People v. Dornbos

• Decision Date: 17 June 1901
• Citation: 127 Mich. 136,86 N.W. 529
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: PEOPLE v. DORNBOS et al.

86 N.W. 529

127 Mich. 136

PEOPLE v. DORNBOS et al.

Supreme Court of Michigan

June 17, 1901

Error to circuit court, Ottawa county; Philip Padgham, Judge.

Henry Dornbos and Gerrit Dornbos were convicted, under the provisions of Pub. Acts 1899, No. 88, of having in their possession a number of lake trout of a size prohibited by the statute, and they bring error. Affirmed.

Walter I. Lillie, for appellants.

P. H McBride, for the People.

LONG, J.

Respondents were charged with having in their possession, contrary to law, a large number of lake trout, to wit, 300 pounds, each weighing less than 1 1/2 pounds in the round. The complaint was made under the provisions of section 2, Act No. 88, Pub Acts 1899. A trial was had before the justice, and respondents were convicted. An appeal was taken to the circuit court, and on a trial before a jury the respondents were again convicted. The case comes into this court on writ of error.

The title of the act is, 'An act to amend sections one and two and to add sections six and seven of act No. 151 of the Public Acts of 1897, entitled 'An act to regulate the catching of fish in the waters of this state, by the use of pound or trap nets, gill nets, seines or other apparatus.'' Section 2 of the act of 1899 provides 'It shall be unlawful to market or have in possession any sturgeon or rock sturgeon weighing less than fifteen pounds any white fish weighing less than two pounds, any lake trout weighing less than one and one-half pounds,' etc., 'in the round.' Section 2 of the act of 1897, of which this is an amendment, provides that it shall be unlawful to market or have in possession any sturgeon or rock sturgeon weighing less than 15 pounds, or any white fish weighing less than 2 pounds, in the round. The only change made in section 2 by the act of 1899 is to include lake trout and other small fish not enumerated in section 2 of the act of 1897. It is contended by counsel for respondents that these acts of 1897 and 1899 were intended to apply only to fishermen, and not to persons who do not catch fish, and whose offense it is to have them in possession; that if the acts were intended to apply to persons having such fish in possession the same was not set forth in the title to the acts. Counsel cites, as sustaining his contention, the case of Osborn v. Charlevoix Circuit Judge, 114 Mich. 655, 72 N.W. 982. That case places no such limitation upon the act of 1897. The title to the act is, we think, broad enough to warrant the placing of the provisions of section 2 therein. It is one of the means intended by the legislature to regulate the catching of fish in the waters of the state. If it be made unlawful to market or have in possession these small fish, then fishermen of the state would have no occasion or purpose in taking them from the waters. Section 1 of the act regulates and prescribes the duties of fishermen in the catching of fish, and makes it unlawful for them to use any but the prescribed kinds of net; and section 4 makes any violation of the act a misdemeanor, and prescribes the penalty. Counsel also cites People v. Allen (Sup.) 45 N.Y.S. 74, as sustaining his contention. The court had under consideration there a section of the statute making it unlawful to take clams from their beds less than the size therein specified. It was held that the persons contemplated by such section were the catchers of clams, and not restaurant keepers. So far as shown by the opinion in that case, there was no reference made in the statute to any persons except those who were dredging or digging for ciams. If the statute of Michigan under consideration had not contained the provisions of section 2, it would likely follow that the act could not be applied to one having fish in possession.

Coun...