TI11RT1KT1I BIENNIAL REPORT ll'.") 



and denying injunction relief and damages. The court in this case held 

 that the waters of Monterey Bay are territorial Avaters, irrespective of 

 the three-mile zone. 



SIPERIOR COURT 



People vs. Italian Food Products Co. This was an action commenced 

 in the superior court of Los Angeles County to prevent the defendant 

 from using fish for reduction purposes. This action was brought on 

 the theory of the division that, in the light of the ruling in Van Camp 

 Sea Food Co., Inc., vs. Fish and (lame Commission, 49 Cal. App. Dec. 

 38, packers were not entitled to any allowance for reduction purposes 

 Avhatsoever, inasmuch as the method of determining the capacity of 

 their plants as provided in the Fish Reduction Act had heen declared 

 unconstitutional. The case came on for hearing hefore Judge Stephens 

 of Los Angeles on a demurrer filed by the defendants. In a lengthy 

 opinion the court held that every packer was entitled to an allowance 

 for reduction purposes of 25 per cent of the capacity of the plant but 

 that the Fish and Game Commission was without judicial power to 

 determine such capacity. This case was decided August 9, 1926. 



People vs. Marine Products Company. Same as previous case. 



People vs. Van Camp. Same as previous case. 



People vs. Franco Italian Packing Co. Same as previous case. 



People vs. Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District. This was a suit 

 for injunction filed in the superior court at Redding to prevent the 

 defendant from maintaining its dam in the Sacramento River until 

 such time as it complied with an order of the Fish and Game Commis- 

 sion to install a fish ladder. The matter w T as settled out of court when 

 the defendant agreed and proceeded to install. In consequence thereof 

 the action was dismissed. 



People vs. Battaglia et al. This was an appeal to the superior court 

 of Marin County from a judgment of the justice court at Sausalito. 

 The defendant had been convicted for illegal use of nets. After oral 

 arguments the judgment of the lower court was upheld and the appeal 

 dismissed. 



Lowe vs. Carpenter et al. This is an action commenced by the owner 

 of 270 live geese for an injunction to prevent the seizure thereof by 

 deputies of the Fisli and Game Commission. The geese are used as 

 decoys. The case is still pending. 



People vs. Bayside Fish Flovr Company. This was an action com- 

 7nenced by the division to enjoin the defendant from taking fish into 

 its plant and there manufacturing it into an edible product. This case 

 was brought to test out the point raised by the division that the granting 

 of a permit to manufacture such a product would be a judicial act on 

 the part of the division, in view of the decision of Judge Stephens of 

 Los Angeles in People vs. Italian Food Products Co., and would be void 

 ab initio. On November 24, 1926, Judge Treat of Salinas decided in 

 favor of the defendant, holding that the division had power to grant 

 such a permit. 



People vs. Ocean Industries, Inc. This was an action commenced in 

 the County of Santa Cruz to restrain the operations of the defendant 

 aboard its steamer Pcralta, heretofore referred to. Injunction pendente 

 lite was granted but thereafter the defendant company retired from 

 business, ceased its operations, and removed its steamer. 



