84 FISH AND GAME COMMISSION 



or fish ladders, the propriety of issuing permits, and so forth. At these 

 hearings the division is represented by its counsel. 



The following is a resume of the major cases handled by the legal 

 department during this biennium: 



UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT 



Noack et al. vs. Zellerhach et al. This was an action instituted in 

 the United States District Court at San Francisco to enjoin the Fish 

 and Game Commissioners and their deputies from interfering with 

 the operations of plaintiffs in transporting fresh salmon, alleged to be 

 caught on the high seas, over and across the sea fish and game districts 

 adjacent to the California coast during the time that the taking or 

 possession of fresh salmon within such districts is prohibited. The 

 action was i^redicated on the theory that the salmon law (section 634 

 of the Penal Code), was repugnant to the federal constitution for 

 various reasons. The district court, sitting with three federal judges, 

 upheld the position of the commissioners and denied Noack and his 

 fellow plaintiffs relief. 



From this decision the fishermen took an appeal to the United 

 States Supreme Court, which court affirmed the decision of the lower 

 court. 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 



Hazel-Atlas Glass Company of California vs. Stewart Curtis 

 Packers, Inc. On the application of the plaintiff' a receiver has 

 been appointed to carry on and conduct the affairs of the defending 

 packing company. The Division of Fish and Game is a claimant for 

 unpaid privilege taxes due for shipments of albacore from Japan, the 

 sole question being Avhether or not the tax constitutes a burden on 

 imports in violation of the Federal Constitution. The matter was 

 presented before a special master in equity appointed by the court 

 and has been briefed and submitted for decision. 



SUPREME COURT 



People vs. Glenn Colusa Irrigation District. This is an action 

 instituted by the division in the Superior Court of Glenn County to 

 enjoin the defendant district from diverting water from the Sacra- 

 mento River into its irrigating ditches until such time as it installs a 

 fish screen at the intake thereof in accordance with the order of the 

 division. The case was tried before Superior Judge H. S. Gans of 

 Red Bluff at Willows, the trial commencing on May 19, 1930. There- 

 after a judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff in which the 

 irrigation district was enjoined from diverting any water from the 

 Sacramento River after April 1, 1932, until a fish screen, as ordered 

 by the Fish and Game Commission, was installed. The defendant dis- 

 trict took an appeal to the Supreme Court, where the matter is now 

 pending. 



Bvenson vs. Engelke et al. This suit (similar to Noack vs. Zeller- 

 hach, supra) 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 



