The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1893-07-19
OPINION OF THE COURT BY BECKER

OPINION or THE COURT BY BECKER
TON, J.
The plaintiffs sued the defendant
in the District Court of Honolulu
for $4,000 due them for work done
by them on the Waimea bridge,
! Oahu, at the request of the defend
ant, who had contract to build the
| same for the Hawaiian Government,
alleging that defendant was an EN-
| ployee Of the Interior Department of
| the Hawaiian Government, aud that
| said Government was indebted to do
| fendaut for services rendered as such
employee, whereupon a garnishee
process was served on the Minister
of the Interior After hearing, the
District Court gave Judgment for the
plain ifs for 1925 90 and costs, and
also found that defendant was not q
Government beneficiary under the
Act Of 1890, and the garnishee was
discharged.
The case now comes here on ap
peal from said District Court on a
point of law, viz whether or not
the defendant is Government bene
Gciary under Chapter so, Laws of
1890" There is no dispute as to the
fact that the defendant had con
tract to build the said bridge for the
Hawaiian Government, and that
there was still money due and owing
to him by said Government on said
contract. The question Is can this
money be attached by defendants
creditors under the said Act
Section l reads as follows:
Any officer or employee, or other
person In the service OF the Ha-
1aiian Government. or in receipt Of,
or entitled TO salary, stipend,
wages, annuity or pension from the
said Government, or any depart
ment, board or bureau thereof, shall,
for the purposes of this Act, AID of
any proceedings hereunder, be known
and described as Government
beneficiary, hereinafter denominated
such beneficiary
Section 2 reads as follows:
The salary, stipend, wages, an
nuity or pension of such beneficiary
may be attached for, and applied in
the payment Of his debts, in the
manner prescribed III this Act.
Section 1 defines who shall be con-
sidered a Government beneficiary.
Il is clear that it only applies to an
officer or employee, or one IN the
service of the Hawaiian Government
who IS in receipt of or entitled to a
salary, stipend, 170gss, annuity or pension.
1t Will be seen by Section that only
the money due such persons may be
attached and applied to the payment
of their debts under the Act. Il
confines the operation of the Act to
the particular class of persons speci-
fically named. It cannot reach be
yOnd; it is limited. The Govern
ment cannot be garnisheed except as
provided by statute. Wade on At
tachment, Sections 346, AS, 454;
Wood vs. EldertoD, 81 Haw. 50
Question, can contractors be brought
within this limit? We are of opinion
that they can not. How is it posi-
BILE to make balance due on con
tract to bnild a bridge mean salary,
stipend, cages, annuity or psasion'
Salary" and wages" are synony-
nous. Both mean a sum Of money
periodically paid for services rem
dered.
Pension. 4 periodical allow
ance of money granted by a govern
ment for services rendered, in parti-
cular to a soldier or sailor in c0nnec
ton with q war or with military
operation" See Anderson's Diction-
airy OF Law.
Annuity, 4 periodical payment
of money, amounting to a fixed sum
in each year. Stipend. To pay by
settled stipend or wages; put upon
or provided with q stipend" See
The Century Dictionary.
We are therefore of the opinion
that the rnling of the lower Court
was correct and must be sustained.
The appeal is dismissed.
i. Rosa for plaintiffs; Attorney
General ". o. Smith and j. a. Ma
COON for defendant and garnishee.
uCoCI,l1 JnIv J0tb 1909