INJUNCTION. 81 



the right of the club to an injunction to prevent defendants trespassing 

 upon its preserve. a It was decided that — 



Injunction will lie to prevent trespassing on a game preserve whereby not only is 

 game killed, but game is frightened away and deterred from returning, the remedy 

 at law being inadequate. 



The prevention of a multiplicity of suits is ground for injunction in case of repeated 

 trespasses by a large number of persons. 



Another question connected with this subject has arisen as to whether 

 the enforcement of an unconstitutional game act can be enjoined by 

 this process. This question arose in Michigan in the case of Osborn v. 

 Charlevoix Circuit Judge (72 N. W., 982). The complainant, O'Neil, 

 filed a bill in the circuit court praying for an injunction to restrain 

 Chase S. Osborn, State game warden, from enforcing the provisions 

 of the fish law, which restricted the practice of fishing with certain 

 nets, and authorized the seizure of such apparatus when so used. It 

 was alleged in the bill that the law was unconstitutional. The circuit 

 judge granted the prayer of the bill and injunction issued. There- 

 upon Osborn applied to the supreme court of the State for a writ of 

 mandamus to compel the circuit judge to dissolve the injunction. In 

 granting the writ the court said: 



If the law were unconstitutional, it would be available by way of defense to the 

 criminal charge, and therefore no occasion for chancery to take jurisdiction for the 

 want of an adequate remedy at law. It has never been found necessary or expedient 

 that the validity and construction of criminal laws should be determined in chancery 

 for the guidance of courts of criminal jurisdiction. 



«See also the South Carolina case of Chisholm v. Caines (67 Fed., 285), and the 

 Arkansas case of the Big Lake Shooting Club, Harrison v. Fite (148 Fed., 781). 

 Compare the decision in Rockefeller v. Lamora (New York), given in full in Forest 

 and Stream, LXI, p. 28, July 11, 1903, with the statement of the case given in the 

 Maine Sportsman, vol. 14, p. 202, June, 1907. 



