Show G A Ml STATE LAW LA 1 Question of Garnishment o ol ot 0 Wages 4 t MANY MAl Y CASES INVOLVED VED 4 i CASE OASE TO GO 00 TO O HIGHEST COURT ON IT OF OP ERROR j Interpretation n of o Constitution of United States on Upon State to Pass Pa Laws Impairing Obligations of Contacts Collection tion tOD Agency in the Fight A writ of error eor eror will wI be e applied for forin forin forin in the te supreme court of this state on Monday in a a case es ce that tat is proving to tobe t tobe be b of or unusual unus interest to the wage worker of f the te whole hole state as a well wel as asto a asto to merchants merc t and and railroad companies and other oter corporations employing large numbers of ot men The case c in brief is this thil 0 0 Between May 1 1885 1805 and April Apri 1 0 1896 William Bird Bid a Rio Grande fire fireman fre freman fireman man bought goods good on credit from John M Kirkman May 13 mG 1396 judg judgment judgment 0 ment was wa rendered against Bird by 00 Justice W H Sells SelI for 27 and 0 1125 12 costs cost On the te strength of this judgment the Rio Grande Western company was wa garnisheed for the amount of Birds wages on Dec 12 1 0 1899 The amount of wages wage wage due at that 4 time tim was vas wa 75 Bird maintained that his wages were exempt empt from rom execution under the law The garnishment case ce was wa tried before 0 Justice Pardee and a decision rend rendered rendered 0 ered eYed against Bird Bir He appealed to the district court curt and Judge Cherry re reversed reversed versed ers Justice Pardee Then rhen the Mer Merchants Merchants 00 chants Protective Association which whid was prosecuting the case c for Kirkman carried carrie the case cus to tu the supreme SUeme court curt of the state and Judge Cherrys Chers decision 0 ion was affirmed This It was wa thought by the railroad and the working men ended x the case ca but not so s with wih the I 0 Protective Protect Association which began beg 0 0 proceedings af a once to take the case up p to the te supreme preme s court of the United Unie States State and ad dIe action aton of Monday will willbe wi willbe be in line with wit that tat determination The interesting point in the te case ce is 0 that It i is held eld eId that th t the garnishment 0 law Jaw of Utah Uth Ut is ig s unconstitutional be because because cause caus it impairs contracts that were 0 in existence when the law was w enacted It I Is on this point pint that tat the case Ca is to tobe tobe tobe be appealed and on it i the best bet local 0 lawyers are ar divided divide in opinion The federal federl constitution declares that No uNo state shall shaI pass p any any law Jaw impairing the obligations of contracts The old law I I 0 Iu in Iu Utah pt h exempted one half a mans wages and ad the new law enacted enate in 1899 exempts all aU of a a mans mas wages for fori sixty days next proceeding prec the levy lev of garnishment The plaintiff In the case cae 0 cited above claims that this new I I law Jaw Ja w violates the contract cn trat made mae with wih Bird before the new ne law a went into ef effect I I feet Bird and his hil lawyers maintain that his case cane c does do not come under this head and and the courts curt of the state hold with wih them Many Nany Similar Simar Cases Oases Involved If I Birds Birs were the only case c involved the matter m ter would be simple but there are many may others of a similar charac character ter and thi this case c is but a test It I is said that tat over 0 in the wages wes of are tied tie up awaiting the final decision of the te courts cout and andI this I Is looked upon n as a 5 a hardship by the themen themen themen men as a the case cc is not likely to be reached reach in less les than ta a year yea at the very yer best and and in the te meantime the men will willbe wi willbe I be b out of the use Ue of or their money it il he heing heing I I 0 ing tied te up by garnishments against 0 the railroad companies Then is still sti another feature of this vase case that tat creates crete sympathy for the workingmen At the beginning of the te case ae in the Le district court curt it I was wa stipulated Jated Jat between the Rio Grande and the Protective Association that all al cases eS involving this question and ad affecting the interests of the railroad would re remain remain 0 main in status quo until a a final decision decisIon 0 ion was wa Reached rhe I ached This final decision the 00 railroad company c and the te men under understood 0 tood stood to mean m n a ft final decision de slon by the state courts court the Phe he Protective association now flow holds holda that tat a final decision by b the United Unit d States Stated supreme me court curt was wa meant It rt has ha broken the status quo and is pushing garnishment proceed proceedings proceeding t ings ing in every ever instance Officers of the association when seen sen yesterday said 00 that they purposed purd to tie up every ever man 0 who could be b tied up and push the matter mate to the end They claim that the te interests of merchants must be looked to as a well weI as a those tho of the workingmen The workingmen hold that that in doing this the Protective association is vio violating lating the laws Jaws of the te state of utah tah and ad that it Is J working a hardship upon a great gr t number of poor por men by tying up their wa wages es e Ky bY the simple appeal of o one case c involving 7 Kirkman is represented in this ti case caseby ca caseby by Krebs Hoppaugh He figures In Inthe inthe Inthe the matter mater only nominally as a the te case cae is being bing fought in fact by the Mer Ner Merchants lIe chants Protective association Bird is isI I represented by W H Bramel and the Rio Grande Grande Wi V stern Railway iway company by Bennett Harke Harkness Howat Suther Sutherland Sutherland land Van Cott Coto Of course coure the rail rl railroad road mad is fighting Birds case for o him and the railroad and and all al other big ocr cor corporations cr 0 in the state ette are ne deeply d in interested interested 0 In the outcome 0 l |