BIEEBABEB ». WIRTH 837 �he might incur during his absence, and consequent upon car- rying out the arrangement on his part, should be repaid to him. Pursuant to this understanding, and more or less un-, der the direction of the defendants, the plaintiff immediately went away, and thereaf ter traveled in various parts of the United States and Canada, sometimes under an assumed name, and sometimes not, and thus continued absent, for the purpose of avoiding the process of this court, unti] December 1876, when he returned. Most of the services and disburse- ments, for which this suit was brought, are those which the plaintiff claims he thus rendered and paid during the period of his absence under the circnmstances mentioned. �At the trial it was held that the contraet between the plain- tiff and defendants, except for the service actvially rendered as book-keeper between April 1 and May 10, 1875, was one which, if executed, tended to obstruct the course of public justice; that, consequently, it could not receive judicial sanc- tion, or even toleration, and that the plaintiff could not recover either for the service he rendered the defendants in thus avoid- ing the jurisdiction and process of the court, nor the money» he expended in carrying out such an unlawful enterprise. On the argument of the present motion it is not contended that there was any error in the ruling of the court as to the plàin- tiff's claim for services. Indeed, the case in its facts and circumstances, as disclosed by the plaintiff himself, is so flagrant that there can be, and ought to be, no ground upon which to base a right to recover for such a service. "Courts owe it to public justice, and to their own integrity, to refuse to become parties to contracta essentially violating morality or public policy by entertaining actions upon them. It is judicial duty always to turn a suitor, upon such a contraet, out of court, whenever and however the contraet is made to appear." Wight y. Rindskopf, 43 Wis. 348; see, also, Badger v. Williams, 1 Chipman, (Vt.) 137, &nA Vcdentim v. Stewart, 15 Cal- 387. �But it isinsisted that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of his actUal expenses incurred and paid while absent at the instance and request of the defendants. The argument �T.5,no.4— 22 ����
