Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1898-07-21
FISH LAW CONSTITUTIONAL.
A TEST CASE DECIDED IN SUPREME
COURT IN FAVOR OF STATE.
ing in Them For Term of Years
Judge Thompson Observation-Disclosures
Decisions Announced.

Montpelier, July 1.-THE Supreme Court
Judges to-day rendered u decision in the
case of State vs.. William Thcriault which
will be of interest to fishermen all over
the State. To test the constitutionality
of section ij6S of the Vermont statutes,
which specifies that the fish and game
commissioners have the right to stock "a
brook and prohibit fishing therein for
period of three years, the suit was
brought
a question being raised as to the CDnsti-
tutiouality of the law, William Thcriault,
Il law student i'm the office of Dillingham;,
Husc & Rowland, ilshed in brook which
had been stocked and posted by the state
fish and game commissioners, and was
taken into city court where the law was
decided to be valid. The case was then
taken to the Supreme Court and the de-
cision rendered to-day sustans the de-
cision of the lower court, and orders the
cause rcmanded
The court holds that it was not taking
of private property for public use with
out compensation, but that ii was the
constitutional exercise of n public right
to permit the destruction of common
property.
JUDGE Thompson. in dissenting, cited
several cases in this and other states,
and held that the Legislature had no
power to prevent private fishing IN prop
islaturc might have right to regulate
the time and manner in which this right
should be exercised. II had 20 authority
to prevent fishing altogether. In his opin-
ION he also stated, that II was delegate
lnL to the fish commissioners legislative
powers which would be unconstitutional
also that because all the owners on a
stream were not treated with cqudllly'
which would be the case If only por-
ton was posted. the law was unconstitu-
tional. Thcriault, the respondent, Is 4
volunteer ana is now at ChlckamauEa.
AS the case was intended to test the con
stitutionality of the law ii VIII probably
be mol pressed.
The supreme Court judges met here this
morning and the following are their de-
cisions by counties. Some of the cases de-
cidcd have been in court for a number CT
terms:
ADDISON COUNTY.
Niddlebury Electric Co. vs. \. +, Tup-
per ct AL, Il. and y. Topper pro So. ;. and
W. for PrcEs. (Bill) Decree of court Of
claims reversed and cause remanded with
mandate.
BENNINGTON COUNTY.
c. II. Davenport ct al VS.. The Dceriield
Valley Co, ct al. Waterman, Martin and
HIT. Chase. Batchelder for all defend
ants except u. -. Co. CTrospass) With thu
court.
j. w. CIamton. assignee. apt, vs. j. Il
HOLSTER. assignee. Patchcld and Bates
and T.. NJ. Mcldon. Butler and MoloneI
and ". II. Bliss. (Appeal from report OF
commissionors.) Judgment affirmed ant
ordered to court of insolvency.
CALEDONIA COUNTY.
/ W. II. Carter vs. Central Vermont Rail-
road company. Stafford. c. w Writer'S
WascD With the urt
John McKmdley VS. John II. Drew. Stat
ford Il. and NJ. (Casc) Judgment o.
County Court affirmed.
! Henry T. Plummer by r. s. Plummcr
next friend vs.. r. NJ Rickers, apt, s. anc
$. Il. and NJ. (Case) Judgment reversed
and cause reinandcd
George w. Trow VS.. William T. Thomas
r. and D. Percy, D., NJ. and s, Cease.
Judgment reversed and judgment FOL
plaintiff that he recover as damages th'
amount below less the sum Of S2l.
j. II. McLoud, assignee vs.. \. T.. Wake
field. r. and ID. Bulard. (Replav!n.
Judgment of County Court affirmed.
j l.. Bailey VS.. Bailey & Jewett ana 1r
B. NJ. ana s. D. and S. for Jewett and Tr
General assumpsit) Judgment affirmed
L. -. iiazcn ct al VS.. Lyndonville Ma
tional bank ct al. Prouty. Rlodget.. 5
and S Q3ill) With the court,