On the 18th
of March, 1874, Mcguire was pardoned.
After he came out of the penitentiary his
attorney, Cleary, stated that he had paid the
sum Of $500 to different parties to assist
him IN getting his pardon, and he also claim
ed $1,000 Tor money paid and assistance
rendered Mcguire while in Jail. In April,
1919, more than one year after
the pardon, Mcguire confessed
IDfiu ant 70 oE On;J
$4,000 for services rendered as his attorney
O'Reilly began proceedings against John I.
Martin, the party to whom the property had
been conveyed, and Thomas Cleary, as gar
nishees, and sought to charge them with all
tho rents and profits of the property during
the time that Mcguire was in jail, and the
$4,000 from Cleary. and $500 which the lat
ter had paid for Influence to secure the par
don, and other moneys, amounting to So, 600.
OKellly claimed that this contract for par
don was against public policy and void, and
all money paid on the contract could be
recovered. The deed was deed in trust,
and The warranty upon its face was for the
benefit Of Mcguire. 4 great many attorneys
testified in the case to-day, and, after hear
ing argument, the court decided in favor of
Cleary and Martin. The court held that,
where party pays money on an unlawful
contract, the courts will not aid him in re-
covering; if the contract is unexecuted, the
courts will not assist him in executing it or
in enforcing it. Tho interesting point in the
case was the construction of tho statute,
which provides that the sentence to impris-
onment in the penitentiary suspends all the
civil rights of the criminal, and, as these
contracts were made, and this money paid,
while under sentence, the question was
whether he could afterward ratify them. The
court took the position that the statute did
not work an exemption; for, if different
construction should be given, it would en-
able criminal to perpetuate fraud upon
anybody doing him service by afterwards
claiming that, although he made the con-
tract, he did not have the power to make it.
The court said he agreed with the supreme
court that, when judge Of his own knowl-
edge knew of the things concerned, he need
not DO bound by the testimony of experts.
lie was thoroughly we'll posted as to the
work done in the case, as he had received the
references, reports, etc. He shonld decide
III favor of allowing the compensation asked