The Savannah morning news., 1903-03-08
JUDGE BARROW SAYS
BARRISTERS MUST PAY TAX.
Court Renders an Opinion in the
Beckett Loan Case

Court Renders an Opinion in the
Beckett Loan Case.
Judge Barrow rendered his decision
in the Superior Court yesterday in the
case of Messrs. Isaac Beckett and
George Beckett against the Mayor and
aldermen, in which they sought to set
aside the ruling of Recorder Myrick,
who, on July 20. last. fined them $109
and costs for conducting business as
money lenders without license.
Judge Barrow upheld the decision of
the Recorder. The case will be taken
to the Supreme Court.
The question involved is a most in
teresting one. and the outcome of the
case has been watched by the men,
bers of the bar. Mr.. Walter P. La
Roche, representing the Messrs. Beck
EFT, submits that both the Recorder
and the judge of the Superior Court
have erred in their finding, and has
declared his intention of making a
test case of it, The opinion of the
court, in rendering his decision. which
incorporates every point made in the
case, is given below.
Messrs. Beckett & Beckett were
placed upon the docket last July by
Thomas l.. Hill, as the result of lit
tie tilt between the attorneys. The
city ordinance which he alleged they
were guilty of breaking provides that
attorneys at law who advertise money
to lend or in any other way engage in
the business of money lending, wheth-
er for clients or not, shall pay a tax
of $75. The text of Judge Barrow's de-
cision follows:
Ordinance Not in Conflict.
81 do not think that this ordinance IL
repugnant to the second section of the
tax act of 1900, found on page % in the
Georgia laws of 1900. The inhibition
upon municipalities to tax lawyers
which is found in that section, is
against tax imposed upon lawyers az
such. ! do not understand that this
ordinance lays a tax upon lawyers as
such, but only upon money-lenders who
may happen to be lawyers also.
Neither do think that it is violative
of that provision of the constitution
which requires uniformity. 1t is true
that the classification must not be arbI-
trary and must have some relation to
the business which it is proposed to
reach. Whoever the person may be, II
engaged in the same business, they be-
long to the same class. 1t is a ques-
ton of fact which must be determined
from the business carried on. 1t is
tax imposed for the privilege of doing
certain things or carrying on a certain
kind of business. And il the occupation
engaged in by two or more persons
however dissimilar the persons may be,
is the same business, then they belong
to the same class and the ordinances
must be enforced equally against each
or 1t Is void
Evidently, the object of the law
makers in framing this ordinance was
to reach all persons who engage in the
business of money-lending within the
corporate limits of Savannah regard
less of what other occupation they
might also be engaged in.
A Doubtful Feature.
THE last proposition contained in
the contention of the defendants at
torney, presents more difficulty. The
evidence in this case does not satisfy
me that these defendants are money
lenders in the ordinary acceptation Of
that term. But the difficulty is thai
the ordinance is broader in its terms
than one which would be aimed solely
| at the money lender. 1t is aimed at
| any person who may be an attorney
| at law and who engages in the BUSH
ness of lending his clients money II
Is difficult to resist the conclusion that
when this ordinance was framed the
law makers thought that If such an
attorney advertised money to lend OF
his client that he was thereby engage
ing in the business because the LAM
guage which follows the provision re-
lating to advertising is or in any 9TH
err way engages in the business.
Clearly 1t must have been within the
meaning of the law makers that adj
vertising money to lend by an attor-
ney belonging to his clients was one
way of engaging in the business.
1T appears that these defendants did
advertise money TO lend, and in an
Office in this city. occupied by them.
and in which they carried on the pro-
fession of law they, after said adver-
tisement. also engaged in the business
OF bringing people together, who, on
the one hand, wanted to lend. and.
on the other hand. wanted to borrow,
Both the borrower and the lender were
their clients. The lender need not know
anything about who he was lending
the money to except his name the
borrower need not know anything
about who he was borrowing the mon
ey from except his name. The amount
to be loaned would be ascertained and
agreed upon in that Office. The papers
were drawn there; the money was sent
there by the lender to be there turned
over to the borrower. There is enough
In all this to authorize the conclusion
that persons who did such a business
as this. and in such way as this,
were engaging in the business of mon
ey lendinR"