The Washington herald., 1914-04-01
SHARKS agree
TO LOSE CASH
Thirteen Loan Companies
Plead Guilty and Pledge
Return of Interest.
EACH PAYS $100 FINE
Sentence of Thirty Days in Jail and
5000 Penalty Imposed. but
Suspended.
EACH PAYS s1OO FINE

Managers of thirteen so-called '1oan
shark companies appeared in Police
Court yesterday morning before Judge
Mullowny and pleaded guilty to two
charges each for violation Of the loan
shark" law, in compliance with the stipu-
lations OF the compromise agreement re-
Gently reached between representatives
of the companies and the Corporation
Counsers Office.
According to the terms Of the agree
ment the companies will return to the
borrowers. making application therefor.
all interest charged and collected since
March 6, 1919 and in other cases accept
only three-quarters of the principal in
discharge of the loan.
A fine of 800 was imposed on each Of
the defendant managers by the court
for the first count, and fine OF 500
with a Jail sentence Of thirty days for
the second count was imposed and sus-
pended as agreed.
Those who pleaded guilty and were
sentenced were:
Charles l. Kidd. charged with violating
the law November ls, 1918, and in the
second count as manager Of the Surety
Loan Company. for violating the law
September Is, 1913.
Edward L. Whitford. charged with vio-
lating the law February ., 1914, and, in
the second count, as manager of the
Arlington Loan Company, for violating
the law December %, 1913.
Harry W. Lee charged with violating
the law January 2. 1914 and. in the sec
ond count, as manager of the Mutual
Loan Company for violating the law
January Is, 1919
nj u nad n
lating the law December Is. 1913. and, in
the second count. as manager of the Re-
lance Loan Company. for violating the
law, May g. 1918.
Each Pays 800 Fine.
Leo b. Abernathy. charged with vio-
lating the law November 16, ls13 and
in the second count as manager OF the
Potomac Finance Company, for violating
the law May 2. 1913.
d. d. Dockety. charged with violating
the law December - 1913, and in the
second count as manager of the Peoples
Loan Company, for violating the law
June q 1918.
Joseph J. Wood. charged with violating
the law October 30, 1913, and in the sec
ond count as manager of the Household
Loan Company, for violating the law
October g, 1913.
Mark H. Grinder. charged with violat-
ing the law August TO- 1918, and in the
second count as manager OF the Ameri-
can Loan Company, for violating the
law July Is, 1913.
Josiah F. McMulIen, charged with vio-
lating the law November Is. 1913. and in
the second count as manager OF the New
York Loan Company. for violating the
law October 16. 1873
Mitchell L. Dobbyn. charged with vio-
lating the law November 2, 1918, and in
the second count as manager of the
Union Loan Company, for violating the
law March is, 1913.
Donald II. Rose, charged with violating
the law January 6. 1913, and in the Sec
ond count as manager OF the Washington
Loan Company, for violating the law
April 5. 1913.
James F. Neale, charged with violating
the law January g. 1913, and in the sec
ond count as manager of the Capitol
Loan Company, for violating the law
June 1s 1913
John A. Balm. charged with violating
the law July Z, 1913 and in the second
count as manager of the Columbia Loan
Company, for violating the law December
II, 1913.
Each of the defendants paid the 800
fine and received back the collateral de-
posted at the time of their arrest.
Other Cases Follow.
THE action taken in the Police Court
today" said Corporation Counsel Smye, in
commenting on the settlement, ''practi-
caIly closes the loan-shark business in
Washington.
Each of the accused persons or COM
panies arraigned plead guilty to two in
formations under which fines of 800 and
Jail sentence of thirty days were i'm
posed
THE Jail sentence was suspended pro-
vided no further soffenses were committed
and that the defendants should abide by
their stipulation to accept upon request
75 per cent Of the money actually loaned
without interest and to refund the illegal
interest already collected The cases Of
the few remaining offenders will be dis
posed OF promptly.
This result has been reached only after
the corporation counsel's office has gone
much further than its duty actually re-
uuired in securing relief IN these cases.
II was its duty to see that violations of
the law were punished. 1t was not its
duty to enforce civil relief. 1t secured
all