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.