Inhabitants of the County of Penobscot v. Treat

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Inhabitants of the County of Penobscot v. Treat

16 Me. 378

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine·Decided July 15, 1839·Published

Opinion

By the Court.

The declaration is bad, because it does not state that the fish warden gave notice of “ what is required to make such passage or sluice way sufficient and convenient,” and of “ the time in which the same shall be done,” as required by the act of 1835, c. 194, § 5, entitled “ an act for the preservation of the salmon, shad and alewive fisheries in Penobscot Bay and River, and their tributary waters.” As was decided in County of Hancock v. Eastern River L. & S. Co. ante, p. 303.

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

By the Court.

The declaration is bad, because it does not state that the fish warden gave notice of “ what is required to make such passage or sluice way sufficient and convenient,” and of “ the time in which the same shall be done,” as required by the act of 1835, c. 194, § 5, entitled “ an act for the preservation of the salmon, shad and alewive fisheries in Penobscot Bay and River, and their tributary waters.” As was decided in County of Hancock v. Eastern River L. & S. Co. ante, p. 303.

Inhabitants of the County of Penobscot v. Treat, 16 Me. 378 (Me. 1839).

Pincite

16 Me. 378 (Inhabitants of the County of Penobscot v. Treat) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.