Overton v. Harrington

• Decision Date: 16 April 1915
• Docket Number: 11.
• Citation: 94 A. 325,126 Md. 32
• Parties: OVERTON v. HARRINGTON, Comptroller, etc.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

94 A. 325

126 Md. 32

OVERTON v. HARRINGTON, Comptroller, etc.

No. 11.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

April 16, 1915

Appeal from Circuit Court, Anne Arundel County; James R. Brashears Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Application by Willis E. Overton for a writ of mandamus against Emerson G. Harrington, Comptroller of the Treasury Department.From an order denying the writ, relator appeals.Reversed and remanded.

T. T Thomas, of Baltimore, and Ridgely P. Melvin, of Annapolis (John H. Elliott, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.Nicholas H. Green, of Annapolis, for appellee.

CONSTABLE J.

The appellant sought by mandamus proceedings to compel the comptroller of the treasury of the state of Maryland, the appellee, to issue to him a license, under the provisions of chapter 828 of the Acts of 1914, for a purse or buck net to be used exclusively for catching a species of nonfood fish called menhaden.Upon trial before the court without a jury the petition was dismissed, and from that order this appeal was taken.

Chapter 828 of the Acts of 1914, amending chapter 740 of the Acts of 1908 provides:

"Section 2a.No person shall at any time be allowed to fish with purse nets at any point in the Chesapeake Bay above, or north of a line drawn east from Robin's Point on the Western Shore to Handy's Point on the Eastern Shore of Maryland.

Section 2b.No person shall fish with purse or buck nets within the state of Maryland south of the line drawn from the line aforesaid due east to the Eastern Shore without first obtaining a license so to do from the comptroller of the treasury, and then only from June 15th to November 1st of each year, and the applicant shall pay the sum of twenty-five dollars for each and every purse or buck net, owned and operated by him, whereupon, the *** comptroller shall issue to such applicant a license or licenses to operate such purse or buck nets, and all moneys arising from said license shall be paid into the state treasury for the maintenance of the state oyster navy, and any person failing to procure such a license and violating the provision of this section shall be *** guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction shall be subject to the fines and penalties imposed by section 3 of this article, and to the penalties imposed by the statutes of Maryland for failure to procure licenses wherever required by law.It shall be unlawful to use a purse or buck net with a mesh less than three inches for the catching of food fish, and no license shall be issued by the comptroller of the treasury for the use of a purse or buck net with a mesh less than three inches, and unless the steam or sail boats used in connection with purse or buck nets have been owned by bona fide residents of the state of Maryland twelve months before the issuing of said license."

Menhaden are very small fish and cannot be caught in a net having a mesh as large as three inches; and the contention of the appellant is that the restrictions, found in the last sentence of section 2b, and relating to the size of the mesh and the ownership of the boats used in connection with the nets, only apply to those fishing for food fish; and that the only restriction upon those applying for purse net licenses for the purpose of catching other than food fish, other than the payment of the license money, the limits of the fishing grounds and the season, as contained in the first sentence of the section, is that found also in the first sentence of the section, to wit, that the applicant should be the owner and operator of the nets.On the other hand, the appellee contends that the authority of him to issue licenses is wholly contained in the act under discussion and he can issue no license for the use of a purse or buck net with a mesh less than three inches, no difference to what use it is to be put, whether for catching food or nonfood fish.

The rules for the construction of statutes are well established and defined, and they all refer to and are used for arriving at the intention of the Legislature.

As was said by this court in Clark v. Baltimore,29 Md. 277:

"To ascertain this (intention of the Legislature), we are first to consider the words employed, and interpret them according to their plain, ordinary and natural import, having some regard to their order and grammatical arrangement.If they are clear, precise, and unambiguous, the Legislature must be understood to mean what it has plainly expressed."

But, where the language is obscure or ambiguous, the courts are not confined to it, but may make use of extraneous aids to arrive at the meaning, such as a view of the subject-matter, the necessity of the legislation and the object of the Legislature.Shehan v. Tanenbaum,121 Md. 283, 88 A. 146.The intention is to be gathered from a consideration of every part of the statute, thus giving force and effect to it as a whole.Miller v. Cumberland,26 Md. 478;State v. Archer,73 Md. 57, 20 A. 172."Statutes must also be construed with special reference to the subject-matter legislated upon and with regard to the manifest mischief the act was intended to remedy."Mitchell v. State,115 Md. 360, 80 A. 1020.These are a few of the very many cases in this state dealing with the construction of statutes, but should be sufficient for the purposes of this case.

That the language of the statute is ambiguous must be conceded.In the first portion of section 2b, it provides, in effect, that the comptroller, on the application of any one owning and operating...