Evening star., 1925-01-19
CUSTER Of TENANT
REFUSED BY COURT
Judge MattingIy Adheres to
Original Decision in Fink
Peck Case.

Judge Robert f. MattingIy OF the
Municipal Court today refused to
grant possession of an apartment at
211A Morgan street. sued for by Mrs.
Frances F.. Peck against Jacob II.
Fink, in the fare of a recent decision
by the District Court OF Appeals.
which reversed his former decision.
declining to grant possession. and re-
manded the case for further proceed
ings, not inconsistent with the find
ing of the appellate tribunal that the
housing emergency had passed and
that there is no constitutional basis
Tor legislation extending the life OF
the Ball rent act.
Judge Mattingly declared that he
has the greatest respect for the decis-
ION OF the higher court, which based
ITS opinion on the Chastleton case
in the United States Supreme Court.
The Chastleton case was not decide ed
on the sole issue of the passing of the
war emerS encyr said Judge Mattingly,
and the remarks of the court in reIa
tion TO 1t were mere dictum and not
controlling. He reiterated his former
ruling and denied the motion of At
torney Louis Gutenberg for the owner
for possession.
Must Ask Review.
Attorneys +. Hilton Jackson and
John l.. krupsaw. representing the
tenant, were as much surprised as
a Attorney Gutenberg when the court
declined to follow the Court OF An
peals, as they expected judgment
to issue as a matter of course. from
which they would have had to ask
the Court OF Appeals for writ Of
Iorney Gutenberg must request the
Court of Appeals to review the new
decision.
With all regard to the Supreme
Court of the United States and to the
Court of Appeals" said Judge Mat
unsly, and we all know the formers :
history and the great fight that occurred
IN opposition to its endeavor to read
new law into the Constitution in mast
years, I say that without having tbis
question before them, for them to de-
eide the Rent Commission, the rent Law
and the act Of Congress unconstitutional
py SAYING on facts we judiciaIly know
without having the issue before them
at ALL do not know what to sav-it
is not proper With great respect to the
courts, l again follow my original de-
cision."
To Put Case to Court.
Attorney Gutenberg declared this
afternoon that he will call to the at
tentton of Justice Robb. who rendered
the opinion of the Court of Appeals
the refusal of Judge Mattingiy ia
follow the mandate of the Appellate
court The lawyer declined to saw
what he would ask the higher court
to do. but asserted the matter wouId
be called to the attention of the tuS
uces or that tribunal and action was
then up to them
IN the course of his decision. re-
fuslng to grant a judgment for nos
session, Judge Mattingly said:
This court has no pride of per-
sonal opinion and as far as am per-
sonally concerned, l would have pre-
terred the case taking its regular
course before some other branch NJ
the court. and let final action he
taken there. but that was not to he
The Chastleton decision, as | under
stand II and as l comprehend II 81
the time, did not have solely before il
the question of the existence Of an
emergency or the constitutionalitv of
the Ball law
There were other issues raised in
that case they were to decide. and
upon which ii went TO that court
and, therefore, / say that in NV opin-
ION they did not have the question OF
emergency as war measure or any
other kind of measure before them
for decision. Notwithstanding the
statement that 'on facts they Judi
cially know OF knew, there was no
further emergency, they sent it back
to the Supreme Court of the District
of Colum bia. l believe it was TO or
to Judge Stafford, good man and
true, to determine whether an emer.
gency existed on evidence When il
was brought before him he sent i,
out to determine the facts and de
cided it should be done, but up tc
this time, it has never been done. be.
cause of the confused condition.
Judge Stafford is non-plussed him
Continued on Page 9, Column 81