Evening star., 1949-05-29
I'D. {. Court Judges
Ask 10 Be Heard in
Bondsman S Appeal

Ine UflASG STATES l4Asgi O. Ass'
peals was asked yesterday 20 Allos
the u Judges OF Distract Court tc
file q nrie. and present csal arxa-
ment on an appeal taken by a mar
whose apaleataon 10 engage II
bonding criminal cases IN Dsssyaci
Court vas denied In the loves
court. The request In behalf O.
the judges Was made IN q paper
flied by Solicitor General reraman
The lower court at nrsa granted
. oondSnan's license TO John W
Carter. 90, colored. iaoe block O!
Girard street NE. but later re-
voked il and then denied his rein
statement application. This was
done on grounds that Mr.. Carter
had incorrectly stated he had
never been charged with an o..
tense involving moral turpisude
AL the charges against Mr.
Carter. including one OF receiving
stolen property. were eventually
dismissed and he was never con-
victed. His attorneys. James A.
Cobb and George Z. C. Hayes. con-
tend that only the charge con-
cerning stolen property involved
moral turpitude.
Mr.. Carter's bondsman's appli-
cation originally was made and
revoked in l9<7, The reinstate-
ment application was denied last
year.
A technical point made by Mr..
Carter's counsel is that a COM
posite question which asked
whether he had ever been charged
"and or convicted" OF a charse
turpitude was answered
IN the negative, They contend
that only the question of whether
he had been convicted was i'm
portant.
Mr.. Carter, through counsel.
appealed TO the Court Of Appeals
and arguments on the appeal
were heard May II. The paper
filed yesterday. through the Solici-
tor General. asked the Court of
Appeals not to decide the case
until after receiving the judges
brief and hearing oral argument.
The paper declared the lower
courts action was an admins
Irative matter and that the Court
Of Appeals lacks Jurisdiction to
act on the appeal.
The paper also said the Dis
trict Court judges feel the res
OF the question involved In
the present case will vitality af-
feet the proper administration OF
criminal justice In the District
Court for which they bear the
primary responsibility =.
Declaring the Court of Appeals
should dismiss the appeal, the
paper declared:
go The granting or denial by
the District Court OF an applica-
ton to engage In the bonding bus
mess pertains to the administra- =
tive functions Of that court especi-
ally entrusted 1t by Congress and
does not constitute a judicial de-
cision renewable here"
The paper adds not only Is 1t
unnecessary for the court to grant
a hearing to bonding business ap-
plicants or to inform them OF de-
information available to
the court. but 1t would seriously
the effective and salu-
tary administration Of the pro-
fessional bondsmen statute
II such requirements were TO be
The petition to the appellate
court In behalf of the judges said
Mr.. Carter had been fully heard
through his attorneys" and was
permitted to present evidence be-
fore his license was revoked In
December. l947."
Elsewhere. the paper said that
If the denial Of the application BE
thought to be subject to scrutiny
in any way in the court, 1t must
be through a proper proceeding
in the nature OF a mandamus or
for a mandatory injunction in
which the petitioner alleges and
proves arbitrary or capricious ac-
ton or a gross abuse Of discretion