136 FISn AND GAME COMMISSION 



the intake tlier^of in aeeonlance with the order of the division. Tliis 

 ease was tried before Judjrc II. S. Gans of Red lUufT at Willows on ^lay 

 10. ^9'^0. it was then submitted to the eourt on briefs. 



Vtoph vs. KHflf'.Iorrisani Cnmunrj Compnnjf, Inc. This is an action 

 conuneneed in the county of Sacramento to rci-ovcr dolincjuent taxes 

 for the privilege of taking fish as provided by chapter 687, Statutes 

 ]ni7. Judgment was entered in favor of the People on October 16, 

 1928. 



PfopJc vs. Low if a GfifinUnc Co. ct oJ. This is an action to restrain six 

 oil companies from polluting the waters of the Pacific Ocean at Long 

 Beach with petroleum. This case was tried July 17, 1028, and judg- 

 ment was entered on August 6, 1928, against four of the defendants, 

 the action having been dismissed as to the remainintr two defcndiints 

 when they changed their operations so as to prevent future pollution. 



Lociv vs. Carpenter et al. This is an action commenced by the owner 

 of 270 live geese for an injunction to prevent the seizure thereof by 

 deputies of the Fish and Game Commission. The gee.se are used as 

 decoys. The case is still pending. 



People vs. L. A. Sea Food Products Co. This action was instituted 

 in the superior court of Sacramento County to recover delinquent taxes 

 which became due to the state under the provisions of the Fisheries 

 Tax and Regulations Act (Stats. 1917, chapter 678). The action was 

 subsequentlv dismissed when the defendant paid the amount due in 

 fuU. 



People vs. Cain Irrigation Company. This action was commenced in 

 the superior court of Mono County to enjoin the defendant from divert- 

 ing -water from Rush Creek into its irrigating ditches until such time 

 as fish screens are installed. The action is awaiting trial. 



People vs. Cain Irrigation Company. This case is similar to the 

 previous case wnth the exception that the installation of a fish ladder 

 is involved instead of fish screens. The matter is awaiting trial. 



People vs. Fields. This is a suit in the superior court to enjoin the 

 defendant from impounding water in Trinity County until such time 

 as an adequate fish way is installed to permit fish to pass over and 

 around its dam. This action was dismissed when the defendant installed 

 the required ladder. 



People vs. Monterey Canning Co. This was an action commenced in 

 the superior court of Monterey County to prevent the defendant from 

 using sardines in its reduction plant in excess of the amount allowed 

 by law and to close the plant for a period of one year. This case was 

 tried by Judge J. R. Welch of San Jo.se and on March 11, 1929, judg- 

 ment was rendered for the people which contained an order of the court 

 closing the plant for a period of three months. 



People vs. Carmel Canning Co. Same as previous case. 



People vs. San Carlos Canning Company. Same as previous case. 



People vs. Seapride Canning Company. Same as previous case. 



People vs. Southern California Fish Corporation. This action was 

 similar to the four preceding cases except that the same was commenced 

 in Los Angeles County. The case was tried before Judge Clair S. 



