The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1908-05-30

| JONATHAN SHAW V. WILLIAM w.
BOYD; WAIALUA AGRICULTURE
! AL CO, LTD, GAENISHEE.
APPEAL FROM DISTRICT MAGIS-
| TRATE, WAIALUA, OAHU.
Argued May %, 1905.
Decided May %, 1908.
HARTWELL, c. j., WILDER AND
BALLOU, JJ.
Garnishment-procedu under Sc
| questration statute.
| Under R. l.. Sec. PISA and 2115B a
| garnishee is entitled TO any lawful
set-off accruing before final judg-
ment, but may be ordered to pay a
| sum equal to % per cent of the salary
of an employee accruing from and
after judgment irrespective of set
off.
| Statutes-cOnstructl
| The intent of the legislature is to be
| gathered from the language used, and
general considerations of motive
should not be resorted to unless the
language is obscure or ambiguous.
Set-off and counter cIaim-store ac-
count of employee.
Under r. L. Sec. 2698 the written con-
sent of an employee to the set-off of
his store account may be general and
given in advance.
OPINION OF THE COURT BY
BALLOU, J.
Plaintiff brought his action before
the district magistrate of Waialua al
Ieging that the defendant, being in
debted to plaintiff in the sum of SO
for use and occupation of certain prem
ises, promised to pay on request but
had not done so. There was a prayer
for Judgment and a garnishee sum-
mons was issued against the Walalua
Agricultural Co., Ltd. the printed por-
ton of which required garnishee ''to
appear personally at the time and place
above named, then ami there upon oath
to disclose whether it have, or at the
time said copy was certified had, any
of the goods or effects of said defend
ant in its hands and if so the nature,
amount and value of the same, or
whether said garnishee is indebted to
said defendant and the nature and
amount of said debt Interlined i'm
mediately thereafter were the words
"and whether defendant receives a
regular salary or wages from gar
nlshee.'
garnishee appeared and its manager
testified that the defendant was an en-
ploye receiving a salary of 800 per
month, but was in debt to the company
in the sum of $1O9.SO. 1t was admit
ted that this indebtedness was on store
account and the garnishee offered in
evidence the following printed instru-
ment stated to be Gan assignment of
I, 70 mt
of his store BILL
ono. 1921. Waialua, June /, 1907.
To the Waialua Agricultural Company,
Limited
In settlements from time to time had
between myself and the Waialua Agri-
cultural Company, Limited, you are
hereby authorized and empowered to
deduct from any wages due and payable
to me anything l may owe on store ac-
count to the said company.
Dated Waialua, the ] day of June,
1907.
(Signed) W. w. BOYD"
Witness:
JOHN LITTLE.
The district magistrate gave judg-
ment for the plaintiff for the amount
sued for with costs and entered the fol-
lowing order:
''The garnishee is hereby ordered to
withhold twenty-five per cent. of de-
PENDANTS salary (monthly) until the
amount of judgment is fully satisfied"
From this order the garnishee appeal
ed to this court on points of law,
claiming that the district magistrate
erred in entering the order and that
Act SO, S. L. 1907, is unconstitutional
as interfering with the right of a pri-
vate contract.
AT the outset plaintiff claims that it
would be unlawful for the garnishee
to deduct or set off the defendants
store account from or against his
wages and that, therefore. the whole
of any salary which might be due the
defendant at time of service is subject
to garnishment, relying upon r. L. Sec.
1898 which reads:
1T shall be unlawful for any person,
firm, partnership or corporation, with
in this Territory. to deduct and retain
any part or portion of any wages due
and payable to any laborer or EN-
ploye, or to collect any store account, |
offset or counter claim without the
written consent of such laborer or en- |
ploye or by action in court as provid-
ed by law
In reply to the written consent offer |
ed in evidence it is urged on behalf |
of the plaintiff that if such general
consent of the laborer given in adj
vance is valid the whole intent Of the
law is frustrated and that the section
should be construed as referring to a !
written consent to be given after the
store account has been incurred.
The intent of the legislature, as gath |
cred from the language used, is the
primary consideration in statutory
construction, but the general motive
with which the legislature may be sup
posed to have passed the act, such as
a consideration of the mischief sought
to be remedied, should be resorted to
only in constituting language which is
obscure or ambiguous DEM V. Reid, |
10 Pet. 522, 527. Although it must be
conceded that under the practise in
evidence in this case the protection to
the employe sought to be conferred by
the statute is largely illusory, this
would not warrant US in reading into
the statute a term relating to the time
when the written consent must be Civ