CERTIFICATE.

(421) SEC. 2. Every person applying for such bounty shall take the heads of such animal or bird to the clerk of the township, village or city within which such animal or bird shall have been killed, in a state of good preservation, and if satisfied with the correctness of such claim said clerk shall issue a certificate stating the amount of bounty to which such applicant is entitled and deliver the same to said applicant, and shall destroy such heads by burning: Provided, That on all weasels on which bounty is paid, the clerk shall make one punch mark through the butt of both ears of such animal and return such head or pelt of such animal to the owner thereof.

PAYMENT.

(422) SEC. 3. Such certificate may be presented by the claimant or his agent to the county clerk of the county in which such animals or birds have been killed, who shall thereupon draw a warrant for the amount on the treasurer of said county, and said treasurer shall, upon presentation of said warrant, pay the same from the general or contingent fund of said county.

PROPORTION CHARGED TO STATE.

(423) SEC. 4. The county treasurer shall charge to the treasurer of the state one-half of all the bounties allowed by this act, and shall transmit an account thereof to the auditor general. The auditor general shall examine every account so transmitted to him, and if he shall discover any defect or irregularity, which induces him to believe the same ought not to be allowed, he may suspend, in whole or in part, the payment of such account, until satisfactory proof be made to him, by affidavit or otherwise, of the correctness and justice of such accounts. Every sum audited and allowed by the auditor general, upon any such account, not exceeding one-half of the bounties allowed by this act, shall be paid out of the general fund in the state treasury to the treasurer of the county from which such account was transmitted. All sums so received by the county treasurer shall be credited to the general or contingent fund of such county from which the bounties were originally paid.

FRAUDULENT PAYMENT OF BOUNTY. PENALTY.

(424) SEC. 5. Any township, city, village or county clerk or county treasurer who shall falsely or fraudulently allow or pay any bounty allowed by this act or any person who collects or attempts to collect any bounty under the provisions of this act, on any bird or animal other than those specified herein, or who collects or attempts to collect such bounty upon any woodchuck or crow not killed in the county in which such collection or attempt to so collect is made, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than ten dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail of not more than ten days, or by both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court.

Am. 1921, Act 311.

Sec. 6 repeals all acts or parts of acts inconsistent with this act.

An Act to provide for the payment of bounties for the killing of common rats. [Act 50, P. A. 1915.]

The People of the State of Michigan enact:

BOUNTY.

(425) 7264. SECTION 1. Every person being an inhabitant of this state who shall kill any black, brown, grey, or Norway rats commonly known as the house rat, barn rat or wharf rat in any organized township, village or city in this

state, shall be entitled to receive a bounty of ten cents for each rat thus killed, to be allowed and paid in the manner hereinafter provided.

Am. 1919, Act 114.

HOW APPLIED FOR.-CERTIFICATE.

(426) § 7265. SEC. 2. Every person applying for such bounty shall take the heads of such rats, in lots of not less than five, to the clerk of the township, village or city within which such rats shall have been killed, in a state of good preservation, and if satisfied with the correctness of such claim, said township, village or city clerk shall issue a certificate stating the amount of bounty to which such applicant is entitled and deliver the same to said applicant, and shall destroy the heads of such rats by burning.

PAYMENT.

(427) § 7266. SEC. 3. Such certificate may be presented by the claimant or his agent to the county clerk of the county in which such rats have been killed, who shall thereupon draw a warrant for the amount on the treasurer of said county, and said treasurer shall, upon presentation of said warrant, pay the same from the general or contingent fund of such county.

COURT DECISIONS RELATIVE TO GAME AND FISH.

NATURE AND PROPERTY IN GENERAL.

The term "game" has been defined as birds and beasts of a wild nature, obtained by fowling and hunting. Within the meaning of the game laws, however, it remains primarily to game fit for food, although under some statutes it applies also to animals valuable for fur or otherwise, and within such laws the term "fish" is included in the term "game" and in itself includes all the different kinds of fish as well as oysters, clams and shell-fish.

See Meul vs. People, 198 Illinois, page 258;

Also People vs. O'Neil, 71 Mich., page 325.

