THIRTY-SECOND BIENNIAL REPORT 87 



Court of Humboldt County to recover the sum of $750, alleged to be 

 due for past salary and expenses. The division secured change of 

 venue of the action to San Francisco County, and since then plaintiff 

 has not taken further steps to i)rosecute the case. The matter is still 

 pending. 



Peojilc vs. Hufchinson 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 defendants 

 on the Cosumnes River. After a hearing in the matter judgment 

 was rendered for the plaintiff and the defendants were ordered to 

 install a ladder. Subsequently they did so. But the construction 

 provoked the question as to whether or not the ladder would serve the 

 purpose and pass fish over the dam. On an order to show cause why 

 the defendants should not be adjudged in contempt of court, the matter 

 was postponed by Judge JMalcom C. Glenn of Sacramento until the next 

 rainfall and attending run of salmon would offer more positive proof 

 concerning the efScacy of the ladder as constructed. 



People vs. Stangero. This case came to the superior court on 

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

 Luis Obispo. The superior court affirmed the judgment. 



Noack et al. vs. ZeUerhach et al. This is an action against the 

 commissioners and certain of their deputies, in which the plaintiffs seek 

 to recover seventeen thousand seven hundred fifty dollars ($17,750) 

 damages for the alleged wrongful seizure of salmon and attending loss 

 of profits by threats of further arrests. This case is an aftermath of 

 the salmon injunction cases referred to hereinabove. The case is set 

 ^or trial on September 6, 1932. 



John A. Peters vs. Mansfield Joy et al. This is an action com- 

 menced in the Superior Court of Marin County for twenty thousand 

 eight hundred and fifty dollars ($20,850) damages against the commis- 

 sioners and certain deputies for alleged false imprisonment. Like the 

 previous case, it is the aftermath of the salmon injunction cases noted 

 hereinabove. The matter is still pending. 



Frank Peters vs. Mansfield Joy et al. Similar to previous case; 

 amount of damages claimed $20,600. 



Paul J. Trouette vs. Mansfield Joy et al. Similar to previous case ; 

 amount of damages claimed $20,850. 



Louis Peters vs. Mansfield Joy et al. Similar to previous case ; 

 amount of damages claimed $20,850. 



People vs. Wattenhurg et al. This action was instituted by the 

 Division in the Superior Court of Mendocino County to enjoin the 

 defendants from interfering with the flow of water in Cold Creek to 

 the fish hatchery located thereon. The case involved an interpretation 

 of the terms of a lease entered into between the division and defend- 

 ants Wattenburgs some years ago in which the Wattenburgs agreed to 

 furnish the State with enough water to operate the hatchery. After a 

 trial of the matter the court decided that the Wattenburgs should be 

 enjoined from diverting more than half the water in Cold Creek for 

 their own use and should leave the balance for use of the State. 



