Evening star., 1951-07-20
District Court
Reversed in Ban
On Bondsr1an
Appeals Ruling Holds
License Denial InvoIid
Without Hearing

BY a 4-to-3 decision, the Unit
ed States Court of Appeals today
held that District Court has no
right to deny a professional
bondsmans application for re-
newal Of his license unless he
is given a hearing.
The appellate court sat en- banc
"a majority of its members pres
er1t-an unusual move in appeals
court cases.
The ruling was made in a jur-
isdictional dispute which has been
|simmering between the two
courts since 1947. 1t involved the
right of the appeals court to in
Itervene in what the lower court
termed administrative rulings.
The decision came in the case
Iof John w. Carter, So, colored.
whose application for renewal OF
his bondsman's license had been
denied in District Court.
Mr.. Carter's case has been
bouncing back and forth between
the courts since his original ap-
Iplication was approved on Febru-
larry l8, 1947, and then his right
to operate withdrawn a few weeks
later.
The Court of Appeals ruled at
that time that the District Court
had no right to withdraw Mr..
Carter's license once it had been
granted. After the two-year Ii
cense period was over. the District
Court turned down his application
flor renewal, stating as the reason
that "he lacks the qualifications
for a bondsman."
Edgerton Writes Opinion.
An original three-judge ruling
of the appellate court held that
1.-THE District Court should have
told Mr.. Carter what qualifica-
tions he lacked, and given him a
chance to defend himself.
The Supreme Court refused to
hear the case, and the District
Judges asked the Appeals Court
to allow them to intervene in
body in a rehearing, and asked
the court to sit en- banc. The
motion was denied, but a later
motion that the court sit en- banc
was allowed.
The opinion written today by
Judge Henry w. Edgerton, and
concurred in by Judges David l..
iBazelon and Charles Fahy. upheld
the original three judge opinion.
4 A separate opinion, concurring
in the result, but differing in the
lway in which it was reached, was
written by Judge Wilbur K. Miller.
Judge Miller held that Mr.. Carter
. had a property right in his license,
and that property right could not
be taken away without due process.
FBI Report Involved.
Judge E. Barrett Prettymarf.
with Chief Judge Harold M. Ste
phens and Judge James M. Proc
tor concurring, disagreed with the
majority opinion. Judge Pretty
man wrote:
"We are of the opinion that
this court has no jurisdiction to
review orders of the District Court
upon original applications for
authority to write these bonds or
upon applications for renewals
thereof, except where an abuse
of discretion by that court is
charged"
The dispute revolved around an
iFBI report, the contents of which
have not been revealed.
In 1917, when Mr.. Carter orig
linally applied for his license. he
STATED that ne had never been
charged and/or convicted" Of
any offense involving moral turpi-
tude. Later, it was discovered
that he had been arrested twice
lin 1928 on gambling charges and
once in 1885 on a charge of re-
ceiving stolen property. In each
instance. there was no convic-
] ticn
i Judge David A. Pine put Mr..
Carter's application back in the
pending" file, and asked the FBI
to investigate. The FBI entered
the purely local case with the
understanding that its report
would be kept confidential.
When the report was received.
Judge Pine refused to grant Mr..
Carter a license, and the judge
Iimpounded the FBI papers. The
judge would not reveal contents
of the papers at subsequent hear
tingS.
| The case now goes back to Dis
Itrict Court for further proceed
Iings not inconsistent with that
Court of Appeals) decision"