, 1876-04-02

Tho Supreme Court versus tho Ch1ca-
60 Justices OF the Pence.

| Tko Supreme Court versus tho Ch1ea-
| 60 Justices OF the Pence.
| 10 the Editor ef The Chicago Tribune:
CH1cAao, April 1-For the beneht Of The
| many workingmen who read your paper allow
| me- to call attention to the recent decisions Of
our Supreme Court in the matter Of garnishees
It is q fact uudcniable that horde OF sha1pers
in and around the offices OF soms Justices of the
Peace derive . fat living by gsrnishing the wages
Of men unacquainted With tho law. This practice
has become 80 frequent, aud is withal, 10 an
noying to largo employers that With many COM
paules, 1t IL rule to discharge every man whose
pay ia garnished. Now, the process Of suing out
! a garnishee is 20 simple that any rascal can
swear out summons against the most innocent
party, And. il the officers for the sake OF the
costs join the conspiracy, q profitable business
mEy DO done-
Our statute e1empts s25 OF the wages due
one who is " the head Ut = family and resides
With the same" But, in order to eyade this
provision, it il customary to make tho summons
returEable sufficient length of time subsequent
to the day OF service that on the return day
there will be enough due, over aud above the
sum exempted. to pay the Judgment Such
practice Il not and never Taa the law; but tho
Justices OF this city have sough: to enforce it.
Not long ago had occasion to answer before
West Side Justice the amount due = railway en-
ploye. l proceeded to answer the amount due
fused 10 accept my answer and insisted upon
knowing the amount duo on return day,
vainiy suggested to His Honor that
the solicitor Of the railway eompany-n
man Of large experience and wide reputation
a. lauyer-waB Of opinion tho answer
should not extend beyond the day of
service. Tue "Judge" suppressed mo with the
observation that he knew what the law was. and
gave ms to understand that the solicitor in ques-
ton did not. Now comes tha Supreme Court
and differs with The Justice. Their opinion, per
Scott, c. J., appeared in the Legal Ne,os OF the
llth lust., and was given in the case Of Albert
Bliss Ts. John Smith, appeal from Stephenson
G9aRy S Rs ess hs hssrg ess Ss so s9dy hsa
construction contended for is rs harsh and u1a-
charitable "a it is unwa1Tanted- There is no
authority, in reason OF practice, for saving this
statute has any raie!ence whatever to Vsses |
subsequently Gained By the Judgment debtor.
The language Of the statute is. in c.ss the !
wages OF services OF such defendant in the !
hands OF = garnishee shall exceed s25, j1dg-
tnens shall be givon op!y for the bal !
bands Of the garnshees Obviously at the date /
Of the summons. The Judgment is only to 20 |
for tho balance. exceeding SIS. in the hands OF |
tue garnishee at that time" Then, as il to /
tiec Courts. the Court adds: '.Tbe laborer may |
take IN his wages Is fast as the Bame become /
due 'l the amount that shali become 1us ut anv
ono lime ehah not exceed 525." That is, d
laboa'r who is the head Of family, ana whose
Wages do not exceed S25 week. If employed by
the week. can draw all hts wages, and no gar
nishee process can reach them.
Another case, entitled Cyrus Tanning ct a1 ~.
The First National Bank OF Jacksonville, appeal
from Morgan County, opinion fled Juns I6,
1875, IL aleo OF ,ctefest to the latoriug man.
Tanning had oa deposit in the bank 5000,
His Judgment creditor had garnishee-process
served on tho bank After service, Fan |
ming, being tho head Of family. noti6ed
the bank that he claimed tha money
Oh deposit Is exempted under the statute, and
directed ths baak to pay it to No person without