The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-12-07
Outside Sportsmen Allowed to
Shoot Within Its Leased
Preserves.
DIssOLvEs THE INJUNCTION.
End of Litigation Which Has Been
Pending in Court for the
Past Year.

SUISUN, CAL, Dec. 6.-The Cordelia
Teal Club has lost the famous suit in
which it sought to prevent outside hunters
from invading the preserves it had leased
in the Suisun marshes. After litigation
extending for over year, Judge Buckles
of the SoIano County Superior Court to-
day decided for the Observation-Disclosures
King and forty other sportsmen-the case
brought against them by President Charles
w. Kellogg of the Teal Club. Following
this decision, Judge Buckles dissolved the
injunction restraining sportsmen other
than the Teal Club mem ers from hunting
on the land. The case has excited great
interest among sportsmen all over the
State, and its outcome has long been
awaited with interest.
The complaint had alleged that Kellogg
was in possession of 1000 acres of swamp
and overfowed land near Suisin under
lease dated July %, 1893, from Emily G.
Cook, Frederick o. Chamberlain and
Mary G. Won Seelhorst, who are
alleged to be the owners of the land.
The lease was for period of four years,
and recited that the land was leased for
the sole purpose of hunting game thereon,
the consideration to be the payment Of an
annual rent of $1,000. Kellogg had inclosed
about 5000 acres of the land with SUBJ
stantial post-and-wire fence, connecting
with natural boundaries so as to form an
entire Enclosure of the 5000. acres. The
accused hunters had continued to trespass
on the land and had shot game in large
numbers and conspired together to inter
fere with Kellogg's possession. This, the
complaint declared, threatened to work
irreparable injury to the plaintiffs hunt
ing rights and privileges on the property.
1t alleged inadequate relief by judicial
proceedings, and that the defendants
were insolvent.
The answer denied the ownership of the
land in the lessons putting the denial on
the ground that the defendants had no
knowledge upon the subject to enable
them to answer. 1t denied the lease and
it's terms as alleged in the complaint and
the allegations of trespass, injury, threat
ened injury and insolvency. In brief, the
defense was based upon the ground that
the land had been leased to Kellogg only
| to the extent of giving him and those for
whom he had secured the privilege the sole
| right to hunt upon it, while the actual
owner continued to farm the soil. The
lease was simply license given to GER
tain number of men, authorizing them to
shoot game upon the land, while others
were excluded. In no other way had the
| plaintiffs in the action any vested right in
the land upon which the defendants were
accused of trespassing, and therefore he
could not bring any action against any one
for alleged trespass. The license granted
to kellogg and his companions, the de-
| PENDANTS claimed, could not shut out others
to whom the owner of the land might give
! similar licenses.
Judge Buckles, in his decision, said that
the tule land in question had from time i'm
memorial been used as the common hunt
ing grounds of all the sportsrnen from far
and near who delighted in hunting.
"Here all could come" he continued.
"The millionaire tramped and shot beside
the man with barely wealth enough to
own his gun and buy the ammunition he
used. This was truly American freedom
and not English lordlsm.
THE lands mentioned in plaintiff lease
were never fenced by the owners. and the
fence the plaintiff has placed there was
built without any authority given him by
the lease. From the evidence it was put
there for the sole purpose OF making it
appear as an Enclosure, so that he might
have some show of placing his preserves
under the protection of the law, which for
bids hunting upon Enclosed land without
the consent of the owner"
After quoting Blackstone's opinion as
regards animals wild by nature and the
rights of men, Judge Buckles referred to
the devices put forth by the plaintiff to
lure wild game to the land in question, the
batting of ponds being the principal point
discussed, and continued:
lit appears that the plaintiff. not having
the exclusive right of possession OF the
land and the exclusive right to hunt
on the LAM, nd not enjoin others from
hunting thereon unless their hunting de-
stroys or irreparably Injuries his hunting
privileges. But there is no evidence that
any of these defendants were in con-
spiracy of any kind, but, on the contrary,
those who went there to hunt went on
their own account, and without design to
injure the plaintiff, and with no concerted
action with their co-defendants."
In closing Judge Buckles renders judg-
ment for the defendants and dissolves the
temporary injunction. In denying the in
junction he gives the following reasons:
"First-The plaintiffs lease gives him
license to hunt on the premises. but no
right to prevent other people from COM
ing upon the same ground to hunt when
they do not modest his right to hunt.
Second--He has not acted fairly toward
the defendants in batting the ponds to en-
tice game to come there from outside the
Enclosure, and because of the Enclosure he
has erected. Third-The evidence does
not show any concerted action or con-
spiracy on the part of the defendants to
destroy the plaintiffs hunting rights, nor
to iniure them. Fourth-None of the de-
PENDANTS are shown to have been hunting
and shooting over the land continuously
day by day, and none are shown to have
been hunting and shooting there at night
without intermittent period. Fifth-The
plaintiff has not even tried statutory
remedy of arresting people who hunt and
shoot on the inclosed grounds, nor civil
remedy for damages, and has not shown
that the defendants are insolvent. Sixth
The evidence does not show that the plain