The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1899-01-01
ALLEGED ATTEMPT TO
COLLECT DEBT BY
INJUNCTION FAILS.
CeaRt Holds Ebert to Enjofn Pay
neat ~ Puhiie 0mccr's Salary
EQutvalent to Garntshmcnt. and
therefore, nleUal-lounty sued.

A case Involving the rule Of the courts
o. THIS state that the salaries of public
officers cannot be reached by garaishaaent
was decided by Judge Moore in the SUI
persor court yesterday. instead az a gar
nsshnsens compelling the garnishes in the
case. King county. 10 pay ever the SAL
sought 70 prevent the county tron, paying
the s&iATy 10 the officer and alleged debt
or, thereby compelling the latter to settle
or De forever eayotned from drawing his
money The court held that both proceed
ings fell under the same rule and refused
the Injunction.
The case was that CT the Stetson Post
MIN Company against James Bregas.
Constaei<S Fred III. Pike and II. W. Whit
ford and County Auditor Evenson. It was
alleged that the defendants Rrogan Pike
and Whitford were indebted to the plain
tin In the sum OF $lSl 90 far lumber sold.
The two constahiea are county officers.
and the mill company alleged that M tho
time the lumber was sold the eonstables
asresd {, 20, assign as security one months
sa5ary, 80 each. Otherwise, the company
Aliegec. the credit for the lumber would
not have been extended
The alleged sale OF eecds ana alleged
nearly a yea aEo. and both Pike and
Whiifcrd are about TO retire from Office.
Knowing that IL would be Impossible 10
sarnish their wages, the mill company
the county auditor. who pays all salaries.
q party TO tho action. and praying for an
Injunction to prevent him from paying
salaries TO the two constahles for the
last month of their term OF office. expir-
Ing on January To-
The application was taken before Judge
Moore yesterday and argued at length.
For the plaintiff Attorney J. NJ. Rayburn
contended that by their refusal 10 make
the alleged promised salary assignment
the defendant constahies had pat them
selves within the power OF the court OF
equity. and that an injunction should ISSUE
TO prevent the paying OF their salaries.
owing to the provision preventing the
garntshins or county officers. For tho
defendant ccnstablcs Attorneys Denning
and kriete argued that the proceeding
was equivalent TO garnishment, and
that the alleged assignment was against
public policy as tending to render II pos
eibie for public officer TO pauperize hin~
a slave to the assignee IF his unearned
salary. to the great detrinAs.it CT the pub
lie, his employer.
The plaintiffs lawyer met this by argu-
ing that the last months salary OF the
two officers was subject 10 Earnishment
for the reason that the public was no
longer interested in them after tho ex-
piration CT their terms.
Judge Moores ruling was concise and
pointed. He denied the injunction on tho
ground that II was OF the same effect as
q garnsshment. inttmatfng also that II the
contention that the salaries were subject
to garnishment were true. the injunction
must be refused. because the plaintiff had
then q legal remedy.
The two constabies naturally deny that
they ever promised to assign their SAL
aries to secure the debt alleged. but also
deny the debt itself The case remains
TO be tried on those issuea.