State v. Taylor

Decision Date11 October 1948
Docket Number40961
Citation214 S.W.2d 34,358 Mo. 279
PartiesState of Missouri, Respondent, v. Clarence O. Taylor, Appellant
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Greene Circuit Court; Hon. Hiram McLaughlin Judge.

Affirmed.

Farrington & Curtis and E. C. Curtis for appellant.

(1) A private pond, located wholly upon the premises of one owner and in no way connected with any public waters, is not "waters of this state" within the meaning of Section 20 of the Wildlife and Forestry Act, Laws of Missouri, 1945, Page 669, and it is no violation of said section to dynamite fish in such a pond. Reid v Ross, 46 S.W.2d 567; Milton v. State, 221 S.W 461. (2) The title to fish reduced to one's possession by lawful means is released by the state to the taker. State v. Freeland, 300 S.W. 675, 318 Mo. 560. (3) An information charging the violation of a particular statute referred to in the information is insufficient if such statute does not pertain to the offense alleged to have been committed. Therefore, an information charging the violation of the Wildlife and Forestry Code of Missouri will not support a conviction for a violation of the Wildlife and Forestry Act. State ex rel. Kelley v. Kirby, 168 S.W. 746, 260 Mo. 120. (4) An information charging a defendant with dynamiting fish in "waters of the State of Missouri" is insufficient if it does not state the particular waters or stream where the act was allegedly committed. State v. McLaughlin, 60 S.W. 1075, 160 Mo. 33; State v. Hogan, 31 Mo. 340; State v. Wheat, 6 Mo. 455. (5) An information charging a defendant with dynamiting fish in the waters of Greene County, Missouri is insufficient to charge the crime of dynamiting fish in the "waters of the State of Missouri". In criminal pleading nothing can be charged by implication or intendment. State v. Zingher, 259 S.W. 451, 302 Mo. 650; State v. Sherrill, 278 S.W. 992.

J. E. Taylor, Attorney General, and Aubrey R. Hammett, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

(1) The information is sufficient in form and substance and apprises the defendant of the crime charged. Sec. 20, Laws 1945, p. 669; Sec. 3952, R.S. 1939; State v. McKinley, 341 Mo. 1186, 111 S.W.2d 115; State v. Granger, 199 S.W.2d 896; State v. Biven, 151 S.W.2d 1114; State v. Rizor, 353 Mo. 368, 182 S.W.2d 525; State v. Spidle, 342 Mo. 571, 116 S.W.2d 96. (2) The verdict is in proper form and responsive to the issues. Sec. 20, Laws 1945, p. 669; State v. Cummins, 22 S.W.2d 777; State v. Harbeston, 330 Mo. 799, 51 S.W.2d 533; State v. Falco, 330 Mo. 982, 51 S.W.2d 1030. (3) Waters of the state, as defined in Section 20, page 669, Laws of Missouri 1945, include the waters contained in a pond on private premises. Bowers v. Smith, 111 Mo. 45, 17 S.W. 761; Milton v. State, 221 S.W. 461, 144 Ark. 1; Donnelly Garment Co. v. Keitel, 354 Mo. 1138, 193 S.W.2d 577; State ex rel. and to Use of Geo. B. Peck Co. v. Brown, 340 Mo. 1189, 105 S.W.2d 909; State v. Lewis, 73 Mo.App. 619; State v. Blount, 85 Mo. 543; Secs. 1625, 1631, R.S. 1879; Reid v. Ross, 46 S.W.2d 567; Sec. 8270, R.S. 1929; Sec. 20, Laws 1945, p. 669; Sec. 4, Laws 1945, p. 665; Sec. 26, Laws 1945, p. 671; Sec. 3, Wildlife-Forestry Code of the State of Missouri, 1947; State v. Heger, 194 Mo. 707, 93 S.W. 252.

OPINION

Clark, J.

Appeal by defendant from a conviction of a criminal offense in the circuit court of Greene County.

The information charged that defendant, on a day named, in Greene County, Missouri, did "wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously dynamite fish in the waters of Greene County, Missouri, in violation of Section 20 of the Wildlife and Forestry Code of the State of Missouri," etc.

The trial was to a jury which returned a verdict of guilty, and assessed defendant's punishment at a fine of $ 200.00. He was sentenced accordingly.

The Attorney General and defendant's counsel have commendably submitted this appeal upon a brief stipulation of facts which shows: that on the date alleged defendant and two others exploded dynamite in a pond in Greene County and killed some fish; that the pond is located wholly on the land of Lloyd Combs, is not connected in any way with a river or any public waters and there is no way for fish to escape; that the only fish known to be in the pond were placed there several years ago by a brother of Lloyd Combs who took them from another private pond; that the pond has never been stocked with fish by representatives of the State, and is solely under the control of Lloyd Combs.

