Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1913-11-04
AN APPEAL IS SOUGHT
IN PAWNBROKER CASE
Attempt to Have U. S. Su-
preme Court Pass on Va
|idity of District Law.

The question of the constitutionality of
the new loan shark law may reach the
United States Supreme Court for determi-
nation. Counsel for William n. Prender,
a resident of Alexandria county, Va,
whose application for writ of manda-
mus to compel the issuance to him of a
paWnbroker'S license was denied yeSter-
day by the District Court of Appeals
when that tribunal declared in favor of
the validity of the new enactment, today
applied to the appellate court to allow
him writ of error to the Supreme Court
of the United States.
Attorneys Tucker, Kenyon q Macfar-
land and E. S. Bailey. for the would-be
pawnbroker under the old law, on the
theory of the invalidity of the new act
presented to the court a motion to grant
the writ of error. Chief Justice Shepard
directed the filing of the motion, which
the court will take under consideration.
Denied in Like Case.
The action of the Court of Appeals in
reference to the application will be
awaited with interest. In a similar case
early in the present year this court de-
MED such application it is pointed out
on the theory that appeals or writs of
error do not lie to the United States Su-
preme Court when there Is called into
question the conStitutlonallty OF an en-
actment applicable only to the District
of Columbia Counsel in that case
United Surety Company. VS.. American
Fruit Products Company-then applied
to Chief Justice White of the United
States Supreme Court, who granted the
pending in the highest court in the land.
In his application for writ of error
Mr. Prender calls attention to the con-
stiIutional question involved In MS SUIT
and claims the right under section go
of the judicial code to have a review
by the United States Supreme Court of
the decision of the Court of Appeals. The
section invoked provides for appeals
where the constitutionality of a law of
the United States is called III question.
Fruit Products Case Cited.
He also cites the action of the Court
of Appeals in the Fruit Products case,
in which that tribunal, in denying the
application for a writ of error, held that
section go applied only to cases where
the constitutionality was questioned of
an act the application of which was gen.
eral and not confined to the District
alone. Mr.. Prender suggests that as the
Chief Justice of the United States SUI
preme Court later granted a review he
must have entertained different opin-
ion of the law. This opposite view, he
now proposes, should govern the action
of the Dist; let Court of Appeals and the
writ should be granted.
Immediate Prosecution Ordered.
Convinced that the decision handed
down yesterday by Chief Justice Shep-
ard of the District Court of Appeals up.
holding the validity of the loan shark
law covers every point in the contro-
versy as to the constitutionality Of the
act, Conrad H. Syme, the Districts new
corporation counsel, today issued instruc-
lions for the immediate prosecution of all
cases pending in the Police Court in
which money lenders are charged with
violation of TIE law.
Not only does Mr.. Syme consider the
decision a sweeping victory. but the same
opinion is entertained by Francis Fl.
Stephens assistant corporation counsel.
the decision of Justice Shepard was made.
This case grew out of a proceeding for
mandamus instituted by William n.
Prender of Alexandria, Va, to compel
the District Commissioners TO grant him
license as a pawnbroker under the old
law, on the theory that the new enact
rnent was invalid.
Pending a decision by the Court of APP
peals, prosecution of loan shark cases
in the Police Court has been at stand
still. Not only will these cases now be
taken up. but it was stated today that all
violations of the law brought to the at
tention of the corporation counsel by the
police department will be prosecuted
without delay.