Evening star., 1923-01-20
MILLION DOLLAR"
: GROCER IS FINED
Court Rules That Store at
, Connecticut Avenue Bridge
h. Violates Zone Law.

What is known to the members OF
the District OF Columbia bar as the
million dollar grocery store case" test
case under the new coming laws, was
decided today in an opinion handed
down by Judge Robert Hardison, in
the District of Columbia Branch OF
Police Court, in favor of the govern
mept.
The defendant in the case is Theo-
dore MarcopuIos, proprietor of a gro
Gerry store located at 2606 Connecticut
avenue northwest. at the north end Of
the Connecticut Avenue bridge, from
which the case takes its name.
Judge Hardison read his written
opinion, in which he reviewed the
case and, in conclusion, oyerruled the
motion filed to auash and found the
defendant guilty as charged in yio-
lating the coming laws and fined him
a. nominal fine of $40: p. H. Mar
shall, representing the defendant.
asked that the suspension of sentence
be made of record and gave notice
Of his intention of applying TO the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
for q writ of error, with the purpose
of carrying the case for fnal adjudi-
cation to that court. w. Gwynn
Gardiner and j. Tomlinson were the
other attorneys representing the de-
fendanE and the property owner,
while Gillespie Walsh, assistant cor
poration counsel, represented the Dis
trict.
Built Prior to Zone Law.
The action was brought under the
act of Congress of March 1. 1920.
known as the coming law" restrict
ing certain sections OF the city to
residential uses and other sections
which the defendant operates his
store is the property of a Mr..
Schwartz and was erected in COM
pliance of the laws regulating build
ings prior to the passage or going
into effect OF the zoning law. In
August 10, 1921, the defendant opened
grocery store IN the building and
continues to conduct the place as a
the building as a business house had
been erected in accordance with the
then existing laws has been passed
upon by the Dis trict of Columbia
In the affirmative. The case is now
before the United States Supreme
Court on appeal prosecuted by the
District OF Columbia government to
sustain the coming law.
Others May BE Affected.
The contention of the attorneys for
fhe defendant is that if the owner of
Inc DuilullS compiled With the law q {
the time OF the erection of the struc-
ture. prior TO the passage OF the coming
law, II can be used for business pur-
poses. II IL also shown that the de-
fendant made appl! cation for permit to
continue the operation of the place of
business. but that the zoning commits
sion refused TO grant the permit. as the
htore is in residential section and
prohibited by the coming laws The
fact that Mrs. SchW Wartz complied with
The law when she built the storeroon,
the attorneys for defendant hold. car.
ries with il the right of the defendant
as tenant to operate the place as a
store regardless of the coming law,
which is subsequent act passed after
The building had been erected as a
storeroom.
The court held that the Iawmaking
powers had the vested authority to
make regulations covering such a
case in point.
On the final adjudication of this
case hangs the aboiishment or con-
unuance OF large number of places
or business now operating in the
residential sections, and which the
District OF Columbia government ON
Gals and the coming commissioners
hold are being Operated in direct vfo-
Iatlon of the coming laws. The de-
eision of the UniJed States Supreme
Court in this case pending before it.
involving the principle of the law
will be looked for with interest by
all concerned.