86 FISH AND GAME COMMISSION 



Court of San Francisco denying the application of the fish flour com- 

 pany for a writ of mandate to compel the issuance of a permit to 

 reduce sardines to fish flour for an unlimited period of time. The 

 District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of the lower court. 



Bayside Fish Flour Company vs. Zellerlxicli et al. An original 

 application for mandamus which was made to the District Court of 

 Appeal to secure a permit similar to the one sought in the preceding 

 action. The petition was denied on the ground that it antedated the 

 taking effect of the amendments to the statute upon which the petition 

 was primarily predicated. 



In re Frajik Vitalie. This was an application for a writ of habeas 

 corpus in the District Court of Appeal for the Third District to secure 

 petitioner's release from arrest for a violation of the provisions of 

 section 628a Penal Code (the so-called Cronin Act, pas.sed in 1931, and 

 which prohibited the netting of striped bass). This action was the 

 first test of the validity of the act, which the court upheld by a 

 sweeping decision in which the application for the writ was denied. 



SUPERIOR COURT 



People vs. Cain Irrigation Compo.ny. This action was commenced 

 in the Superior Court of Mono County to enjoin the defendant from 

 diverting water from Rush Creek into its irrigating ditches until such 

 time as fish screens are installed. Trial of this and two following 

 cases is being deferred on account of the anticipated taking over of 

 these -properties by the City of Los Angeles, which will result in a 

 v^oluntary abatement of these nuisances. 



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

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

 is involved instead of fish screens. 



People vs. Cain Irrigation Company. 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 unlaAvful failure to install a fish ladder to permit fish to 

 pass over and around its dam at Grant Lake. The defendant has 

 agreed to pay the fine and dismiss its appeal if the pending negotia- 

 tions with the City of Los Angeles are completed. 



Uhden et al. vs. McDermott et al. This action is similar to Noack 

 vs. Zellerhach, supra, except it was commenced in the superior court at 

 Santa Cruz by a group of fishermen of that locality. After the statute 

 was amended at the 1931 session of the Legislature, a motion was made 

 to dissolve the temporary injunction heretofore granted against the 

 commissioners, which motion was granted and no further action has 

 been taken in the case. 



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

 ow^ner of 270 live geese for an injunction to prevent the seizure thereof 

 by deputies of the Fish and Game Commission. The geese are used 

 as decoys. The case is still pending. 



Barries vs. Dept. of Natural Resources et al. This is a mandamus 

 action commenced by a former deputy of the division in the Superior 



