THIRTIETH BIENNIAL REPORT 12o 



REPORT OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT 



By Eugene D. Bennett, In Charge 



On the last day of December, 1927, Mr. B. D. Marx Greene resigned 

 as executive officer and attorney for the Division of Fish and Game. 

 Thereafter the legal work of the division was taken over by Mr. Eugene 

 D. Bennett with the assistance of Mr. Ralph W. Scott and carried on at 

 the office of the division in San Francisco. 



The legal activities of the division are quite extensive and may be 

 summarized in the following manner: 



I 

 Prosecution of civil actions in the superior courts to enjoin public 

 nuisances such as pollution of public waters, the maintenance of dams 

 without fish ladders, diversion of waters without fish screens and other 

 actions involving the preservation of fish and game. These actions are 

 instituted in conjunction with the office of the Attorney General and in 

 the name of the People of the State of California. The attorneys for 

 the division appear as attorneys of record in these cases and handle all 

 matters appertaining thereto. 



TI 



Defense of all actions instituted in the superior court or in any of 

 the higher or inferior courts against the division, the Commission, or 

 any employees thereof in their official capacities. 



Ill 



Prosecution of criminal cases in the justice or police courts involving 

 violations of fish and game laws, when requested to do so by the various 

 district attorneys. Usually the deputy fish and game commissioners 

 prosecute their own cases. But where a jury has been demanded or 

 where the facts surrounding a case present some unusual feature, tech- 

 nical question, or local angle, the attorneys for the division appear. 

 Fourteen of these cases were prosecuted by the division during the 

 biennium. 



IV 



Rendition of opinions formal and informal for sportsmen throughout 

 the state and those identified commercially with fish and game, such 

 as fish packers, game farmers, propagators of domestic trout and the 

 like. The attorneys for the division are constanly called upon to inter- 

 pret the various fish and game laws for the public generally and for the 

 employees of the division, particularly the men in the field. 



The following is a resume of the cases handled by the legal depart- 

 ment during this biennium. 



SUPREME COURT 



Globe Cotton Oil Mills vs. Zellerbach et al, 200 Cal. 276. This action 

 was instituted by the filing of a petition for writ of mandate to compel 

 the Division of Fish and Game to hold a hearing under the provisions 

 of what is commonly known as the Fish Reduction Act (Statutes 1925, 

 page 595), to determine whether a permit should be issued to petitioner 

 to use sardines in the manufacture of edible oil. The division refused 

 to hold the hearing, basing its refusal upon the language of a decision 



