The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1911-11-15
WANT TO RESUME
SALE OF PISTOLS
Pawnbrokers Ask Supreme Court
for Writ of Peremptory
Mandamus.
DEMAND LICENSE OF CITY
Contend Ordinance Is Invalid.
Other Cases in Highest
Court.

Arguments for and against the va.
| ldity of the Richmond ordinance pro
hibiting the sale of pistols, dirks ant
bowie knives by pawnbrokcrs were
presented to the Supreme Court OF
appeals yesterday mornng. The at.
torneys concluded their remarks al
1880. the adjournment hour, and the
case was submitted TO the court fol
decision later.
Joseph Elsner and Sol Elsner, trad.
ing as Elsner Brothers. applied to o
~ hawkins. commissioner OF the rev
cnue, for license to sell deadly
weapons. The commissioner refused or
the ground that the City Council had
enacted an ordinance prohibiting the
issuance Of such licenses to pawn
brokers. The Hastings Court was then
appealed to for writ of peremptory
mandamus to require MIR. Hawkins to
grant the papers, which was refused
On an appeal, writ of error was
granted in the Supreme Court this
being argued yesterday.
Not Authorized to Prohibit.
Wyndham H. Meredith. counsel fol
Elsner Brothers. argued that the city
had no right to exercise prohibitorS
powers not especially delegated to IL
instance, he said, the City Council was
Illegally depriving the State OF its part
of the license money which would &c.
cruc from authorizing the sale of pis.
tolls by pawnbrokers. The Councils &C.
ton, he continued, amounted to n
notification of the State tax bill
Adverting to an argument that tho
limiting OF saloons to 100 was prac.
tically prohibitory. Mr.. Meredith con.
tended that this but emphasized the
,act that such action was regulation
hnd not prohibition. TO regulation he
had no objection.
City Attorneys Reply.
Henry X. Pollard. representing the
city OF Richmond. replied that the
passage of the ordinance represented
the exercise OF the police power. The
Council, he said, undertook to remedy
in some degree the dangerous and per-
nicious practice of q luwiess and dis
orderly class In carrying concealed
weapons" The baleIul consequences
of these practices, he continued. had
been the subject of special conside ra
ton by grand jury in the Hustings
Court which made a report recon-
mendinS legislation on this subject.
Cities, saiu MIR. Pollard have the
power TO grant or to refuse licenses
u
latiou and revenue are frequently the
ends in view, the Legislature being the
judge when such construction is
ncedful.
Pawnbroking establishments, assert
ed Mr.. Pollard, furnish facilities for
the commission of crimes and for their
concealment. and are especially the
subject of proper regulation. lie also
pointed out that. the Legislature has
attempted regulation Of these con-
Germs by special enactment
Other Cases In Court.
The case of Walter. etc. vs.. Whit
acre. begun on Monday. was argued
yesterday by Robert NJ Ward, of Win
chester. and George Il. Sipe, of Harri-
sonburg. for the appellee, and by r.
T. Barton. of Winchester, for the APP
pellants. and submitted.
The first case to be called this morn
ing is that of Moss VS.. the county OF
Tazewell, this being the last privi-
legged cause on the docket. The calling
of the regular argument docket will
then begin.