The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1933-01-06
GARNISHEE LAW
WITH TEETH is
RETAILERS AIM
Present FraiI One in Need
of Strengthening, View
OF Merchants.

Business men Of the city hope to
see action by the legislature now in
session that will strengthen the
garnishee law, giving more protec-
ton to the creditor, and at the same
time safeguard the honest debtor.
The present law has been ruled
unconstitutional by two judges here
and others have stated that they do
not enforce it, though they have not
as yet decided it is unconstitutional.
We must have some sort of
garnishee law" declared a down
town merchant today. Without it,
we are the prey Of dead beats. But
the present law is too frail, though
1t was the best we could get after
years of fighting. We are utterly
opposed to the killing of even this
law, however. We want better law,
with teeth in it,
one Of the most prominent Of To-
cal manufacturing establishments,
employing a large number of young
men and women, has taken the
initiative with a test case in the
two municipal courts.
Money Held by Company
AS the first step in the case, the
employer deducted 10 per cent
weekly from pay of a young wom-
an who was garnisheed, but did not
make payment to the sheriffs Of
flee. All demands for payment
were refused, in an effort to force
the issue.
AS a result, the creditor took re-
course in the manner provided by
statute and instituted civil suit for
the money, which, from the orig
inal account of $3129, had been
swelled to $50, because of court costs
and attorneys fees.
The suit was filed in municipal
court two before Judge Dan v.
White in September. Because it
was recognized as a test case, it has
attracted attention among members
of the bar and others interested in
the garniShee law.
In view OF the general interest
and the Importance attached to the
case, it was agreed that Judge
Thomas E. Garvin, in municipal
court one, should hear the proceed
ings jointly with Judge White.
Floyd w. Burns, associated with
the law firm of Bamberger & Fei-
bleman, counsel for the manufac-
turing concern, argued against con-
stitutionality of the law in the
hearing several weeks ago. Will
liam S. McMaster, counsel, whose
arguments had been upheld in SUI
perior court rulings, aided in presen-
tation of the case.
Decision Expected Soon
It is understood that the two
Judges will give their ruling within
the next week. If the municipal
courts concur in the opinions of Su-
perior Judges Russell j. Ryan and
Clarence E. Weir, only the justice of
peace courts will remain for obtain
ing garnishee orders.
Temporarily, at least, debtors have
been relieved from punishment
through municipal courts by mutual
agreement, the judges have re-
Trained from issuing garnishee or
ders pending their decision.
In the case of orders obtained be-
fore the hearing, there has been no
cessation in the weekly de-
auctions, but here again, some en-
ployers have arisen to the assistance
of their employees. Under arrange
ment with the Sheriff'S office, pay
ments have not been made on
garniShments, although the weekly
deductions are made.
The employers are holding the
payments in special funds, awaiting
decision of the court If way is
shown, the funds will be available
for restoration to the employees.
Opinions differ among attorneys
as to solution of the problem created
by the garnishee law, although, re-
CARELESS of opinion, they agree that
change is necessary. They are look
ing to the present session of the
general assembly for relief.