Every evening, Wilmington daily commercial., 1906-05-22
IHE IYRE CAST.
Counsel win Not iiemur. But Has Motto
TO Make.


Counsel win Not nemnr, but Has Motion
to Make.
In the Court of General Sessions
this morning j. Frank Ball, counsel
for A. \. Tyre, indicted in connection
with the Shellpot election fraud, was
called before the court and after being
reminded that he had been given until
yesterday to demur 10 the indictment,
was asked what he proposed 10 do
do not desire to demur," said
Mr. Ball, "but I have a motion which
/ desire to submit to the Attorney
General before presenting it to the
court. do not think it will be neces
sary TO Introduce 10 while the present
argument is being heard +"
The court discharged the petit jury
until tomorrow morning.
MANY SPECIAL JURY CASES.
Chief Justice Lore announced that
the civil calendar was made up and
ready for distribution. 1t shows q
special jury cases as follows:
Annie NJ. Pennell's administrator
vs.. The Mayor and Council Of Viii
mingtop; Mary Fullerton VS.. p, b.
g. w. R II. Co. Caroline Bryon vs.
Wilmington City Railway Co. Gui
vannina Epifanio VS.. b. q p. II. r.
Co., four cases: John W. Kirby vs.
p, B. g. W. r. r. William +. Bow
ers, administrator, vs.. same; John A
Solomon VS.. same Jacob Robinson vs.
Delaware Granite and Mining Co.
Herman r. Duncan vs.. The Mayor ant
Council of Wilmington; William Il
Garrett vs.. Peoples Railway Co.
Elizabeth L. Doughten vs.. Whining
ton City Railway Co. Charles l.. Sim
mons VS.. Peoples Railway Co. Josepl
I l.. Carey vs.. III. g. II. Corporation
/ George W. Todd VS.. Every Evenin
/ Printing Co. two cases William Ken
nedy VS.. p, b. a. w. Railroad Co.
| Leslie h. Casperson vs.. Wilmingto
/ City Railway Co. Peter Barnes vs.
I Brylgon Steel Casting Co. Marti
! Groboski vs.. New Castle Leather Co.
James G. File vs. Wilmington Cit
Railway Co. John l.. Yates vs.. p.
b. & W. II. R. Co. ; Salvadora Lafazi
vs.. Wilmington City Railway Co.
The calendar also discloses tina
there are 60 cases for trial.
LOAN ARGUMt Mt RESUMED.
Herbert II. Ward this morning re
sumed the argument upon the demurrt
]
Taylor OF the Peoples Trust Co. an
Arthur l.. Wickenholfer of the Wi
mington Loan Co., charged with d,
manding an illegal rate of interel
upon loans.
Herbert II. Ward, representing II
loan companies, began the argumeI
yesterday afternoon. He said it W,
admitted that Finley NJ. Taylor an
Arthur L. Wickenholfer were n,
alleged to be registered loan compani'
nor trust companies.
He read the act, which sets out thi
such companies could loan money
the amount of 500 or less at IL pl
centum per annum. This statute do
not apply TO national banks, Sta
banks or trust companies. AS to tl
penalty for violation Of the act,
declared, it could be imposed only
New Castle county.
Mr.. Ward called attention to Il
fact that the constitution provid,
equal rights for all, which this y
gave special privilege to a few az
allowed anyone in the other count
of the State to violate it without fe
of penalty. He declared also th
banks and trust companies not il
cluded in the act could charge IL p
cent interest and would have no fe
of penalties.
Mr.. Ward contended that to be co
stitutional the law must apply equal
to all parts Of the State. He sa
that only the particular oompani
specified can procure a certificate fro
the clerk of the peace that the !,
limits the right of contracts that
deprives persons and corporations
liberty and property in that they a
E deprived of exacting a proper amou
/ for services; that it is a violation
the State constitution in that usu
Q is no penal Offence.
, Mr.. Ward explain ed his contenti
= about the penalty for violation Of t
law. He said he meant that agents
i representatives, Of loan companies on
/, were exempt from punishment in ke
:, and Sussex counties for violation
the usury law. He argued all {
, morning in support of his contentio
s that the law is unconstitutional, it v
% y O'Clock when Mr. Ward finished
e argument His brief contained
g typewritten pages.
. Attorney General Richards in
d opening said the argument of N
.e Ward was an ingenious and able one
IS all Of his arguments are. He said
admit Mr.. Wards promises would
to be wholly lost. He said his arr
ment as to the material points he CT
sidered fallacy. He admitted that
* act was intended exclusively for n
Castle county and did not tend
n create a special class of money lei
ID ers. Mr.. Richards took up the act q
le explained his Interpretation of it bef
n taking up his.hrief. He contended q
4. any reasonable interpertat OF of
4. law shows that only the clerk of
b. peace Of New Castle county can is
certificates to such loan companies
m persons, and they of course must
ne side in New Castle county. He arg
ce that the section of the law could
xe refer to any other than registered j
agents.
TX The penalty for violation, he s5
I'd only applied to New Castle county.
WOMAN FOUND DEAD.