Case Name: The People, Resp'ts, v. Stanley H. Lowndes, App'lt
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-02-10
Citations: 30 N.Y. St. Rep. 168
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People, Resp’ts, v. Stanley H. Lowndes, App’lt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 30
Pages: 168–170

Head Matter:
The People, Resp’ts, v. Stanley H. Lowndes, App’lt.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
Filed February 10, 1890.)
1. Criminal law—Oysters—Penal Code, § 441.
An offense under § 441, Penal Code, is made out by the mere planting of oysters by a non-resident without the consent of the owners of the waters or shore. (Dykman, J., dissents.)
3. Title—Land under water.
Title to the waters of Huntington Bay is in the trustees of the town of Huntington.
3. Same—Cannot be acquired by adverse possession.
Ho title to land under water can be acquired solely by the planting of oysters for any length of time.
Appeal from judgment of conviction upon an indictment charging defendant with being a non-resident and unlawfully planting oysters in the waters of Huntington Bay in violation of § 441, Penal Code.
The planting was admitted and the non-residence was shown. Defendant was allowed to show that he planted the oysters as an employee of his father, who had for many years planted oysters on and staked in part of the premises in question. Ho consent of the trustees of the town was shown.
Martin J. Keogh, for app’lt; Charles R. Street and N. S. Ackerly, for resp’ts.

Opinion:
Barnard, P. J.
By § 441 of the Penal Code it is made a misdemeanor for a person who is not an actual inhabitant and resident of the state to plant oysters in the waters of the state without the consent of the owner of the same or of the shore. The same section makes it a misdemeanor for a non-resident to gather oysters from a bed of natural growth for his own benefit or for the benefit of a non-resident employer.
There is no connection between the two offenses. One is made out by mere planting without the consent required; the other prevents non-residents from getting oysters from natural beds for their own benefit. A non-resident may not plant. A non-resident may be employed by a resident to gather from natural beds for the resident, but he may not gather for himself or employ another to do so. The indictment is therefore good, as it charges an offense under the section cited for planting without consent of owner, being a non-resident. If this be the proper reading of the statutes the offense was proven by the planting without consent, and the question'whether the defendant intended'to violate the law is immaterial. The planting was in Huntington bay, and the question of fact whether the bay was within the grant from Gov ernor Hicoll and from Governor Dongan and from Governor Pletcher was put in evidence.
These several colonial grants have been confirmed by the state of Hew York, and the question was one of description. It was proven by witnesses who were acquainted with the premises that Huntington bay was within the description of the grants in these patents, and the jury have so found. The planting was in this bay, and the indictment charges that the act of planting was without the consent of the trustees of the town of Huntington.
The title to the town is fully proven and is a good title. Brookhaven v. Strong, 60 N. Y., 72.
The legislature, by chapter 270, Laws of 1888, ceded to the trustees of the town of Huntington all its right in Huntington bay. There was no proof in the case which permitted the jury to find otherwise, and there was therefore nothing upon which to base the usual charge that all doubts are to be cast in favor of the accused so far as evidence related to the town of Huntington title.
The only other defense was a title by user for over twenty years in the defendant. Ho title to land under water can be acquired by the planting of oysters for any length of time without any other title than is acquired thereby.
The conviction should be affirmed.
Pratt, J., concurs.