The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1901-05-07

and true meaning of the ordinance in
voved is considered.
I'm the construction of legislative acts
| and ordinances, especially when such acts
| and ordinances are not clear, the intent
! OF the law-maker is always to be given
| due weight. And IL is the opinion or the
! court that the Mayor and Aldermen OF
! Savannah in Council assembled, when the
tax ordinance of 1901 was passed, did not
intend that persons lending money on
personal property" should include only
such took liens upon personal property
TO secure the loans made by them.
when the ordinance in question was
passed providing that persons other than
a pawnbroker engaged In the business OF
lending money on personal property, shall
pay a tax of three hundred and fifty dol
lars it was intended that this should
cover that class who lend money in Sd
vannah at very high rates of interest TO
parties possessing a small amount OF per-
sonal property. and who either take liens
on such personal property. or who in the
absence of a lien, make loans upon the
faith of personal property.
The case here differs materially from
the case where party presents himself
TO a money lender and requests loan and
gives the lender simply a written state
ment of what property he owns and OBJ
JdlHS money. me ulHeTeilCe Is Drought
about by the form of the application for
loan which the evidence discloses a
party would sign before obtaining any
money, at the same time attaching thereto
or giving to the lender a list of what per-
sonal property was owned by the party
making the applica ton. In this 'applica-
tion for loan the words and will pay
dollars cents for the inspection
of my furniture, l offer the following as
L
property is unincumbered, and agree not
TO move the same without your consent
in writing all appear
These words are very significant when
taken in connection with the list of fur
nture or household goods attached to the
said application for foan, and further
when the testimony of the witness, Clark,
is considered, which was to the effect
that he was told upon inquiry that the
list of articles on the separate sheet of
paper would not be placed in the applca-
tion for lon unless a levy was to be
made. The question here may very well
be asked, Why is such form used if
it has no connection, with or application
40 the list of furniture or household goods
attached thereto on a separate sheet of
paper as the property of the party who
borrows the money?
THE only logical answer that can be
given is that the language used in this
form was intended to have reference to
articles consisting of household goods and
furniture named in the list, or that they
were to have reference to the articles the
name of which were afterwards placed
in the body of the form of the 'apph
cation for loan, there being evidence of
the fact that such would be done should
an occasion arise for the enforcement of
the payment of the debt by legal pro-
ceedings.
1T seems perfectly evident to the
court that but for the borrowers posses
sion of the personal property and his
agreement with reference thereto. the
money would not be loaned. II appears
that the borrower is required to give
detailed statement of his personal prop
erty. and that this is attached to the
application for loan that there is an
agreement entered into by the borrower
in the form not to remove certain prop
erty without the consent of the
lender in writing. The presumption
is as has already been stated that this
agreement refers to the articles MENTION
ed In the list. This is the idea as least
which the borrower is impressed with at
the time the loan is made. il appearing
from the evidence that the parties who
usually seek such loans are ignorant.
at is the opinion OF the court that this
is a technical scheme very ingeniously de
vised by Franklin to avoid paying the
heavy tax imposed by Council upon per-
sons engaged I'm the business, which the
evidence discusses he is transacting,
The ordinances of the city relative to
the payment of taxes. must be upheld and
enforced above all others. for upon the
collection of taxes the welfare and exist
ence of the city depends.
THE court holds in this case that that
portion of the tax ordinance of Savannah
of 1901 relative to the paying of tax of
three hundred and fifty dollars by per-
sons other than pawpbrokers engaged in
the business of Lending money on personal
property, has been violated by N. 3.
Franklin; and that the penalty provided
for such violation in Section 8. page II
of said ordinance, should be imposed.
"Whereupon il is considered and ordered
by the Court that II. B. Franklin pay a
fine of fifty dollars $4,000 to the Clerk of
the Police Court of the city of Savan-
nah, within FIVE days from this date, or
in default of such payment that he be
imprisoned by the officers of the Police
Court of Savannah for the space of thir-
ty days, provided nevertheless that IL the
said II. B. Franklin shall pay the tax
of three hundred and fifty dollars fixed
by said ordinance to the Treasurer of the
city of Savannah before the expiration of
the said five days. the fine hereby i'm
posed is RENTED and the sentence of i'm
prisonment is annuled