Evening star., 1939-10-29
Landlords
Continued From First Page }

Landlords
Continued From First Page.)
by the court. and $431 1896 repre-
sented fees taken in by the United
States Marshals Office. The total
charged by some landlords is not
known but in some cases landlords
have assessed So in each case filed
for expenses incident to bringing
the suits and 6l7,124 cases were filed
in the II years ending June 80,
1899. A committee of the Washing
ton Housing Association reported
that practically all" this money
was ultimately collected from the
defendants.
Half of Defendants Receive Aid.
These persons are called by the
Washington Housing Association
members of low income groups y
The term, commonly employed BY
social agencies, hardly describes
their plight to the layman. A sur
vey by the association showed that
more than so per cent of the de-
PENDANTS in the landlord and ten
ant branch had received from social
agencies assistance or service of
some kind during the five years,
l934-30. inclusive. In 1888 alone
the period of the study, 25 per cent
received some form of help.
The tenants sued in the branch,
the association reports, live in
houses with rents ranging between
$40 and $50 monthly. In some cases,
an average of 81 persons live in a
one-room dwelling unit. Some have
no running water inside the house.
The, landlord and tenant branch
for years has provided the major
share of Municipal Courts total re-
ceipts. Since 1922 the court not
only has been self sustaining but
has even made an enormous profit
due to the excessive charges i'm
posed upon the thousands of al
most destitute persons sued in
landlord and tenant, The total
receipts in Municipal Court from
1922 to 1899 were 81 l584.446 Is while
the expenditures were s1,3l4,53025-
a profit of s269,9l591. These are
official figures Of the District audit
or's office.
$270,OOO Clear Profit.
Thus, in 204 months the court took
from these thousands of involuntary
litigants nearly $27o,OOO in clear
profit-needless as far as the oper-
ating expenses of the court is con-
cerned. This is about $1,000 per
month for II years 1t means that
every month the children of these
persons could have been given 10000
quarts of milk with this money. 1t
would have bought $50 pairs of
shoes every month for these children
1t would have bought $1,000 10-cent
loaves of bread every month. These
poverty-stricken people have paid
dearly for their bit of justice in
Landlord and Tenant
OF the total receipts in this 17-year
period. the Landlord and Tenant
Branch has provided approximately
$8l2.536. Only S61,712 of this sum
is approximated-money from fees
for writs of restitution-the court
not keeping breakdown in these
figures. This branch, therefore, has
provided we'll over so per cent of the
total revenue of the court for II
years. Considering the profit made,
the receipts from Landlord and Ten
ant could have been 33 per cent less
and the court still would have stayed
lin the black"
Yet, while being charged with one
half the receipts. these thousands in
Landlord and Tenant have received
services that appear ridiculous in
comparison with those received by
other litigantS These thousands,
ignorant of the technicalities of the
law and in need more than any group
of wise and patient counsel from the
bench, have received maximum of
about one-fifteenth of the judges
attention from the bench. At pres
ent there are five judges sitting in
the court. Figuring that each judge
sits three hours daily, total of Is
hours are spent on the bench by all.
Yet one judge has devoted only one
hour a day to the poor Richards
seeking helping hand in Landlord
and Tenant.
In this brief span of one hour
and in truth the time is more nearly
one-half an hour-the judge has
been handling between $50 and 200
cases daily-two or three cases a
minute. Only about one-third of the
defendants, however, appear in
court, judgments being granted in
the other cases by default. A COM
mittee of the housing association
commented that "the hearing of
these cases has degenerated into a
mere roll call"