DECISIONS IN CONNECTION WITH COMMERCIAL FISHING INDUSTRY.

Fish are ferae naturae and as far as any right of property in them can exist it is in the public or is common to all until they are taken and reduced to actual possession.

See Lincoln vs. Davis, 53 Mich., page 375.

The statute making it unlawful for any one to place stationary nets in lakes for fishing purposes within one mile from shore at low water mark, protects the right of riparian owners along the lakes and gives to them the right of exclusive fishing within one mile from shore at low water mark, but beyond that limit they have no right as riparian owners to interfere with net fishing by others.

See Lincoln vs. Davis, 53 Mich., page 375;

Also Hilborn vs. Smith, 148 Mich., 474.

The right of navigating the Great Lakes, though paramount, is not exclusive and gives the owner of shipping no immunity from liability for neglect or wanton injury to fish nets placed in such waters.

See Bishop vs. Baldwin, 147 Mich., page 22.

The statute regulating the catching of fish with nets may lawfully prohibit fishing with any kind of nets during a certain portion of the year and such provision is not affected because it makes one season shorter in a part of the waters adjoining a particular county.

Osborn vs. Charlevoix Circuit Judge, 114 Mich., page 655.

Under the provisions of the statute which regulates the size of fish taken from the waters of this state by the use of nets or other apparatus and providing that it shall be unlawful to have in possession any fish of a less weight than that established by law, applies not only to fishermen but to any one having such fish in his possession, though they were not caught by the person in whose possession they are found.

Where the accused were charged with having possession of a large number of lake trout weighing less than one and one-half pounds, in violation of the law, it was held that they were not entitled to acquittal because the proof failed to show that each fish weighed less than one and one-half pounds, but were guilty if any fish were of less weight than that specified by law. It was also held that, to authorize conviction under such section, it is not necessary that the fish should have been in the round when found in the possession of the accused, it being sufficient if the fish so found never weighed one and one-half pounds each. It was also held that the statute is not limited in its scope to fish caught in the waters of this state, but inhibits the possession of any fish of a prohibited size, regardless of whether they were caught in this or some other state or country.

People vs. Dornbos, 127 Mich., page 136;

Also People vs. Lassen, 142 Mich., page 597;

Also People vs. Coffey, 155 Mich., page 103.

The riparian rights of abutting proprietors did not include the exclusive right to set nets in the water in what are originally denominated riparian waters, until Act 94 of the Public Acts of 1869 became a law.

Stuart vs. Greanyea, 154 Mich., page 132.

The right of the state to exclude non-residents altogether from fishing privileges is established. The legislature has power to regulate the taking of fish and game within the confines of the state and the waters that it owns, not only as to time and place but as to method.

People vs. Setunsky, 161 Mich., page 624.

Act 153 of the public acts of 1907 makes it unlawful for any kind of a boat, tug or launch to be used for commercial fishing without registering and taking out a license and prescribes license fees varying with the different class of boats. Held that the statute is not open to the objection that it is a regulation of the use of boats and not a regulation of fishing.

People vs. Setunsky, 161 Mich., page 624.

Act 153 of the public acts of 1907 makes it unlawful to use for the purpose of commercial fishing any kind of a boat, tug or launch without registering the same and taking out a license. Held that such act is not unconstitutional as discriminating against fishermen who are using gasoline in favor of those using sail boats, by reason of the different license fees imposed by it on this class of boats, since the statute applies to all citizens.

People vs. Setunsky, 161 Mich., page 624.

The statute making it unlawful to market or have in possession certain fish of less than the prescribed weight "provided it shall be lawful to transport or sell all of said described kinds of fish legally caught during any season of the year." Fish not of the prescribed weight cannot be retained in possession or marketed although they are caught in a mesh of legal nets. The proviso refers only to fish above the prescribed weight.

People vs. Coffey, 155 Mich., page 103;

People vs. Dornbos, 127 Mich., page 136.

