Oliver v. Bailey
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Agreed statement. Trespass for seizing and carrying away a bass net. From the agreed statement it appears that on the 24th day of February, 1892, the defendants then being duly appointed and qualified Fish and Game Wardens, took from the waters of Winnegance Creek, south of a bridge there, a bass net, then and there set by the plaintiff for the purpose of catching bass, and being the plaintiff’s property; that'the wardens had given notice to the fishermen that a bass net…
Read the full summary
Agreed statement. Trespass for seizing and carrying away a bass net. From the agreed statement it appears that on the 24th day of February, 1892, the defendants then being duly appointed and qualified Fish and Game Wardens, took from the waters of Winnegance Creek, south of a bridge there, a bass net, then and there set by the plaintiff for the purpose of catching bass, and being the plaintiff’s property; that'the wardens had given notice to the fishermen that a bass net could not be set across the channel, and that said plaintiff had knowledge of this opinion of the wardens; that the net in…
1Opinion of the CourtEmery, J.
The plaintiff for the purpose of capturing bass, set a stationary fish net across the channel of Winnegance. creek in Sagadahoc county, ata place where there was more than two feet depth of water at oi’dinary low water.
This act of the plaintiff was in violation of the letter of the last clause of § 23, of c. 40, R. S., (the chapter on Fish and Fisheries) which clause provides that no person " shall set any net crosswise of said waters, but only lengthwise,” &c. The phrase "said waters ” refers to those waters named in the preceding 17th section of the same chapter, which clearly include…
2Cited by3 opinions
- State ex rel. Remley v. MeekSupreme Court of Iowa · 1900
- Guilbeau v. DétiègeSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1880
- Liberman v. FaustLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1922