partnerships formed by him,-and also to prevent the Illinois corporation known as the Illinois Correspondence Schools of Scranton, Pennsylvania, from using any of said names. While the bill was pending respondent was arrested on a charge of conspiracy and held to bail. He finally agreed with the manager of the International Text Book Company to abandon all proceedings inimical to the Colliery Engineer Company or its successors, not to further annoy or harass said International Text Book Company, to surrender all his rights and papers connected with said proceedings and to permit the injunction prayed for in said bill to be made perpetual. He also signed a written statement setting forth his object and purpose in the business in which he had been engaged. The commissioner found that the respondent originated and devised the scheme aforesaid to annoy and injure the Colliery Engineer Company in its business by instigating prosecutions against said company on the charge of violating the statutes of the several States concerning foreign corporations, advised the American School of Correspondence of such scheme, sought the conduct thereof as its attorney, and was employed for such purpose by Romanta T. Miller, Jr., its president. It was while employed as such attorney that respondent made the efforts above mentioned to secure the various charters of incorporation. Miller contributed over $600 to the scheme, but about August 24, 1901, advised respondent that the American School of Correspondence was unwilling to have its name used in that connection, and that the remittances already made and thereafter to be made in aid of said scheme should be treated as Miller's personal investment in said business. He also suggested that respondent should sever all official relations with the American School of Correspondence, but that this would make no difference in the personal relation of Miller to the business.

All the acts of the respondent in these transactions were done with the approval and concurrence of Romanta T.

Miller, Jr., and their motive was to harass and annoy the Colliery Engineer Company, and, by causing it large expense and injuring its business, to induce it to pay the respondent and his associates a large amount of money to desist from further annoyance and injury. The respondent and his associates at no time intended to conduct the business of a correspondence school, but they conspired to take the name of the Colliery Engineer Company in order to cause it to pay a large sum of money to be relieved from their attacks upon and injury to its already established business, the sole purpose being to compel that company to buy its peace from respondent's attacks by the payment of his demands.

JOHN L. FOGLE, for relator.

CANTWELL & ROTH, and CHARLES H. SOELKE, for respondent.

Mr. JUSTICE DUNN delivered the opinion of the court:

The substance of the charge against the respondent is, that having discovered what he regarded as a defect in the charter of the Colliery Engineer Company, he organized a conspiracy to harass that company and to embarrass its business by organizing corporations having its name or the name in which its business was transacted, apparently for the purpose of conducting a similar business but really for the sole purpose of injuring the business of the Colliery Engineer Company and extorting money from it. The commissioner has found that charge is proved, and no exception having been taken to bring the evidence or any of his rulings before us, it is to be taken as true. The statement of the charge made and proved sufficiently characterizes the moral quality of the respondent's acts. His counsel seek to justify them for the reason that what he did was done openly, under a claim of right, and that his action was

praiseworthy because he gave the Colliery Engineer Company an opportunity to test the question at the start. This argument would carry weight if the respondent had been in good faith attempting to organize a corporation for a lawful purpose, but while pretending to do so his sole object was the dishonest and unlawful purpose of extorting money by interfering with the established business of a corporation already organized. He did not intend to engage in the business for the purpose for which he pretended to organize his corporation, but he intended to demand money for not doing so.

The standard of personal and professional integrity which should be applied to persons admitted to practice law in the courts is not satisfied by such conduct as merely enables them to escape the penalties of the criminal law. The statute and the rules of this court require a good moral character as a condition precedent to a license as an attorney. This includes at least common honesty, and is not consistent with an effort to obtain a part of the wealth of another by any means not denounced by the criminal statutes. The predatory instinct which led to respondent's raid upon the Colliery Engineer Company is accompanied with an obtuse moral discernment which seems not to realize that the respondent's use of the forms of law in that matter was not proper. Youth or inexperience does not extenuate the offense of a fraudulent conspiracy to extort money that is inconsistent with the common honesty which should be an attribute of every attorney having the license of this court.