The jurisdiction of offenses against the game law for taking fish from the waters of Lake Huron, in violation of Act No. 213, Public Acts 1909, as amended by Act No. 97, public acts 1913 (2 Com. Laws 1915, 7673 et seq.) is in the counties mentioned in 1 Com. Laws, Sec. 2450 (1 Com. Laws 1915, Sec. 2249) and the county of Bay might lawfully try an offense committed in the waters of Lake Huron adjacent to the county of St. Clair, no exception as to any classes of offenses being made from the language conferring jurisdiction.

Andrews vs. Ellsworth, 190 Mich., page 158.

DECISIONS RELATIVE TO FISHING IN INLAND WATERS.

A lake which is so situated that fish from any other public body of water can migrate to and from the same for any length of time during any season of the year is a public lake and can be fished in, in accordance with the laws regulating fish in such waters.

People vs. Horling, 137 Mich., page 406.

By public usage there is no trespass in taking fish from a small lake nearly surrounded by another's lands, unless the land owner has given notice that it will not be allowed, said lake not having any outlet or inlet by which fish can migrate to and from public bodies of water.

See Marsh vs. Colby, 39 Mich., page 626.

The fact that there may be fish in a privately owned pond which are not the private property of the owner of the pond or any one else and that the state may control the taking of fish therefrom, does not warrant trespassing upon such property for fishing purposes.

Winans vs. Willetts, 197 Mich., page 512.

In a case where the defendant was convicted for taking fish in Gun lake opposite his own lands bordering thereon, by means of spear and jack contrary to the provisions of Act 329 of the public acts of 1885, forbidding the use of such instruments in Gun lake, it was held that the fish therein were migratory and the property of the state, which could regulate the mode of catching.

People vs. Collison, 85 Mich., page 105.

Laws making it unlawful to take fish from any of the inland lakes, except by means of hook and line, do not apply to private lakes or ponds having no con nection with other lakes or streams through which fish might pass in and out. Therefore one spearing in such lake or pond with consent of all the owners thereof is not guilty of violating this act.

People vs. Conrad, 125 Mich., page 1.

Where a complaint for illegal fishing charges the locus of the offense as, in Grand river, township of Grand Haven, county of Ottawa, it is competent to show that the offense was committed anywhere in the county.

People vs. Van Maren, 126 Mich., page 103.

On a prosecution under the statute prohibiting fishing with nets on any of the waters of this state, except certain specified waters, though the complaint alleges that the offense was committed in the Quanicassee river, it is unnecessary to prove that the Quanicassee was a river. It is enough to show that its waters are waters of the state and not within the excepted waters. On a prosecution for catching and attempting to catch fish with nets, the attempt to take fish with nets, which is equally an offense with catching them, is admitted as charged, the complaint charging that defendant was taking and attempting to take them on the 20th of the month and defendant admitted that he was fishing with nets about the 20th is sufficient to warrant a conviction.

People vs. Neal, 143 Mich., page 271.

An innkeeper having trout or other game not alive in his possession out of season and serving them to his guests at their meals, the bill of fare for such meal showing such fact, constitutes a sale of trout out of season, in violation of the statute.

State vs. Beal, 75 Maine, page 289;

State vs. Randolph, 1st Missouri, page 15.

One who paddles a boat in which another is fishing in violation of such statute may be convicted as principal in the offense.

Com. vs. Richardson, 142 Mass., page 71;

Also 7 N. E., page 26.

Trespassing upon private lands to reach a public fisheries is not a criminal offense within such statutes.

State vs. Welch, 66 N. H., 178.

28 Atlanta, page 21.

For decisions as to whether or not a particular fish or game law has been repealed by later statute, see following cases:

People vs. Van Pelt, 130 Mich., page 621;

People vs. Kirsch, 67 Mich., page 539.

DECISIONS AFFECTING GAME.

That the legislature has the power to regulate the taking of fish and game within the confines of the state and the waters that it owns is unquestionable, not only as to time and place but as to method. It has been so held by decisions of the federal and state courts generally and has been so held in this state.

People vs. Setunsky, 161 Mich., page 628;

Geer vs. Conn., 161 U. S., page 519;

People vs. Collison, 85 Mich., page 105;

People vs. Horling, 137 Mich., page 406.