Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1949-10-26
District Judges
TakeReversa|
.ToHighCou
Insist Appeals Bench
Had No Right to Act
In Bondsmun's Case

The judges of District Court
have complained to the Supreme
Court that the United States
Court of Appeals is taking hand.
without right. in running the BAIL
bond business in the District.
The complaint. in well-man-
nered legal language, was filed on
behalf of all the judges yesterday
by Solicitor General Philip B.
Perlman.
Specifically, the District Court
jurists asked the Supreme Court
to review Court of Appeals YER
dict reversing them in their denial
of bondsman's authorization to
John w. Carter, 40. colored, Of
the 1900 block of Girard street
NE.
The petitions title carries this
imposing legend
"Bolitha j. Laws, chief judge,
and Jennings Bailey, F. Dickinson
Let's, T. Alan Goldsborough,
James w. Morris. David A. Pine,
Matthew F. Mcclure, Henry A.
SchWeinhaut, Alexander Holtzoff.
Richmond B. Keech, Edward M.
Curran and Edward A. Tamm,
District judges. comprising the
United States District Court for
the District of Columbia, petition
ers, v. John w. Carter"
District Court Overruled.
Although his name trails dis
tinguished list, Mr.. Carter is in a
solid position at the moment.
Until the Supreme Court acts, the
Court of Appeals decision is the
last word.
The Court of Appeals decided
August l that District Court was
wrong in revoking the approval
of Mr.. Carriers application given
November 10, 1947 The approval
was Withdrawn December 10,
1947, after the lower court found
what it held to be discrepancy
in the application concerning Mr..
Carter's police record.
The application then reverted
to its status prior to the earlier
approval. And, on June 8, 1948,
District Court turned down Mr..
Carriers request for permission to
write bail bonds. He appealed.
The Court of Appeals held Dis
trict Court erred and reversed the
lower court.
Refused Appeals Hearing.
The II judges then sitting in
District Court tried to get hear
ing from the Court of Appeals in
connection with Mr.. Carter's ap-
peal, but the appellate court re-
fused this.
| :, Now, the same II judges have
told the Supreme Court that the
Court Of Appeals was wrong-that
Mr.. Carter had no right to go di-
rectlys to the higher court, be.
cause bonding authorizations are
an administrative function of Dis
trict Court. The petition insisted:
THE conduct of that courts adj
ministrative business-whether it
be the appointment of court
clerks, commissioners, members of
the Board of Education or the
PRONUNCIATION of practice rules, or
the qualification of bondsmen
conducting business in that court
is normally not a matter for
any review or supervision by other
tribunals"
The District Court judges con-
tended that the Court of Appeals
should not have denied them an
opportunity to be heard in mat
ter in which they had a prime
interest.
Approval Withdrawn.
Mr.. Carriers troubles began
when he answered mo" to a ques-
ton on the application form
which inquired whether he ever
had been charged and/or con-
victed Of any offense involving
moral turpitude.
District Court withdrew it's ap-
; proval after discovering that he
had been charged with receiving
stolen property and with violating
gambling laws. but was not con-
victed of any of these offenses.
> Mr.. Carriers attorneys insisted
that the answer was given in good
faith-that his Interpretation was
that it was asking him, in effect.
only about offenses charged and
carried through to conviction.
District Court held this was not
a reasonable Interpretation of the
question and that Mr. Carter,S