Eaton v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Eaton v. State

71 S.E. 1004, 9 Ga. App. 588, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 245

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedAugust 4, 1911

Docket2972

StatusPublished

This text of 71 S.E. 1004 (Eaton v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eaton v. State, 71 S.E. 1004, 9 Ga. App. 588, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 245 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Russeli., J.

1. Section 603 of the Renal Code (1910) forbids the putting of an obstruction in any river, creek, or fresh-water drain, for the purpose of catching fish, unless at least 10 feet in. the case of rivers, and one-tliird of the main channel in the case of creeks, is left open for the free passage of the fish. The section excepts dams for milling or manufacturing purposes, but this exception does not render lawful the use of a fall trap in the tail-race below the mill wheel, where a mill-dam runs entirely across the main channel of a creek, except at the small space where the wheel is located.

2. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that, while the creek in question had many prongs or channels, the defendant had unlawfully obstructed the main channel with a dam and fish trap.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Russeli., J.

1. Section 603 of the Renal Code (1910) forbids the putting of an obstruction in any river, creek, or fresh-water drain, for the purpose of catching fish, unless at least 10 feet in. the case of rivers, and one-tliird of the main channel in the case of creeks, is left open for the free passage of the fish. The section excepts dams for milling or manufacturing purposes, but this exception does not render lawful the use of a fall trap in the tail-race below the mill wheel, where a mill-dam runs entirely across the main channel of a creek, except at the small space where the wheel is located.

2. The evidence was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that, while the creek in question had many prongs or channels, the defendant had unlawfully obstructed the main channel with a dam and fish trap.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 S.E. 1004, 9 Ga. App. 588, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eaton-v-state-gactapp-1911.