THIRTY-SECOND BIENNIAL REPORT 85 



fresh salmon caught on the high seas over and across the closed sea 

 areas off Humboldt County into the City of Eureka. The court granted 

 a preliminary injunction, from which the division appealed. The 

 Supreme Court affirmed the preliminary injunction, upon its inter- 

 pretation of the statute, to the effect thai the possession within closed 

 districts of fish caught upon the high seas was authorized by a 

 proviso in the statute. At the next session of the Legislature, by an 

 urgency measure, the statute involved (Penal Code section 6:>4j was 

 amended so as to expressly prohibit the possession of salmon in the 

 closed districts irrespective of the place where caught. Thereafter the 

 case was tried on its merits before the Superior Court at Eureka, and 

 this time judgment was rendered in favor of the commissioners. From 

 this judgment the plaintiff fishermen appealed to the Supreme Court, 

 where the matter is now pending. 



Means vs. Kayser. This is a petition for a rehearing in the 

 Supreme Court (which petition the Supreme Court granted) following 

 denial by the District Court of Appeal of a petition for certiorari to 

 review an award of the Industrial Accident Commission holding the 

 Division of Fish and Game liable for compensation due Means for 

 injuries incurred while acting as an inspector of the seining operations 

 with one Kayser, a commercial fisherman, at Ellis Lake, Marysville, 

 California. Means' wages were being paid by Kayser and the division 

 contended that he was Kayser 's employee. The Industrial Accident 

 Commission held, however, that Means was an employee of the division 

 rather than of Kayser. The matter has been briefed, argued and is 

 awaiting decision. 



People vs. K. Hovden Company. This w 7 as an action commenced 

 in the Superior Court of Monterey County to prevent the defendant 

 from using sardines in its reduction plant in excess of the amount 

 allowed by law, and to close its plant for a period of one year. The 

 case was tried before Judge H. S. Jorgenson of Salinas and judgment 

 rendered in favor of the plaintiff. The judgment contained an order 

 closing the reduction plant of the defendant for a period of one year. 

 From this judgment the defendant fish canning company appealed, 

 but the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court. This 

 is the first case wherein the abatement provisions of the Sardine Reduc- 

 tion Act have been applied and upheld by the Supreme Court of this 

 State. 



Noack et al. vs. Zelleroach et al. This action was commenced in 

 the Superior Court of Marin County for an injunction to prevent the 

 commissioners from interfering with the salmon fishing operations of 

 the plaintiffs. In all respects it is similar to Svenson et al. vs. Engelke 

 et al., supra. A demurer to the complant was sustained without leave 

 to amend by Judge Edward I. Butler, from which plaintiff fishermen 

 appealed to the Supreme Court. This appeal has not been further 

 prosecuted by the appellants. 



DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 



Bayside Fish Flour Company vs. Zelleroach et al. This was an 

 appeal from a judgment in favor of the commissioners by the Superior 



