The evening herald. [volume] (Shenandoah, Pa.) 1891-1966, 1895-04-02
IMPORTANT DECISION.
A Question in Which Boarding House
Keepers are Very Much
Interested.
A VERDICT FOR BOARDERS.
A DECISION BY THE COURT AT POTTS
WILLIE TAKES AWAY A SHORT
CUT TO COLLECTION.
Before Wages Can be Attached for a
Board Bill a Judgment for the
Amount Must be Recovered.
The Courts Ruling.

The doubt that has heretofore sur
rounded the practice before our Justices
Of the Peace in the attachment of wages
by boarding house keepers for four
weeks board. or less, was yesterday dis
PEELED by Judge Bechtel in an important
opinion which he handed down in the case
of Catherine McCarty against Martin
Dougherty that went to the court from
Justice Shoemaker on certiorari issued
by the defendant. The practice has
been under the Act of 1876 and its sup.
plement, the Act of 1889. Almost
throughout the entire state Justices of
the Peace have issued attachments as an
original process, that is, without having
first obtained judgment for the amount
of the board, and there is considerable diff
ference of opinion among the Common
Pleas judges of the state as to whether
this line of procedure is warranted by the
Act of 1876. Some judges have held that
a judgment should be first obtained,
while others have held that the at
tachment could issue as an orig
inal process. The latter practice
gave the advantage to the boarding house
keepers, because the wages were i'm
mediately attached and, therefore, could
not be assigned, or otherwise disposed of
by the boarder until the boarding house
keeper would be able TO get possession OF
it upon final hearing For the first
time the question was passed upon in the
courts of this county yesterday. The
question has never been determined by
the Supreme Court and NJ. M. Burke,
ESQ.,, the counsel for the plaintiff in this
case, was not prepared to say whether it
would be taken up to the Supreme Court.
In this case Justice Shoemaker issue ed
both a summons and attachment, at the
same time, the summons being directed
to the defendant and the attachment be-
ing directed both to the defendant and
the P. & r. G. & l. Co. as garnishee. Both
the summons and the attachment were
made returnable at the same time and the
hearing on both was held at the same
time. Before the writs were issued the
plaintiff made affidavit that her
claim was correct and copy
was also served on the defendant
and garnishee. Justice Shoemaker gave
judgment for the amount of board claimed
and the decision is now reversed by the
urt. The real effect of the decision is
that under the Act of Assembly a board
ing-house keeper must first bring suit for
t amount Of the board claimed, just as
CT ka otbo AL
and after Judgment has been obtained an
attachment can be issued. At least five
days must elapse between the issuing
of the summons and the issuing
of the attachment and this, if taken
advantage of, will give the defendant
ample time to make assignment, or in
some other way dispose of his wages in
order to defeat collection. The most
expeditions remedy left to the boarding
house keeper now is to hold the effects of
the boarder, or bring criminal prosecu.
tion where fraud enters into case.
The court says: "The writ issued in
the name Of Mary, instead of Catherine,
and application has been made to amend.
The Office of a writ of certiorsri is to
bring up the record, this has been ac-
complished, and the Justices record in
the proper case is now before us. It is
therefore unnecessary to formally amend
the record in this respect and we must
determine the case upon the sufficiency of
the Justices record. The proceeding is
under the act of May sth, 1876, for the
purpose Of attaching the wages OF labor
Ia payment OF board. The plaintiff did
not have a judgment against the de
fendanC, upon which to issue an attach
ment execution. The justice issued what
Is termed summons and attachment to
gether, and commands a service of the
summons, and an attaching of wages
sufficient TO satisfy any judgment that
may be obtained The first thought,
alter reading this writ, is, what right has
the plaintiff to attach more than four
weeks The act says mot exceeding the
amount of four weeks, but the attach.
ment is for an amount sufficient to
satisfy any judgment that may be OBJ
tained.' II the plaintiff obtains a judg-
ment for four months or a
year, the language of this writ
would cover it, Notwithstanding the
express limitation found in the act. Again
suppose the board is for week or two or
three days and the wages amount to one
hundred dollars, the whole amount would
under this writ be detained until the final
disposition OF the case. The manifest
injustice of this is made apparent by a
mere statement of the fact But what
right is there under che Act Of 1915 to