The West Virginian. [volume] (Fairmont, W. Va.) 1914-1974, 1918-12-07
CITY loan GOflAlI'
GUILTY OF USUf
Commissioner Butcher VIII
Ascertain How Much
it Must Refund.
Y. CAN'T

In the case OF Harvey v. Giants
against the City Loan company, up-
der proprietorshIp Of Arthur o. May
an interesting conclusion has at last z
been reached. The case has occn-
pied considerable prominence In the
citys affairs and has been watched
by many. Judge Vincent, Of the M
termediate court, has rendered the
decision that the case was one cleaTl3
of usury In violation Of the statute
which allows not more than six Per
cent interest to be charged on a loan
Of money. The case is referred to
Commissioner S. II. Butcher, as the
City Loan company still refuses TO
disclose records of all proceedings OF
business between themselves and
Harvey V. Gantz. The commissioner
is to ascertain the amount due HaT@
vey CAN'T over and aboue the sig
per cent and report back to the Jud y
of the intermediate court IN oIde
that he may make final decree.
i. The exact amount due varies laeS
cordinS to the opinion of those who
have followed the case closely. There
are but few receipts in existence
which Gautz turne dover to his laws
yer, l. c. Murgrove- These receipts
tell little or nothing. some OF them
stating that maount has been paid s
full, some merely receipting foE
money paid with no amounts given.
and even the dates upon these re-
ceiptS are insufficient for any work
ing basis.
In November. 1915. Harvey v.
Gantz appeared at the City Loan COM
pany's office. upstairs on Madison
street, and asked for a loan Of SIS.
After signing papers which he merely
glanced at. he was given $45 the
other three being interest which
Gantz signed for as having recetEsd-
For the loan Of SIS he paid So In T-ls
est. No copy OF any contract WIS
given Gantz. nor would the City Loan
company show copy of the contraact
to the lawyer representing CAN'T
Gantz returned to the City Loan
Office more times than he can remem-
Der to pay installments on his bor-
rowed money. Each time he came TO
the Office, which was usually every
two weeks. on pay day. after he had.
secured a JOB at the Monongah Glass
works. he paid what the City Loan
called the interest on his SIS. Each
month that he lacked an amount nee
essary to pay % his Indebtedness he
signed new contract. borrowing the
SIS over again. 1t cost him three dols
lars to renew the lean each time, and
as he never quite paid the entire
every month, he was continually pay
ing interest. The remarkable part
of the entire business lay in the fact
that Gantz seemed puzzled but per-
suaded that the miserable business
must go on ofrever. he never got any
nearer to reaching the goal After
paying out somewhere near $685.
friends became interested in the mat
ter and lawsuit was Commenced
aginst the City Loan company on
January 20, 1917
During trial IN the caes some very
interesting disclosures were brougae
to light The Loan company claimed
they had loaned Gantz S255 or m
neighborhood Of that. They said they
never sent any assignment to
Monongah GIas sconpany. for 11I
Gantz worked; that in the event
party not paying when due, they
vestfgated and if convinced the par
was honest, allowed him plenty OF
time. They claimed to haye.a record
of all TRANSACTIONS. but refused
show this record to the court
AS thirty days are granted the
Loan company before SQcn aLSSu2Ss
nuts be shown, the wtnd-up
case can scarcely come OF coUr be-
fore May. Gantz wa some year n
two months trying to pay back
SIS and seemed no nearer the end
than at first. When he failed to come
; in at last, the Loan company thre
ened TO sue for their SIS: Flgu
up interest at three doLlaFsfo
SIS borrowed and multiply
| II months by this, makes ths
amount to S42. The CftyI
I pany claims that each 81
/ borrowed. Kenneth Bar
sented the City Loan comp
beginning and la4=r Fer
took up the matter Tor the
A recuperatye oaet
FsorlIclFs Mailed