State v. Danhof, 22859.
| Citation | 161 Wash. 441,297 P. 195 |
| Decision Date | 25 March 1931 |
| Docket Number | 22859. |
| Parties | STATE v. DANHOF. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Department 1.
Appeal from Superior Court, Snohomish County; Guy C. Alston, Judge.
Prosecution by the State against Carl Danhof. Judgment sustaining defense of former jeopardy, and the State appeals.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Charles R. Denney and Phil. G. Warnock, both of Everett, for the state.
Anderson & Richards, of Everett, for respondent.
After having appealed from a conviction in a justice of the peace court, respondent was charged by information in the superior court for Snohomish county of the misdemeanor of fishing with a gill net at a forbidden place in Snohomish county.
The information, in substance, charged: That respondent did on December 19, 1929, in Snohomish county Wash., willfully and unlawfully take food fish, to wit, dog salmon and silver salmon, with an appliance other than a hook and line, to wit, with a gill net, from the Snohomish river at a point above Snohomish Wagon Bridge, to wit, three miles southwest of the city of Monroe, that conty and state, which alleged acts were done in violation of Rem. Comp. Stat. § 5672, operative and in effect as a rule of the state fisheries board by virtue of Rem. Comp. Stat. § 10869, at the time herein alleged.
Section 5672, supra, recited, so far as pertinent, forbids fishing with any appliance except hook and line in the Snohomish river above the Snohomish Wagon Bridge.
At the trial of this case in the lower court respondent relied on the defense of former jeopardy and to sustain that plea introduced a complaint in another prosecution before a justice of the peace in the Everett precinct upon which a jury found respondent not guilty in that court. The complaint in that prosecution, summarized, charges that Carl Danhof did, on or about December 19, 1929, commit a misdemeanor by then and there willfully and unlawfully fishing for food fish, to wit, dog salmon and silver salmon, with appliance other than a hook and line, to wit, with a gill net, without having first obtained or made lawful application for a license so to do.
Upon the complaint in that prosecution and the verdict of not guilty being authenticated and proven in the trial court, the trial court ruled as a matter of law that the charge upon that complaint and the verdict of not guilty was a complete bar to the charge in the instant case, took ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Barton
... ... 318; State v. [5 Wn.2d 238] Peck, 146 Wash ... 101, 261 P. 779; State v. Kingsbury, 147 Wash. 426, ... 266 P. 174; State v. Danhof, 161 Wash. 441, 297 P ... 195 ... The ... rule is, however, subject to the qualification that the ... offenses ... ...
- Rathke v. Dexter Horton Nat. Bank of Seattle
-
State ex rel. Foley v. Yuse, 26571.
...in the justice court did not operate as former jeopardy. In principle, this case cannot be distinguished from that of State v. Danhof, 161 Wash. 441, 297 P. 195, where was held that an acquittal for unlawfully fishing for food fish, with appliances other than hook and line, without having f......
-
State v. Phillips, 25299.
...for the crime of liquor in possession, although the two charges are based upon the same evidence; and in the case of State v. Danhof, 161 Wash. 441, 297 P. 195, it held that an acquittal of one charged under one statute of unlawfully fishing for food fish with appliances other than a hook o......