The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1899-11-03
THE P0HOQUALINE
FISH CASE HEARD
TESTING LAW REGARDING USE
OF LANDING NET.
An Array of Legal Talent Working
on the Case at Stroudsburg--Is
Fish Caught When on the HookP
Argument Before Judge Craig.
Special to The Scranton Tribune.

Special to The Scranton Tribune.
Stroudsburg, Nov. 2.-The celebrated
Pohoqualine fish cases were continued
before Judge Allen Craig this AFTER
noon. The defendants in the case are
S. p. Wetherell, the wealthy Phila-
delphian and W. T. Elliott, proml-
nent member of the Quaker City bar
These men are charged with the IL
legal use OF a landing net in the catch
ing of trout The lawyers argued their
side of the case this afternoon. En-
Congressman John b. Storm and a.
Mitchell Palmer, esq, represented the
defendants. and cX-Collector Charles
r. Staples and ". h. Erdman. esq"
appeared for the commonwealth. In
the argument for the commonwealth
the position taken was as follows:
The act of May %, 1899, prohibits
the making use of any kind of net
for the catching of fish and the defen-
dants used a landing or hand net
whereby they caught trout in trout
stream and violated the act of assem-
bly,. There is no exception allowed
a person to make use of net for
fishing except for bait, for angling,
for scientific purposes or for catching
game fish by order of any member of
the state fish commission for the pur-
pose of stocking other waters. The
commonwealth took the position that
fish are not caught until in the actual
possession or the fisherman and that
when n fisherman uses a net he uses
1t for the purposes of obtaining pos
session of the fish which otherwise
might escape. 1t was further claimed
by the commonwealth that in arriving
a the intention of the legislature there
is nothing in the act nor from the
evidence that was offered in explain
alton of the act whereby it could be
inferred that the legislature did not
mean TO prohibit the use of land
ing net. The commonwealth also con-
tended that trout can De caught with
"A rod, hook and line without the use
of a landing net and to take the po-
sition advanced by the defendants
the court would simply be deciding in
favor of q class. viz, that part of the
fishing fraternity that can afford to
buy the finest rods and pharapher-
MALTA, but who to use them must have
a landing net which the ordinary coun-
try boy or town lad does not need at
all.
This was a question to be decided
by the court.
Argument for Defense.
The argument for the defense was
in substance as follows: The defense
claim that the evidence shows that the
landing net used was the ordinary net
used by all fly fishermen and all the
evidence goes to show that the custom
of using the landing net has existed
from time immemorial and that it was
we'll known to the legislature when
our recent fish laws We're enacted. They
claim that the act of 1899 specifies the
net prohibited and does not include in
the specifications the landing net. That
the Legislature must have known at
the time of recent fish legislation of
this custom, which has been continued
until the present day and no attempt
has been made to interfere with It, All
fishermen testifying in the case swore
they used it and without it fishing
with fly would be practically impos-
sible; that not only people of the state
generally in fishing with a fly have
used the landing net but the fish COM
missioners themselves, charged with
the execution of the fish laws, testi-
fled that they had used it. Judge
Craig reserved his opinion.