Com. v. Morris

• Citation: 176 Mass. 19,56 N.E. 896
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. MORRIS et al.
• Decision Date: 28 March 1900
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

176 Mass. 19

56 N.E. 896

COMMONWEALTH v. MORRIS et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

March 28, 1900

COUNSEL

Nason &amp Proctor and Dewing & Cutler, for appellants.

John D McLaughlin, 2d Asst. Dist. Atty., for the Commonwealth.

OPINION

LATHROP J.

While there are many grounds of objection taken in the court below to the validity of the complaint and the statute upon which it is founded, we shall confine ourselves to those insisted upon at the argument before us.

1. The statute in question is St. 1898, c. 577, entitled, 'An act relative to small loans and the redemption of the security therefor.' The defendants contend that the statute is vague, defective, uncertain, and silent upon essential points, and hence void. In support of this proposition it is urged that the complaint is under sections 1 and 10 of the act above referred to, and that section 1 sets out no penalty, and section 10 does not define the offense. We agree that section 1 does not set out a penalty but we do not agree that section 10 does not set out an offense. Section 10 provides, 'Any person or persons not being duly licensed as provided in this act who, on his or their own account, or on account of any other person or persons, co-partnership or corporation not so licensed, shall engage in or carry on, directly or indirectly, either separately or in connection with or as part of any other business, the business of making loans to which the provisions of this act apply, shall be punished by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the house of correction not more than sixty days, or by both such fine and imprisonment.' The fact that we have to look to other sections of the statute to ascertain the provisions as to a license, and to what loans the statute applies, does not render the statute defective, vague, and uncertain. While section 1 says nothing about a penalty, it does not prohibit a person, corporation, or partnership 'engaged in the business of making loans' from making 'any loan secured by mortgage or pledge of household furniture or other personal property exempt from attachment, or by assignment of wages for personal service, for less than two hundred dollars and at a rate of interest greater than twelve per cent without first having obtained a license for carrying on such business in the city or town in which such business is transacted.' This section applies to single loans, while section 10 applies to the engaging in or carrying on of the business of making such loans. The offense alleged must be proved by showing a number of distinct acts of the kind forbidden in section 1. It is next contended that the statute is silent as to the period of time for which the charging of more than 12 per cent. is unlawful, and that therefore the statute is vague...