Home/Michigan Supreme Court/People v. Horling

People v. Horling

100 N.W. 691, 137 Mich. 406
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 27, 1904
DocketDocket No. 190
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 100 N.W. 691 (People v. Horling) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Horling, 100 N.W. 691, 137 Mich. 406 (Mich. 1904).

Opinion

Moore, C. J.

The respondents were convicted of violating the provisions of section 5849, % Comp. Laws, which reads':

“That it shall not be lawful for any person to take, catch, or bill, or attempt to take, catch, or kill, any fish in any of the inland lakes in this State with any kind of spear, or grap hook or by the use of jacks or artificial light of any kind, or by the use of set lines or night lines, or any kind of net, or any kind of fire-arms or explosive or other device, except the hook and line.”

The accompanying plat will help to understand the situation (p. 408).

The testimony on the part of the people was in part as follows: That at the time of the fishing alleged in the complaint, witnesses for the people testified that they went up the drain marked on the plat, with a boat, into said lake or bayou, and found the nets respondents were fishing with that night; that said respondents, or some of them, put a wire netting in said drain, reaching from the bottom thereof to above the top thereof, and that the respondents, or some of them, admitted that they put this screen in said drain to keep fish from going up and down said drain and into or out of said lake or bayou; that the length of time water runs in and out of said lake through said drain depends upon the length of time the water is high enough to get in and out, but in every year there is always more or less time that fish can go in and out of said lake; that most of the fish planted in said lake or bayou, except carp and bass, have been taken from holes or pools in the lowland surrounding said lake or bayou [408]*408after the high water receded and left the lowlands cornparatively dry; that in the spring freshets, when Grand river rises and overflows its banks, then said bayou is [409]*409■connected with Grand river, so that fishes can come and go to and from Grand river; that this connection exists as long as the high water exists; that some four years ago a ■public drain was laid by the drain commissioner; this drain ■does not follow any old outlet, but takes a westerly course, and strikes Grand river farther down, where the cut in the river bank is located, so that after the river lowers, and there is no connection between the river and the bayou through this cut in the bank, the water still continues to ■run out of the bayou or lake, through this ditch, into the liver; that after the ditch was dug it lowered the lake some two feet, and drained considerable land surrounding the lake; that fishes can come and go through this ditch for part of the year, as it does not become dry as soon as the old inlet or cut in the river bank. That some of the witnesses for the people testified that there were both spring 'and fall freshets, and that from three to five months ■of the year, during the spring and fall freshets and natural high water, fish could go in and out of said lake and bayou; that some of the witnesses claimed that there were freshets in July and August, in which water was high enough so that fish could go in and out of said lake or bayou.

[408]

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

Related

Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v. Nestlé Waters North America Inc
709 N.W.2d 174 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2006)
Ohio Water Service Co. v. Ressler
173 Ohio St. (N.S.) 33 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1962)
State Ex Rel. State Game Commission v. Red River Valley Co.
182 P.2d 421 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1945)
Ne-Bo-Shone Ass'n, Inc. v. Hogarth
7 F. Supp. 885 (W.D. Michigan, 1934)
Putnam v. Kinney
227 N.W. 741 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1929)
People v. Lewis
198 N.W. 957 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1924)
Giddings v. Rogalewski
158 N.W. 951 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1916)
Territory v. Hoy Chong
21 Haw. 39 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1912)
People v. Setunsky
126 N.W. 844 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1910)
Sherwood v. Stephens
90 P. 345 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1907)
Hartman v. Tresise
36 Colo. 146 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1906)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
100 N.W. 691, 137 Mich. 406, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-horling-mich-1904.