Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-09-27
Employer Hits
ayGarnishing
BY Creditors
Defends EmpIoye
Who Has Wife
In the Hospital
BY CARL IRVING

plOyeS, washington resident,
who. he said, was extended
credit three times after his
wages were attached by the
same firm.
The employee, whose wife is
hospitalized and who has a de-
pendent child. has had pay
checks attached three times by
the firm since February. Robert
D. Rutledge of Nance g. Viva
deli Co., contractors. declared.
He identified the firm as the
Hollywood Credit Clothing Co.,
703 Seventh street NV, and
the employe as Walter A. Rob-
inson, of Is Second street NV.
He said the firm had at
tached a total of $797 of Mr..
RobinSon's wages, which aver
age SOS a week take-home pay.
Mr.. Rutledge registered his
complaint in Arlington County
Court before Judge Charles N.
Hulvey, jr. &
Law Requires Judgment
Il agree with you thoroughly,
but under the law the judg-
ment must be for the plaintiff
(the clothing firm)," said the
judge. Judge Paul D. Brown,
who handles most of the gar
nishment cases in County
Court. said later cit is ridicu-
lous to see extension of credit
when the seller is plaintiff and
the buyer defendant in an
earlier sale"
Mr.. Rutledge observed that
every week an attachment
comes into our Office from one
of about seven clothing firms
in the District"
1T has been going on for
years." he said. He noted that
most Of the 125 persons who
are employed by his firm live
in Washington.
District residents who work
in Virginia have no legal
exemptions from punishment,
Virginia law exempts Virginia
heads Of households up to rs
per cent of their monthly
wages. il the amount is no
less 500 or no more than $3.50,
and single persons up TO so per
cent under the same provisions.
District law. which exempts
heads of households up to 5000
a month and single persons up
to $50 a month. does not apply
to wages WaShingtonians earn
in Virginia.
ID. c. Law Not Applicable
A series Of articles in The
Star last April noted that $500
garnishments were filed every
month in Municipal Court in
the District. legislation was
later introduced in Congress to
curb the abuses.
But Virginians must some
times wait for days until they
receive their exemptions. I'm
der the present law. creditor
firms serve writs of attachment
on the employer to freeze his
employees wages. The employer
must go to court with the mat
ter and disperse the wages be-
tween the creditor and debtor.
I'VE do not object in aiding
a business house one time in
collecting the account of an
employe who is considerably
delinquent in payments" said
Mr.. Rutledge.
1--WE do object strenuously
and resent 1t very much when
the same business house, again
and again extends an employe
credit after it has been neces-
sary to use the courts once to
effect collection"
Court Gets a Letter
In a letter to Hollywood
Clothing. copy which was
filed in County Court, Mr.. Rut-
ledge said:
I'VE feel that you are using
the bookkeeping facilities of
our Office and the time of the
courts as a collection agency to
secure payment for you of an
account which was unwisely
given in the first places
Judge Hulvey commented
that 1T does not make sense if
the same parties we're there
before, to return on the same
terms as If nothing happened. $
1T puts a burden on the en-
ployer and puts the court in the
position Of being a collection
agent he said.
Judge Brown estimated that
so per cent of the cases in
Arlington's lower courts in
wolves attachment or garnish-
ment Of wages.
Il imagine the percentage is
about the same in the other
suburban Jurisdictions" he said.
State Delegate William l..
Winston. an Arlington attorney,
has proposed a study of the
problem at the next General
Assembly session. He has pro-
posed in particular that out-of-
State residents who work in
Virginia gain the same exemp-
tions from garnishments af-
forded Virginians.