80 GAME COMMISSIONS AND WARDENS. 



INJUNCTION. 



The question has arisen repeatedly, and doubtless will recur fre- 

 quently, as to whether an anticipated or persistent violation of the 

 game law can be prevented by a proceeding in equity. It is a general 

 rule of law that injunction will not lie to restrain the violation or 

 intended violation of a penal statute. 



The rule is well settled that, where there is no threatened injury to personal or 

 property rights, equity will not lend its aid by injunction to restrain the violation of 

 public or penal statutes or the commission of penal acts. (State ex rel. Reynolds v. 

 Capital City D. C., 56 N. E. (Ohio), 651.) 



The only remedy or redress, therefore, of the State is a criminal 

 prosecution, or, as heretofore stated, a civil action for the recovery of 

 the prescribed penalty in those States where such procedure is per- 

 mitted, after consummation of the offense. But in a few States an 

 attempt to violate the game law is an offense, and under such a statute 

 timel} T prosecution might prevent the consummation of the unlawful 

 act. 



It is doubtful whether a State has the power to provide for recourse 

 to injunction in order to restrain an anticipated or continued violation 

 of the game law, and, it seems, no State has attempted it. This remedy 

 has, however, been f requently and successfully invoked to restrain per- 

 sistent and repeated trespasses upon private property for the purpose 

 of hunting, and thereby, indirectly, certain features of the game laws 

 have been enforced. a The case of Kellogg v. King in California (46 

 Pac, 166), is a good illustration of the application of this principle. 

 Kellogg, as trustee of the Cordelia Shooting Club whose preserve was 

 situated in Solano County, Calif., applied to the superior court of that 

 county for an injunction to restrain King and about forty others from 

 trespassing upon the club's preserve, shooting ducks and other game 

 thereon, and otherwise committing frequent depredations. The defend- 

 ants resisted the suit on several grounds, among which it is onty neces- 

 sary to refer to the one denying complainant's right to resort to the 

 remedy of injunction. The superior court dismissed the complain- 

 ant's bill and rendered judgment for the defendants, from which the 

 complainant appealed to the supreme court of the State, where the 

 judgment was reversed and a new trial ordered, thus sustaining 



«See article entitled 'Jailed for ignoring an Injunction,' in Am. Field, LXI, pp. 

 319-320, Apr. 2, 1904. Two market hunters were enjoined by the U. S. Circuit Court 

 from shooting on the property of the Big Lake Shooting Club, in Mississippi County, 

 Arkansas, and when they continued to trespass they were sentenced to 30 days each 

 in the county jail for contempt of court. 



