Horning v. District of Columbia, No. 77

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtHOLMES
Citation41 S.Ct. 53,65 L.Ed. 185,254 U.S. 135
Docket NumberNo. 77
Decision Date22 November 1920
PartiesHORNING v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

254 U.S. 135
41 S.Ct. 53
65 L.Ed. 185
HORNING

v.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

No. 77.
Argued Nov. 8 and 9, 1920.
Decided Nov. 22, 1920.

Mr. Henry E. Davis, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Messrs. Robert L. Williams, F. H. Stephens, and P. H. Marshall, all of Washington, D. C., for the District of Columbia.

Page 136

Mr. Justice HOLMES delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case comes here upon a writ of certiorari granted to review a judgment of the Court of Appeals that affirmed a conviction of the petitioner of doing business as a pawnbroker and charging more than six per cent. interest, without a license, which is forbidden by the Act of Congress of February 4, 1913, c. 26, 37 Stat. 657. 48 App. D. C. 380.

The external facts are not disputed. The defendant had been in business as a pawnbroker in Washington but anticipating the enactment of the present law removed his headquarters to a place in Virginia at the other end of a bridge leading from the city. He continued to use his former building as a storehouse for his pledges but posted notices on his office there that no applications for loans would be received or examination of pledges made there. He did, however, maintain a free automobile service from there to Virginia and offered to intending borrowers the choice of calling upon him in person or sending their application and security by a dime messenger service not belonging to him but established in his Washington building. If the loan was made, in the latter case the money and pawn ticket were brought back and handed to the borrower in Washington. When a loan was paid off the borrower received a redemption certificate, presented it in Washington and got back his pledge. The defendant estimated the number of persons applying to the Washington office for loans or redemption at fifty to seventy-five a day. His Washington clerk, a witness in his behalf, put it at from seventy-five to one hundred. We may take it that there was a fairly steady stream of callers, as is implied by the automobile service being maintained. It is said with reference to the charge of the judge to which we shall advert that there was a question

Page 137

for the jury as to the defendant's intent. But we perceive none. There is no question that the defendant intentionally maintained his storehouse and managed his business in the way described. It may be assumed that he intended not to break the law but only to get as near to the line as he could which he had a right to do, but if the conduct described crossed the line, the fact that he desired to keep within it will not help him. It means only that he misconceived the law.

As to whether the conduct described did contravene the law, it is urged that a pledgee has a right to keep the pledged property where he likes and as he likes provided he returns it in proper condition when redeemed. But that hardly helps the defendant. To keep for return, whatever latitude there may be as to place and mode, is part of the duty of a pledgee, and in the case of one who makes a business of lending on pledges is as much a part of his business as making the loan. As we read the statute its prohibition is not confined to cases where the whole business is done in Washington. If an essential part of it is done there and a Washington office is used as a collecting centre, it does not matter that care is taken to complete every legal transaction on the other side of the Potomac. We cannot suppose that it was intended to allow benefits so similar to those coming from business done wholly in the city to be derived from acts done there and yet go free. We are of opinion that upon the undisputed evidence the defendant was guilty of a breach of the law and turn at once to the question which seemed to warrant allowing the case to be brought to this Court.

The question relates to the charge of the judge. The judge said to the jury that the only question for them to determine was whether they believed the concurrent testimony of the witnesses for the Government and the defendant describing the course of business that we have stated and as to which there was no dispute. Those facts,

Page 138

he correctly instructed them, constituted an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
245 practice notes
  • People v. Ross, Cr. 10533
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • July 20, 1967
    ...more probable.' 3 This statement is from the trial judge's charge. See footnote 2, supra. 4 See, e.g., Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135, 41 S.Ct. 53, 65 L.Ed. 185; Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 749, 49 S.Ct. 471, 73 L.Ed. 938; Aldridge v. United States, 283 U.S. 308, 315,......
  • People v. Williams, No. S066106.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • May 7, 2001
    ...the law. A jury has the ability to acquit a criminal defendant against the weight of the evidence. (Horning v. District of Columbia (1920) 254 U.S. 135, 138, 41 S.Ct. 53, 65 L.Ed. 185 ["the jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts"], not followed on other ......
  • State v. Jackson, No. SC93108.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 24, 2014
    ...suffered any wrong it was purely formal since, as we have said, on the facts admitted there was no doubt of his guilt.Horning v. D.C., 254 U.S. 135, 138–39, 41 S.Ct. 53, 65 L.Ed. 185 (1920). This uncharacteristic usurpation of the jury's role was noted at the time, id. at 139, 41 S.Ct. 53 (......
  • Brown v. United States, No. 18005.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • November 9, 1964
    ...But it does not, in my opinion, require a reversal here. My view is supported by high authority. In Horning v. District of Columbia, 1920, 254 U.S. 135, 41 S.Ct. 53, 65 L.Ed. 185, defendant was charged with violation of a District of Columbia law forbidding pawnbroking at interest in excess......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
245 cases
  • People v. Ross, Cr. 10533
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • July 20, 1967
    ...more probable.' 3 This statement is from the trial judge's charge. See footnote 2, supra. 4 See, e.g., Horning v. District of Columbia, 254 U.S. 135, 41 S.Ct. 53, 65 L.Ed. 185; Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 749, 49 S.Ct. 471, 73 L.Ed. 938; Aldridge v. United States, 283 U.S. 308, 315,......
  • People v. Williams, No. S066106.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • May 7, 2001
    ...the law. A jury has the ability to acquit a criminal defendant against the weight of the evidence. (Horning v. District of Columbia (1920) 254 U.S. 135, 138, 41 S.Ct. 53, 65 L.Ed. 185 ["the jury has the power to bring in a verdict in the teeth of both law and facts"], not followed on other ......
  • State v. Jackson, No. SC93108.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • June 24, 2014
    ...suffered any wrong it was purely formal since, as we have said, on the facts admitted there was no doubt of his guilt.Horning v. D.C., 254 U.S. 135, 138–39, 41 S.Ct. 53, 65 L.Ed. 185 (1920). This uncharacteristic usurpation of the jury's role was noted at the time, id. at 139, 41 S.Ct. 53 (......
  • Brown v. United States, No. 18005.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • November 9, 1964
    ...But it does not, in my opinion, require a reversal here. My view is supported by high authority. In Horning v. District of Columbia, 1920, 254 U.S. 135, 41 S.Ct. 53, 65 L.Ed. 185, defendant was charged with violation of a District of Columbia law forbidding pawnbroking at interest in excess......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT