TWENTY-NINTH BIENNIAL REPORT. 81 



SUPERIOR COURT. 



People vs. Globe Cotton Oil Mills. Action filed in the superior court 

 of Los Angeles County in January, 1925, for an injunction to prevent 

 the defendant from using whole fish for reduction purposes to make an 

 edible oil product. On February 3, 1925, the injunction was granted as 

 prayed for in the complaint. Subsequently, wdien the new reduction 

 act was passed by the legislature in 1925 the action was dismissed. 



People vs. Hovden Company. This action was filed for an injunction 

 October 23, 1925, in the superior court of Monterey County as a result 

 of alleged overuse of sardines for reduction purposes by the defendant. 

 Temporary restraining order granted and on November 14, 1925, by 

 stipulation injunction penelente lite granted restraining defendant until 

 further order of the court from violating the orders of the Commission 

 relative to the amount of fish to be used for reduction purposes. 



People vs. Pacific Marine Products. Action filed in the superior 

 court of Los Angeles County January 29, 1926, to prevent the defendant 

 from using fish for reduction purposes in violation of law. Action still 

 pending. 



People vs. Gilbert Van Camp. Same as previous case. 



People vs. Italian Food Products Company: Same as previous case. 



People vs. Franco-Italian Packing Company. Same as previous case. 



People vs. Battagatia et at. In the superior court of Marin County. 

 Appeal from the justice court of Sausalito township involving a ques- 

 tion of illegal use of nets. Action still pending. 



Lowe vs. Carpenter. In the superior court of Glenn County for 

 injunction to prevent seizure of 270 geese used as decoys. Action still 

 pending. 



CASES INVOLVING INSTALLATION OF SCREENS. 



A large number of injunction cases are pending at the present time 

 to compel the installation and maintenance of fish screens in irrigation 

 ditches and canals. Very few of these cases have been pressed since the 

 reorganization of the Commission, as a iicav bureau has been installed to 

 care for these matters and a general survey of the state is being made 

 at the present time. Until this survey is completed most of the cases 

 have been left in abeyance. 



CONDEMNATION OF NETS. 



Under section 636a of the Penal Code, it is the duty of the Fish and 

 Game Commission to commence proper proceedings in the superior court 

 to condemn all nets seized for violation of the fish laws. In compliance 

 with this section the Commission instituted 73 separate proceedings in 

 the courts of this state for such condemnation and in each instance 

 obtained from the superior court an order of condemnation. 



OPINIONS. 



In addition to the court proceedings, the legal department of the 

 Commission renders numerous opinions, both formal and informal. 



Also, for the guidance of the Commission, we are greatly indebted to 

 U. S'. "Webb, Attorney General of the state, who has at all times cooper- 

 ated With us to the fullest extent in handling such legal proceedings 

 as were necessary, and in giving us formal and informal opinion, sug- 

 gestions and advice. 



6—48323 



