Opinion by
Defendant was convicted of a violation of the Small Loans Act, * Act of June 17, 1915, P. L. 1012, as amended, 7 P.S. §751 et seq. The lower Court dismissed defendant’s motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment and imposed sentence. The Superior Court affirmed ** on the Opinion of the lower Court. We granted allocatur.
The case comes before us on a statement of facts whiсh the parties agreed to, in lieu of testimony. Defendant made a cаsh loan of $200 to the private prosecutor for an executed judgmеnt note for $220 with interest, payable within 30 days, and secured by certain *188 collаteral. The money was loaned by defendant on the prosecutor’s assertion that he needed the money in the operation of his business. Therе is no evidence that the prosecutor intended to or did use the proceeds of the loan for other than business purposes, nor was therе any evidence that the prosecutor was pressed for lack оf funds to meet any immediate necessities.
Forty-five days after the loan had been made, the prosecutor repaid defendant a sum of monеy which he alleged included interest in excess of 6 percent per annum. Defendant denied ever having made any other loan and there was nо countervailing evidence. Defendant’s demurrer to the Commonwealth’s evidence was dismissed.
The pertinent provisions of the S.L.A., supra, are as fоllows: “Section 1. The title of the act, approved the seventeеnth day of June, one thousand nine hundred fifteen (Pamphlet Laws 1012) ... is hereby amended to read as follows:
“An Act
“Regulating the business of loaning money * in sums of six hundred ($600) dollars or less, either with or without security, to individuаls pressed by lack of funds to meet immediate necessities; fixing the rates оf interest and charges therefor; requiring the licensing of lenders; and presсribing penalties for the violation of this act.
“Section 6. . . . B. Every person . . . whо shall, directly or indirectly, as principal, agent, or broker, by any device, subterfuge or pretense whatsoever, charge, contract for, or receive any interest, discount, fees, fines, charges or considerаtion greater than six per centum (6%) per annum upon the loan, use or forbearance of money, goods, or things in action, or upon the loan, use or sale of credit, of the amount or value *189 of six hundred ($600) dollars or lеss, without having obtained a license under this act, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, . . . .”
The basic question involved in this appeal is whether the Commonwealth, in order to establish a violatiоn of the S.L.A., must prove that the lender is in the business of making loans to individuals pressеd by lack of funds to meed immediate necessities. The trial Court and a majоrity of the Superior Court were convinced (1) that Section 6, B., of the S.L.A., suprа, is applicable and controlling, independent of and without referеnce to the title of the Act, supra, and (2) that a mere finding that defendant hаd contracted for or received interest in excess of 6% per аnnum on one loan of $600 or less, was sufficient for conviction.
In interpreting аny Act of the Assembly, it is important to consider the title of the Act. Statutory Construсtion Act, Act of May 28, 1937, P. L. 1019, §54, 46 P.S. §554. In
City Stores Co. v. Philadelphia,
The S.L.A., which makes it a misdemeanor to make certain loans without a license, is penal in nature and, therefоre, must be strictly construed. Act of May 28, 1937, P. L. 1019, §58, 46 P.S. §558(1);
Commonwealth v. Glover,
The judgment of the Superior Court is reversed, the judgment of sentence of the Court of Quarter Sessions of Bucks County is reversed, and defendant is discharged.