No reason is apparent why the lapse of time in this case makes it unjust or unfair to require the respondent to answer this charge.

The rule will be made absolute and respondent's name stricken from the roll of attorneys of this court.

Rule made absolute.

THE PEABODY COAL COMPANY et al.

V.

THE NORTHWESTERN ELEVATED RAILROAD COMPANY.

Opinion filed October 23, 1907-Petition stricken Dec. 4, 1907.

I. EMINENT DOMAIN-statutory power may be limited by ordinance. An ordinance granting to an elevated railroad company the right to erect its structure within the limits of the city, which provides that at least twenty feet clear head-room shall be left between the lower chord of the girders of the structure and the surface of the rails of steam railroads crossed by said structure, is a limitation upon the company's statutory power of eminent domain, and by accepting the ordinance the company is bound by such limitation.

2. SAME-provision of ordinance relating to elevated railroads construed. A provision of an ordinance granting to an elevated railroad company the right to erect its structures within the city, which requires twenty feet clear head-room to be left between the lower chord of the girders and the surface of the rails of the tracks "of all existing steam railroads" crossed by the said structures, includes private switch tracks connected with steam railroads and used for switching purposes, and is not limited to tracks owned by steam railroads.

3. SAME-ground occupied by a private switch track is right of way. The ground necessarily used and occupied by a private switch track is "right of way," within the meaning of an ordinance requiring a certain amount of head-room to be left under an elevated railroad structure wherever it crosses the "right of way and tracks of existing steam railroads," even though no boundaries for the right of way have ever been fixed, where the title to the track, and to the tract of land over which it passes, is in the same person.

4. SAME―objection to departure from an ordinance respecting railroads may be made by owner of switch track. In condemnation by an elevated railroad company, the right to object to a departure by the petitioner from the plan of construction required by ordinance where the elevated structure crosses the right of way and tracks of existing steam railroads is not limited to railroad companies, but objection may be made by any one having a property interest in a private switch track used in connection with the road.

5. SAME when a motion to dismiss may be made after filing a cross-petition for damages. The fact that the defendants to a condemnation petition by an elevated railroad company have filed a

cross-petition for damages does not preclude them from making a motion to dismiss after the petitioner, upon the order of the court, has filed specifications and plans for the structure proposed to be erected, from which it appears for the first time that the structure, as proposed to be built, is in violation of the ordinance granting the petitioner its privileges within the city.

6. REHEARINGS a petition for rehearing containing argument will be stricken from files. A petition for rehearing which contains a re-argument of the cause is in violation of rule 30, (204 Ill. 18,) which provides that "in no case will any argument be permitted in support of such petition," and will be stricken from the files.

7. SAME―grounds for rule against argument in petition for rehearing. The rule which prohibits argument in a petition for rehearing rests partly upon the ground that the adverse party has no opportunity to answer such argument unless a rehearing is granted, and partly upon the ground that all arguments must be made, in the first instance, by both sides, on all the points involved, nothing being reserved for rehearing in case of defeat.

8. SAME-party is concluded by the petition which he files. One who chooses to experiment with the rules of the court by filing a petition for rehearing containing argument subjects himself to the penalty of the rule that the petition "will be stricken from the files," and in case the petition is stricken for violation of the rule his right to a rehearing is lost, and he will not be permitted to file another petition, and thus, in effect, nullify the rule.

CARTER, J., dissenting.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. THOMAS G. WINDES, Judge, presiding.

On February 21, 1906, the Northwestern Elevated Railroad Company, the appellee, filed its petition in the circuit court of Cook county against the Peabody Coal Company and the Meacham & Wright Company, the appellants, the John E. Burns Lumber Company and Sarah C. Turner, trustee of Mary E. Turner, to condemn a strip of land twentyfive feet in width for right of way through a tract of land containing about eight acres, owned by the said coal company, in the city of Chicago. The petition was on March