108 REPORT OF STATE BOARD OF FISH COMMISSIONERS. 



SUPREME COURT DECISIONS, 



S. F. No. 3679. In bank. August 7, 1903. 



AH KING VS. SUPERIOR COURT. 



Application for writ of prohibition against the Pohce Court of the 

 City and County of San Francisco — E. P. Mogan, .Judge. 

 For Applicant — Wm. Hoff Cook. 

 For Respondent — Lewis F. Byington, District Attorney. 



By the Court: Petition for writ of prohibition. 



The only question to be determined in this case is whether certain 

 statutes relating to the preservation of fish and game are invalidated 

 by the constitutional provision requiring acts of the Legislature to 

 embrace but one subject. The contention of the petitioner is that fisli 

 and game are different subjects. The court is of the opinion that the 

 preservation of fish and game is a single subject of legislation, and 

 may properly be embraced in the same act. 



Writ denied. 



Crim. Xo. 1144. Department Two. June 20, 19C4. 



THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORIXA. Plaintiff and 

 Respondent, ?•.?. THOMAS J. MILES AND A. S. DINWIDDIE. 

 Defend.\nts and Appellants. 



Appeal from the Superior Court of Sutter County — K. S. Mahon, 

 Judge. 



For Appellant — A. L. Shinn, T. H. Christianson. and A. H. Hewett. 



For Respondent — U. S. Webb, Attorney-General: C. N. Post, Assist- 

 ant Attorney-General. 



Defendants were convicted on an information charging that on August 

 22, 1903, they were guilty "of the crime of setting and using a set-net 

 in the waters of the State for the purpose of catching fish (a misde- 

 meanor), committed as follows: That said (naming the defendants and 

 the date) did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously in 

 the waters of the State of California, to wit, in the Sacramento Slough, 

 in the said county of Sutter, * * * <ei and use a certain set-net, 

 that is, a net which was then and there secured and was not free to 