Appellant's assignments of error may be summarized as follows:

I. A private pond is not included within the term "waters of this State," as mentioned in our statute.

II. Title to fish reduced to one's possession by lawful means is released by the State to the taker.

III. The information is defective: (1) because it charges a violation of the Wildlife and Forestry Code instead of the Wildlife and Forestry Act; (2) because it does not state the particular waters or stream where the act was committed; (3) a charge of dynamiting fish in "the waters of Greene County, Missouri," does not support a charge of dynamiting fish in the "waters of the State of Missouri."

We will first discuss the attacks made against the information. It is not well worded and, under some of the early decisions cited by appellant, this case would probably be reversed. However, appellant did not demur to the information nor move to quash. His first attack upon it was after verdict. The information charges the offense to have been committed in Greene County. It would have been better to have alleged the place with some particularity and to have followed the language of the statute by charging that the explosion was in the "waters of the State of Missouri," but there is nothing before us to show that appellant was misled or prejudiced in his defense by the imperfection of the information in these respects, nor in the designation of the statute as a "Code" instead of an "Act."

We hold that appellant's belated attack upon the information waived its defects. [State v. Biven, (Mo.) 151 S.W.2d 1114; State v. Granger, (Mo. App.) 199 S.W.2d 896; State v. Spidle, 342 Mo. 571, 116 S.W.2d 96.]

We now consider appellant's first and second assignments together.

Section 20, page 669, Laws of Missouri, 1945, in part, reads as follows:

"It shall be unlawful for any person to place any explosive substance or preparation in any of the waters of this state, whereby any fish which may inhabit said waters may be killed, injured or destroyed; and no person, by any such means, shall kill, catch or take any fish from said waters; provided, however, that explosive substances or preparations may be used in said waters, but only with the permission and under the supervision of the Commission. . . ."

The ownership of fish "while they are in a state of freedom, is in the State, not as a proprietor, but in its sovereign capacity as the representative and for the benefit of all its people in common; in other words, the right of property in fish, so far as any can be asserted before they are taken and reduced to possession, is common to all the people and cannot be claimed by any particular individuals." [22 Am. Jur., p. 666, sec. 2; 11 R.C.L., p. 1015, sec. 2.]

We agree with appellant that "title to fish reduced to one's possession by lawful means is released by the State to the taker," but it does not follow that fish even in a private pond have been so reduced to possession as to vest unqualified title to them in the owner of the pond and thereby destroy all regulatory power of the State. Nor do we concede that the waters in such a pond are not included in the term "waters of the State" as used in our statute.

Section 4 [Laws of Missouri, 1945, p. 665, Mo. R.S.A.] reads:

"The ownership of and title to all wildlife of and within the state, whether resident, migratory or imported, dead or alive, are hereby declared to be in the state of Missouri. Any person who fails to comply with or who violates this Act or any such rules and regulations shall not acquire or enforce any title, ownership or possessory right in any such wildlife; and any person who pursues, takes, kills, possesses or disposes of any such wildlife or attempts to do so, shall be deemed to consent that the title of said wildlife shall be and remain in the state of Missouri, for the purpose of control, management, restoration, conservation and regulations thereof."

That section, so far as the regulatory power of the State is concerned, seems to be all-inclusive and broad enough to include private as well as public waters.

It is true that the exclusive right to fish in a private pond is in the owner of the pond. It is also true that he is under no legal obligation to maintain such a pond. He may lawfully drain the waters therefrom if he can do so without damage to the property of others. "Furthermore, the title to fish asserted by the statute to be in the State for the purposes of preservation, propagation, and protection is not inconsistent with the qualified special property right of the owner of the soil where they are found, as against trespassers." [22 Am. Jur., p. 669, sec. 3.]

In the instant case it is unnecessary to define the special rights of the owner of the pond for the appellant is not such owner. On the oral argument it was admitted that appellant did not have permission...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Moots v. City of Trenton
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • October 11, 1948
    ... ... machines. R.S. 1939, secs. 6949-6950; Chap. 38, Art. 5, R.S ... 1939, as amended by State Legislature in 1943 Session Acts, ... p. 701, and especially Sec. 6986, 6932; State v ... White, 263 S.W. 192; State ex inf. Bloebaum, Pros ... ...
  • Hill v. Mo. Dep't of Conservation
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • July 3, 2018
    ...apply to private waters and was limited only by express statutory exemptions for certain privately owned waters); State v. Taylor , 358 Mo. 279, 214 S.W.2d 34, 37-38 (Mo. 1948) (defendant properly convicted of using explosives to kill fish in "any of the waters of this state" even though he......
1 books & journal articles
  • 10.31 Riparian Basics for Lakes
    • United States
    • Real Estate Practice Deskbook Chapter 10 Water and Mineral Rights
    • Invalid date
    ...So dynamiting them before catching them is illegal, even on a private pond, by a person other than the pond's owner. State v. Taylor, 214 S.W.2d 34 (Mo....

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT