The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1916-05-15
WHAT He DID SAY
Judge WhitcOmb Says His De-
cision Was Misinterpreted.
Did Not Hold Against Exemp-
ton of LabOrer'S Wages.

The Interpretation placed upon
Judge 6. H. Whitcomb's decision in a
Sarnishment proceedings Saturday. by
several attorneys and others is incor-
rect, Judge Whitcomb stated today
He did not hold. he says in a state
ment. that working man was entitled
to no exemption on his wages, after
judgment had been secured. He
pointed out today that the ten per cent
feature applies before judgment and
that the general exemption applies
after that; that the working man, aft
er judgment has been secured by a
creditor, is entitled to hold whatever
amount it can be shown he must have
for the support of his family.
In order to set forth his position
clearly Judge Whitcomb made the fol-
lowing statement today:
THE statement published as to the
holding of this court under Chapter
232, of the Laws of 1913, relating to
the exemption of wages from garnish-
ment, to the effect that there now is
no law allowing any exemption to
wage earners is erroneous. The de-
ciSion of the court made on Saturday
was exactly to the contrary. The law
in question was construed to mean
that prior to any judgment rendered
against the debtor in an action in
which the debtors wages were garn-
isheed, only ten per cent of the wages,
Sed no more, could be deducted to ap-
ply on the debt.
The second section of the law in
question contains proviso that no
more than the amount named shall be
held to pay a debt until after judg-
ment may be obtained against the
debtor, and that after Judgment the
taking of the earnings of any debtor
shall be governed by the laws on the
statute book at the time of the enact
ment of the 1913 statute 1t is the lat
ter provision of the law which it has
been suggested leaves the debtor with
out an exemption after judgment for
the reason that this statute of 1913 ex-
pressly repeats the sections of the old
law applying to the exemption of
wages from garnishlnent.
But this suggestion is without any
force for the reason that the legisla-
ture of 1913, in section of the law in
question, expressly re-enacted Section
6126, of the General Statutes of 1909
This section provides that the earn
ings of the debtor for his personal
services at any time within three
months next preceding the order to
apply them to the debt, cannot be so
applied when it is made to appear by
the debtors affidavit or otherwise,
that such earnings are necessary for
the use of family, supported, wholly
or partly, by the labor of such debtor
except as provided in the next section
of the act. The next section, however,
contains nothing that can be held,
under any reasonable construction, to
destroy the general exemption of the
wages of the debtor necessary for the
support of his family, at least as to the
portion of the wages above 10 per cent
and 81 for costs.
Whether a greater amount can be
taken after judgment depends upon
whether or not such excess is neces-
sary for the use of the debtors fam
lily In the case decided Saturday.
one half months salary, SIS, had been
garnisheed, and the court held that
two-thirds of this amount was ex-
empt-"