The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1912-11-07
LOAN SHARK CASE
IN HIGHEST COURT
City Fighting to Regulate Usuri-
Gus Practices of Certain
Private Bankers.
CASE SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS
Eubank Case, Involving Building
Line Ordinance Comes
Up Next Week.


legged loan sharks" or private Bankers.
who charge in excess Of the legal rate
Of interest on loans was submitted to
the United States Supreme Court at
Washington yesterday without argu-
ment. on briefs. City Attorney Pollard
was in Washington prepared to argue
the case, but when he found that l.
Henry Harris. attorney for the loan
Offices. would make no argument, he
agreed to submit the case on the pre-
pared briefs. The case is known on
the docket IS the City of Richmond
against Bradley and others, and final
decision is expected shortly. The va
lidity Of the city's regulation has been
upheld BY the Virginia Supreme Court
Of Appeals. from which tribunal the
bankers appealed to the Supreme Court
of the United States.
Tax In $500.
Some years ago the Council Of the
city OF Richmond imposed an annual
license on loan offices of $500. which
amount has been assessed each year
since the passage OF the ordinance
The loan offices claimed that such
tax was prohfbitory and exceeded the
police power of the city. Lyon &
Co. Bradley Co.. Virginia Loan
Company. Thompson & Co. Purvis &
Co, Tidewater Loan and Trust Com
pany. Richmond Loan ONCE and ID. H.
Tolman were reported to the Police
Court for doing business in this city
without having paid the required IL
cense and were fined They appealed
to the Hastings Court of the city of
Richmond where the judgment of the
Police Court was sustained. A further
appeal to the Supreme Court OF Fir-
ginia, in which the loan offices were
represented by Smith, Moncure Cor
don, of this city, and in which 1t was
contended that the imposition Of such
a license was confiscatory and in ex-
resulted in the judgment OF the Hust-
ings Court being affirmed.
Appealed to Supreme Court.
On the broad constitutional ground
that the imposition of such a tax does
not give to the private bankers equal
rights to do business in this commu-
nifty. they appealed to the United States
Supreme Court, where they have been
represented by Attorney l. Henry Har-
ris. of Les Angeles. Many of the firms
mentioned above are located in the
larger Northern cities and have branch
Offices in Richmond. and it is stated
that Mr.. Harris has recently repre-
scented several of these firms in similar
proceedings in Connecticut. The city
contends that such business enterprises
are undesirable, in that working people
who do not put up collateral are
charged most exorbitant rates OF
monthly interest on small loans. the
total of interest payments in year,
il stated, having in some instances ex-
nf 1nan
The imposition Of a heavy tax, be-
lieved to be within the police power of
the city, was with the intention Of
wedding out the more undesirable Of
such places and having in operation a
lesser number. whose operations could
be kept under close supervision.
The Eubank Case.
The case of the suit Of the city OF
Richmond against Eubank is scheduled
to be argued before the Supreme Court
at Washington early next week, though
the date has not yet been set. 1t has
gone through the same course. Eubank
having been fined in the Police Court.
which action was sustained In the
Hastings Court and affirmed by the
State Supreme Court of Appeals. from
whioh appeal was made to the United
States Supreme Court on the ground
Oh alleged CODUSCatiOn VI pIOPc1tS
with out due process of law.
The case concerns the validity of the
city's building line ordinance. Under
the terms Of this ordinance the Com
mtttee on Streets Is empowered, upon
petition of the owners OF two-thirds
OF the property on any block, to fix a
line not less than i've nor more than
thirty feet back from the street, to
which line all buildings thereafter
erected on the block must conform.
The ordinance was passed at the in
stance Of cretain residential sections
to prevent the erection Of stores pro-
jecting TO the street line.
History Of Case.
J. E Eubank. a grocer at Twenty
seventh and Broad Streets. purchased
from James Sloan the old Bodeker
property, at the southeast corner of
Twenty-eighth and Grace streets, which
he remcdeled. erecting an annex or
bay window projecting beyond the line
already established by petition Of two
thirds OF the property owners on the
block In the Police Court he was or
dered - remove the projecting portion
OF his building back to the established
line The test case involves the valid
ity Of the whole statute by which =
building lire Is established City At
forney Pollard will be present TO argue
the case for the city whenever IL is
called lie Is row no stranger before
the Supreme Court having recently
won for the city a sweeping decision IN
the Western Union case, securing affir-
nation Of the validity Of the city's
underground ordinance, and a. a re.
suit Of tina. decision this unsightiy line
of poles and wires Of the telegraph
company will soon be removed from
Broad Street