THIRTY-FIRST BIENNIAL REPORT 137 



Tappaan, who rendered judgment for the defendant. Subsequently 

 motion for a new trial was made which was denied. 



People vs. Van Camp Seafood Company. Same as previous ease. 



Barnes vs. Stevenot et aJ. This is a mandamus action commenced by 

 a former deputy of the division in the superior court of Humboldt 

 County to recover the sum of $750 alleged to be due for past salary 

 and expenses. The division moved to change the venue of the action 

 to San Francisco County, which was granted, and since then plaintiff 

 has not taken further steps to prosecute the case. The matter is still 

 pending. 



Svenson vs. Engelke et al. This suit was commenced in the superior 

 court of Humboldt County by a group of Eureka fishermen to prevent 

 the division and its deputies from arresting and interfering with them 

 while bringing fresh salmon caught in the high seas over and across 

 certain fish and game districts, closed to the possession of salmon, into 

 the city of Eureka. The court granted the plaintiffs' preliminary 

 injunction, from which the division appealed. The matter is noAV pend- 

 ing in the Supreme Court. 



People vs. Hutchinson et al. This action was commenced in the 

 superior court of Sacramento County to enforce the installation of a 

 fish ladder to permit fish to pass over and around the dam of defend- 

 ants. The action is awaiting trial. 



Lenk vs. Sibech. Suit to recover damages in the superior court of 

 Sacramento County arising from the shooting of the plaintiff by one of 

 the deputies of the division. The case was tried before Judge Peter J. 

 Shields of Sacramento, who awarded damages to the extent of $3,000. 



People vs. Toyo Fisheries Company. This action was commenced in 

 Sacramento County to recover delinquent taxes under the Fisheries 

 Tax and Regulation Act. Judgement was rendered in favor of the 

 people. 



In re Bryce Florence. This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

 instituted in the superior court at San Francisco to secure the release 

 from arrest for a violation of section 628 of the Penal Code. The 

 case involved the question of the right of petitioner to ship abalone 

 shells in an unmanufactured condition out of the state. The writ was 

 denied and petitioner remanded. 



People vs. Ventura PacMng Corporation. This is a proceeding insti- 

 tuted in Ventura County to enjoin the defendant from using an exces- 

 sive amount of sardines in its reduction plant. The action was dis- 

 missed on stipulation when the defendant shut down its plant and ceased 

 operations for a period of two weeks. 



Ventura Packing Corporation vs. Zellerhach et al. This was an 

 action for injunction instituted in the superior court at Ventura to 

 prevent the Fish and Game Commissioners from suspending the license 

 of the plaintiff corporation to pack fish. The action was dismissed 

 when the plaintiff accepted the suspension of its license. 



People vs. Cain Irrigation Co. This case comes to the superior court 

 on appeal from the judgment of conviction in the justice court at 

 Bridgeport, Mono County. The defendant was convicted of wilful and 



