88 FISH AND GAME COMMISSION 



People vs. Prather. This was an action instituted by the division 

 in San Francisco to recover from Willis H. Prather, former county 

 clerk of Mendocino County, and his official surety $8,628.48, repre- 

 senting an amount due and unpaid from the sale of hunting and 

 angling licenses in Mendocino County during 1928-1929, which the 

 defendant Prather failed to account for. The surety company con- 

 tested the case but judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff. 

 The sum of $5,000 was recovered from the surety company represent- 

 ing the amount of the bond. The balance is covered by the judgment 

 against Prather himself and is yet unpaid. 



People vs. Bayside Fish Flour Company. This was an action 

 commenced by the division to prevent the defendant from operating a 

 fish reduction plant on Monterey Bay without a permit required by the 

 Fish Reduction Act. Defendant contended that permit previously 

 issued was continuing in effect and consequently no new permit was 

 needed. The court, however, took a contrary view and sustained the 

 contention of the plaintiff. Pending final disposition of the action, the 

 defendant complied with the provisions of the Act and a permit was 

 issued to it. The case was then dismissed for the reason that the ques- 

 tions therein had become moot. 



Boyd vs. Zellerlach et al. This was an action for mandamus to 

 secure the issuance of a fish packer's license. The action was started 

 in Ventura County and a motion to change venue was granted. There- 

 upon the petitioner dismissed the case without prejudice. 



Boyd vs. Zellerhach et al. This action was commenced in the 

 Superior Court of Santa Barbara County and was similar to the 

 previous case. The writ sought was granted. 



People vs. Ventura Packing Corporation. This was an action com- 

 menced in Ventura County to enjoin the defendant (the canning plant 

 involved in the Boyd case, supra) from using an excessive amount of 

 sardines in its reduction plant. After trial the defendant was enjoined 

 from using sardines in excess of the amount authorized by law. 



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

 the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco for 

 injunction similar to the salmon injunction cases noted hereinabove. 

 After plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction was denied, the 

 case was dismissed by the plaintiffs without prejudice and filed anew 

 in Marin County. See Noack et al. vs. Zellercach et al., supra. 



Molera vs. Hyatt. This was an action commenced in the Superior 

 Court of Monterey County by a property owner near the outlet of the 

 Salinas River. The suit sought to enjoin the State engineer from 

 proceeding to dredge an old channel formerly connecting the Salinas 

 River with Elkhorn Slough. At the request of the Attorney General, 

 counsel for the Division of Fish and Game appeared as one of defense 

 counsel. The court decided that the channel by accretion had become 

 private property and that the proposed operations would constitute a 

 violation of the rights of the property owners and upon such grounds 

 ordered judgment restraining further dredging operations. Findings 

 have not yet been presented to the court by the plaintiffs. 



Warnock vs. Hyatt. Similar to previous case. 



