
    Stothart v. Melton.
    Submitted February 26,
    Decided March 18, 1903.
    Certiorari. Before Judge Barrow. Chatham superior court. August 1, 1902.
    Upon an execution against Melton a garnishment was sued out, which was traversed, and the trial justice entered judgment sustaining the traverse. This ruling was set aside on certiorari, and the plaintiff excepted. The evidence was in brief as follows: Melton is employed as a carpenter in a planing-mill; is foreman of the mill, has charge of that department, and has ten or fifteen men under him; is paid by the hour, and earns $3.25 per day; has special supervision of the mill, because he is a skilled mechanic, and for his ability to manage it; others working under his orders do not receive the same pay he gets; he directs work and works himself, and it is manual labor — is not easy work but very hard; his duties-are to run machinery, adjust it to cut patterns needed, repair it if' needed; he is not an officer; works just the same as the other men do who work with him and under him; has no more authority than to tell them what to do; can not hire or discharge them ; he works with them, and is known as a subforeman. Should witness wish anything done, he goes to the foreman of the car department, who then goes to Melton. All the timber and wooden patterns for cars are got out by Melton and furnished to the foreman, his superior, who has control of the mill. Melton is in control under him. All of his work is mechanical; he assists the other men in turning out work in the mill, works as they do, and does manual labor; all the time not engaged in giving directions to men under him he is running the machinery and handling lumber and timbers; is employed as a mechanic; keeps machinery in repair to a great extent, as far as his ability goes. Breaks occur that he can not mend; then, it goes to the foundry or machine-shops. His work in the mill is woodwork, and he works most of- the time like the other men. No •one but a skilled mechanic could handle the machinery and keep it in order. Melton’s skill was what placed him in the position; he was employed on account of his skill, not on account of his ability to supervise and direct men only. He is required by his employer to work just like the other men, and not simply to boss. All of his work is manual.
   Cobb, J.

Where a contract of employment contemplates work the doing of which depends mainly upon the mere physical power of the employee to do ordinary manual labor, the person so employed is a “laborer” within the meaning of the statute of this State exempting from the process of garnishment the wages of journeymen mechanics and day-laborers. Kline v. Russell, 113 Ga. 1085, and cases cited; Pike v. Sutton, 115 Ga. 688. The mere fact that such an employee lias the control and management of coemployees engaged in similar work would not deprive him of the exemption allowed by the statute. Judgment affirmed

By jive Justices.

D. U. Clark and W. N. Clark, for plaintiff.

Shelby Myriek, for defendant.  