80 FISH AND GAME COMMISSION. 



offenses. This case is interesting because the Commission convicted 

 the defendant in jnstiee's conrt and appeal was taken to the superior 

 c-ourt of San Mateo County and tlie judgment sustained. A request for 

 a writ of habeas corpus was made to the appellate court and denied and, 

 finally, the same question was passed upon l)y tlie Supreme Court in 

 this case. 



In re Angela Biardo, 69 Cal. Dec. 420. Same as above. 



hi re Jack Biardo, 69 Cal. Dec. 420. Same as above 



In re Cerruti, 69 Cal. Dec. 420. Same as above. 



In re Spiirtino, 69 Cal. Dec. 420. Same as above. 



DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. 



Van Camp Sea Food Company vs. Newhert et al., Commissioners, 

 49 Cal. App. Dec. 38. Decided December 28, 1925. 



This was an application for certiorari to review an order of the Fish 

 and Game Commission regulating the amount of fish used in the manu- 

 facture of fertilizer by fish canning plants. The Commission contended 

 that the application should be denied because the act of the Commission 

 was not of such a .judieial nature as to .justify a proceeding in certiorari. 

 The court held that the Fish and Game Commission had no right to 

 exercise judicial functions and if, therefore, in fact, this function 

 attempted to l)e exercised by the Commission was either judicial or 

 quasi- judicial, the writ would not lie. 



Stafford Packing Company vs. Newhert et al., 49 Cal. App. Dec. 41. 

 Same as previous case. 



Pacific Mari^ie Products vs. Newhert et al., 49 Cal. App. Dec. 41. 

 Same as previous case. 



Southern California Fish Corporation vs. Newhert et al., 49 Cal. 

 App. Dec. 41. Same as previous case. 



Los Angeles Sea Food Products Company vs. FisJi and Game Com- 

 mission, 49 Cal. App. Dec. 41. Same as previous case. 



Franco-Italian Packing Company vs. Newhert et at., 49 Cal. App. 

 Dec. 41. Same as pervious case. 



Van Camp Sea Food Company vs. Newhert et al., 49 Cal. Dee. 362. 

 Decided February 25, 1926. 



This is a companion case to the other Van Camp case above, but here 

 the plaintiff seel^s mandamus to compel the Commission to issue a new 

 order relative to the amount of fish to be used for manufacture of fish 

 meal. The court, however, adopted the interpretation of the fish reduc- 

 tion act claimed by the Fish and Game Commission and declared that 

 portion of it unconstitutional on which the plaintiff' relied. The 

 demurrer to the petition was therefore sustained and the writ 

 discharged. 



People vs. James A. Makings, No. 1323, First Appellate District, 

 Division Two. Decided May 17, 1926. 



An application for a writ of habeas corpus directed to a constable 

 of Sausalito township to secure release of petitioner from custody on 

 a charge of transporting crabs from fish and game district 1^. This 

 raised the question of the constitutionality of section 623 of the Penal 

 Code which prohibits the exportation of crabs from certain designated 

 districts in northern California. The constitutionality of the law was 

 upheld and the writ denied. 



