The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1906-03-20
COURT AGAIN
IS DIVIDED
Majority Holds seamen's
Wages Not Subject
to Execution.


the syllabus:
"a seaman s wages can not be at
tached or made subject to garnishee
| process. II. S. R. S, Section 1886"
| Chief Justice FreAr writes dissent
ing opinion.
The ease decided is that of James Il.
Holt. Tax Assessor against Captain A.
Tullett, with Che Inter-lsland Steam
Navigation Co., Ltd, as garnishee.
''Plaintiff secured judgment against
defendant in the District Court OF
Honolulu for the sum of $1203S, - JUS
tice Wilder explains. Execution on
this Judgment was returned wholly I'M
satisfied. Then under Section 2l1S Of
the Revised Laws the garnishee was
cited in and ort sred to pay the plaintiff
the sum of &6j found to be due defend
ant as wages FROM the garnishee. From
this decision of the District Court the
garnishee appealed to this court on the
point of law that it was and is void be-
cause defendant was seaman within
the meaning of Section 4536 of the U.
S. Revised Statutes and his wages
were not subject to garnishment or ar
restment from any court. -
The opinion says there is no such dis
tinction as plaintiff set up, when he
admitted that a seaman s wages could
not be attached or subjected to gar
nishment before judgment but contend
ed that after judgment the statute did
not prevent attachment or garnish-
ment Justice Wilder concludes that
the contention of plaintiff, that certain
Federal eases relied on by him hold
''that wages due seaman may be
seized under an execution issued on a
valid Judgment in a state COURT is
wrong and accordingly the decision of
the District Magistrate is reversed and
the order of attachment is dismissed.
Justice HartwolI discusses the law
and concludes THIS:
1.-The Federal statute. enacting that
seamen s wages shall not be subject to
attachment, does not except attach
ments after Judgment, and the court
ton I therefore concur
Chief Justice Frear says that arrest
ment is merely Scotch term for at
tachment Attachment in a broad
sense would include almost any seizure
of person or property under judicial
process, including seizure on execu-
ton, but in it's ordinary and proper
sense it refers to mesne rather than
final process.
The Chief Justice quotes from the
books the stated distinction between
attachment and execution. He says
the words in the Federal statute should
be construed in their ordinary sense.
elf exemption from execution as well
as from attachment had been intended
the words ordinarily used to express
such an intention would have been
used. The rest of the section bears
out this view. -
Chief Justice Frear further defines
the issue thus:
1.-The reason of the statute is found
in the improvident character of sea-
men and the peculiar circumstances UNI.
der which they are placed and the CON
sequent need of their protection. To
permit a retention of their wages pend
ing a suit of uncertain duration and
result would often work great hard
ship upon them, but to allow their
wages to be applied in payment of a
just debt conclusively determined by
judgment would not be hardship in a
legal sense. The object of the statute
is to prevent suspension of wages by
attachment or garnishment pending an
action that may turn out to be I'M
founded, and not to prevent their APP
plication on execution to the payment
of just debt. In a certain sense a
payment of a seaman S just debt would
be payment on his account -
He quotes a number of Federal cases
directly holding that the statute i'll
question does not exempt a seaman s
wages from execution and concludes:
q fully agree with the conclusions
of these Federal courts. Even if nv
own impression were the other way, I
should feel that, in the absence of any ;
decision to the contrary, | ought to fol
low the construction placed by three
Federal courts in this, the ninth cir
cult, on a Federal statute. especially
when the question is at least DOUBT
fui one and that construction is favora-
bic to our own jurisdiction and to the
rights of our own Territory and peo-
pie. In The CITY of New Bedford,
even the Federal court in one circuit,
In Ross VS.. Bourne followed the de- .
clslon by the Federal court of another T.,
circuit in ease originating in the lat
ter Notwithstanding the earlier con
tary decision in McCarty VS. The City |
New Bedford by Federal court in
the former circuit.
Thus, from whatever point it is
viewed, the statute in question has no
application to the present case and
accordingly the judgment of the Dis i
trlct Magistrate should be affirmed
NJ. F. Prosser. Deputy Attorney Gen !
eral, represented the plaintiff, Attorney
General L. c. Peters being with him
on the brief, and Smith & Lewis repre-
scented the garnishee
The Territory win appeal to the
United States Supreme Court from the
decision.
\ ipv0lyiun tho