TWENTY-NINTH BIENNIAL REPORT. 79 



REPORT OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT. 



By B. D. Marx Gheene, Attorney. 



Prior to January, 1926, the legal work of the Commission was handled 

 by a general attorney with headquarters at Sacramento and by an 

 attorney for the Commercial Fisheries Department with headquarters 

 at San Francisco. In January, 1926, upon the reorganization of the 

 Commission, the two legal positions were consolidated with that of the 

 executive officer, and an assistant attorney, Ralph W. Scott, was 

 appointed to serve at San Francisco. 



The legal work of the Commission is divided into certain main 

 classifications : 



1. The prosecution in the justice's court of cases involving violation 

 of fish and game laws where assistance is requested by district attorneys 

 of counties. This usually happens when technical provisions of the 

 law are in question or when a jury has been demanded. Usually the 

 game wardens prosecute their own cases and do not call for assistance 

 unless some unusual legal question is presented or a jury is demanded. 



2. Superior court actions for injunction brought in the name of the 

 people of the State of California through the office of the attorney gen- 

 eral in which the attorney for the Commission appears of record and 

 actually handles the legal proceedings. 



3. Actions commenced in the superior court against the Commission, 

 or individual employees of the Commission in their representative 

 capacity, either to compel the performance of a certain duty or to 

 enjoin the Commission and its officers from performing some specific 

 function. 



4. Original applications to either the appellate or Supreme Court to 

 compel the Commission to take action or to desist from taking action. 



The following is a summary of cases handled by the legal department 

 of the Commission during this biennial period : 



SUPREME COURT. 



People vs. Monterey Fish Products Company, 69 Cal. Dec. 261. 

 Decided March 4, 1925. 



Action brought in the superior court of Monterey County for injunc- 

 tion to prevent defendant from operating an independent reduction 

 plant using sardines for fertilizer purposes. The superior court decided 

 in favor of the defendant. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court 

 and reversed. This is now one of the leading cases in California and 

 the nation in regard to state ownership of fish and game in its sovereign 

 capacity and lays down certain general principles relative to waste of 

 food fish and the right of the state to regulate its taking and use. 



In re Berto, 69 Cal. Dec. 420. 



Original application to the Supreme Court for a writ of habeas corpus 

 upon the ground that the offense charged in the original cause in jus- 

 tice's court was insufficient because it failed to allege that the beach 

 net or seine which was being used in violation of law was used for the 

 particular purpose of taking and catching fish. This decision liberal- 

 ized the law and makes it much easier hereafter to charge similar 



