The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1883-02-16
Fishing with Outlines not Tin
lawful,

and the hearing took place on January
18th, last. The following is the Judges
decision in the matters
Commonwealth against Darid Hoiiingshead.
Motion in arrest of Judgment.
OPINION OF THE COURT.
The first count in the indictment charges
that the defendant "did unlawfully and
willfully, in the. waters of the Common
wealth of Pennsylvania, to wit stream
Of water called the Susquehanna river /;
place permanently set means of taking
fish, by then and there anchoring in the
bottom of said stream certain device,
commonly called an outline, contrary to the
act of Assembly"
The jury have found the defendant guilty.
Reasons in arrest of judgment have been
filed; First, That the count charges no Of
fense under the law Second, That it does
not set forth the kind or character of the
permanent set means of taking fish, nor de-
fine what an outline is, or how, or in what
manner it is such means.
The indictment was intended to be for
the violation of the 29d section of the Act
of June 3, 1878, digest 2, 1913, which enacts
as follows; "It shall not be lawful for any
person or persons to place any fish-baskets,
gill-nets, pond-nets, eel-weirs, kiddles,
brush or fascine nets or any other perma-
nently set means of taking fish, in any of
the waters of this Commonwealth; any
person violating the provisions of this Sec
ton shall be liable to penalty of $25,O0
for each offense." The verdict has found
what the indictment charges, that an out
line anchored to the bottom Of the stream is
a permanent set means of taking fish, but
the question still remains whetherit it is such
a means, or is prohibited by the statute. If
the Act had prohibited the placing of any
permanently set means of taking fish with
in the waters of the Commonwealth, with
out more, the question in each case Of an
alleged violation of the law would have
been whether the device employed was of
that character ; but here the words "any
other permanently set means of taking
fish" are preceded by several specifically
mentioned methods Of taking fish, which
methods are declared to be unlawful. 1t is
well established rule of construction, that
if general words follow an enumeration of
particular acts, they are to be held to apply
only too cases of like kind with those
enumerated. Cites authorities. Many
instances might be given of the application
of this rule; reference to two or three,
however, will suffice for illustration.
Where a statute employed the words,
"wherry, lighter, or other craft" the
word "craft" " was held not to include a
steam-tug; because, although steam-tug
is craft" yet it is not the same charac-
ter as wherry or lighter. In constituting a
artifcer, or other person whatsoever"
should exercise his ordinary calling on the
Lords day, it was held that the phrase
"other person " did not include farmer,
who was not a person of like denomination
with those persons particularly mentioned.
King Us. Whitmarsh, 7 BrownueH and Cress-
weu, Eng. Com. Law Rep.) In another case,
where a statute provided that " if any per-
son haul or draw upon any turnpike road
any timber, stones, or other thing" other
wise than upon carriages therein described,
he should be subject to penalty of forty
shillings, it was held that the other thing,
to come within the prohibition, must be OF
the same nature with timber or stone-cal.
culated to do the same mischief to the road
[Cites authority.] In King rs. Whitmarsh
bove cited, it was remarked by Baker
Justice, that if all persons were meant, there
was no need of a specific enumeration; the
same reason applies with full force to this
case-if the Legislature intended to prohibi
all permanently set means, there was NJ
occasion for their mentioning wears ant
nets. 1t is manifest that the drafter o
the Act had in his mind only wers or 9TH
er devices of like kind, forming Ito create
or less extenD obstruction to the passage o
fish in the stream" wingwalls drawin!
tn cir course to a basket, from which afte
entering there is no escape, "nets" so con
structed as to entangle the fish in the
meshes when attempting to migrate from
one point to another, and other nets" 81
arranged in stream as to take the fish by
reason of their entering the wide moutl
thereof, and going thence into smaller sec
tions or apartments from which they can
not escape-and that having mentioned
these, from fear that his enumeration die
not embrace all the devices of this kind, h,
added the words "and all other permanently
set means"
An "outline" is no doubt term wei
understood among fishermen as perma
nently set means of taking fish, but it il
not set forth in the indictment that an out
line is either a weir, basket, net
kiddle, or device of the same kind O
character with any of these
The verdict finds that an outline is per
manently set means of taking fish, but tina
is not sufficient to bring it under the bai
of the Act. 1t ought to appear in the In
1 dictment by some sort of description 9th
er than the name } that it belongs to tn
same class with the devices prohibite,
specifically; without such description tn
charge is incomplete. If the outline ha
been more particularly described, and a.
legged to be such device as those prohibit
ed in the statute, l am now of opinio
{ contrary to my first impression that tn
prohibition does not extend to an instru
ment or device of this sort-said to be
cord or line having fastened to 1t shol
lines, with baited tlshhooks at the ends {
these lines, yard or more apart, and foa
ing down stream the cord, which is place
in the water, being fastened at the ends
and the fish caught ir the mouth by tn
hook when attempting to get the bait.
If this description had been embodied
the Indictment it would have shown upo
its face that the set means used by the d,
fendant had no kinship with the enumer
ted structures and things mentioned in tn
Act, We think the mode of fishing pra
ticed by the defendant ought to be prohi
tied by Act of Assembly, but, until that
done in a manner to remove all doubt, v
| 20 lnt 4 10 AL; IL