State v. Dow
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Indictment, for engaging in the business of fishing for lake trout, with intent to sell the fish caught. It was agreed that, if tlie statute under which the indictment was found is constitutional, a verdict should be directed for the state.
1Opinion of the CourtPeaslee, J.
“The power to enact ‘ fish and game’ laws was exercised previous to the adoption of the constitution, and it.has been so long used, and so beneficially for the public, that it ought not now to be called in question.” State v. Roberts, 59 N. H. 256, 257. “The duty of preserving the fisheries of a state from extinction, by prohibiting exhaustive methods of fishing, ... is as clear as its power to secure to its citizens, as far as possible, a supply of any other wholesome food.” Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133, 139. “ From the earliest traditions, the right to reduce animals force naturae to…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Lawton v. SteeleSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Geer v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Lawton v. . SteeleNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Phelps v. . RaceyNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- American Express Co. v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court · 1890
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- In Re MarincovichCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
- People v. ZimbergMichigan Supreme Court · 1948
- Carter v. CraigSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1914
- State v. McCormackSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1970