The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1896-04-24
OPINION OF THE COURT, BY Mr..
NEUMANN.

This is an appeal from a judgment
rendered by Hon. w. A. Whiting in ar
action upon promissory note made by
Wright and Willard in favor of plain
tiff, and sustaining a garnishment OF
funds in the hands of j. F. Clay, gar
nishee.
At the time of service of the gar
nishment Clay was Secretary of the
Senate of the Republic of Hawaii, and
made return that he held subject to
such garnishment fifty dollars, that
sum being twenty-five per cent. of sal
airy due to defendant Wright for SER
vices as sergeant at arms of the Senate
and whose salary was four dollars pei
diem as such officer.
1t has been well settled that money
passing through the hands of a public
disbursing agent Of the Government
could not be attached by process OF
garnishment by creditor of an officer
of the Government. Wood V. Elderton.
Maikai, garnishee, 2 Haw. 80.
In the session of 1890, the legisla-
ture passed the Act entitled "An Act
TO facilitate the collection of debts from
Government beneficiaries." Laws 1890,
Oh. 80, p. 7a. Section 1 of that Act de-
fines a Government beneficiary as ANY
officer or employee or other person in
the service of the Hawaiian Govern
ment, or in receipt of or entitled to a
salary, stipend, wages, annuity or
pension from the said Government or
any department, board or bureau
thereof shall be
known as a Government beneficiary
Section provides that such stipend,
wages, ETC., may be attached for pay
ment of debts of a beneficiary. Sec
ton limits the amount OF wages
which may be attached to % per cent.
of the amount due to the beneficiary.
The remaining sections of the Act sub
stantially provide and set forth the
proceedings, process ana service of
process required TO obtain and sustain
the attachment or garnishment. Sec
ton Is provides that for the purposes
of this Act it shall be sufficient to serve
such copy of process (garnishee pro-
cess upon the officers hereinafter re-
spectively named, that is 10 say, etc.
The sub-sections specify in detail
the persons or officers upon whom
service may be made, WHO are general
ly those who have the power or author
ity to control the payment or refusal
TO pay the moneys to which the Gov
eminent beneficiary is entitled, and
include officers of the executive and jul
dietary departments. But these SUBJ
sections do not designate or specify
any public disburSing agent Of the leg
islature upon whom service of process
may be made to garnishee stipend, sal
airy or wages TO which its employees CT
those in its service may be entitled.
We approve the conclusion drawn by
the Court below, to wit, that Section
Is is not intended to AID does not linn
it the definition of Government benefi-
Charles set forth in the first section of
the Act, but only specifies upon whom
the service of process shall be made in
particular cases therein enumerated,
and the maxim of epDreS3iO uHins est cr-
cIusiO alteriWs is not applicable. There
fore, If the defendant Wright was a
Government beneficiary, and Clay at
the time was the disbursing agent of
the Government having funds from
which the services of Wright were pay
able, both which questions must be
answered in the affirmative, the pro-
cess Of garnishment was valid.
Judgment appealed from affirmed.
S. NJ. Ballou for plaintiff ]. A Ma
COON for defendants.
Honolulu, April Is, 1896.