State v. Roberts
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Indictment, for catching four trout in the prohibited season from North pond in Stark. The respondent claimed that the proceeding should have been by action of debt for the penalty, and not by indictment, and that the indictment, being within a year after the offence, was premature. The respondent owned the land around North pond, into which small streams run from other land, and the outlet from which runs into the Upper Ammonoosuc river.
Read the full summary
Indictment, for catching four trout in the prohibited season from North pond in Stark. The respondent claimed that the proceeding should have been by action of debt for the penalty, and not by indictment, and that the indictment, being within a year after the offence, was premature. The respondent owned the land around North pond, into which small streams run from other land, and the outlet from which runs into the Upper Ammonoosuc river. The pond was not screened or otherwise enclosed so as to prevent the free passage of fish to and from its waters. The respondent claimed that the fish…
1Opinion of the CourtAllen, J.
This indictment is found upon c. 55 of the Laws of 1872, which does not in terms prescribe the mode of recovering the penalty named for a violation of the law. The law was a substitute for ss. 7 and 14 of c. 251, Gen. St., extending the time within which the catching of trout was prohibited, and changing the penalty from ten dollars for each offence to ten dollars for each fish caught. By the laws of 1868, c. 1, s. 55, it was provided that all forfeitures incurred for a violation of the provisions of c. 251 of the Gen. St. which includes violations of the law against catching fish, might be…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Herrin v. SutherlandMontana Supreme Court · 1925
- State v. MartineauSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 2002
- State v. WelchSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1889