Gile v. Baseel

Citations

• 38 Wash. 212
• 80 P. 437
• 1905 Wash. LEXIS 1149

Syllabus

<p>Pleading — Reply — Departure — Fish Traps — Injunction Against Operation—Nuisance. In an action to enjoin the operation of a fish trap, a reply is inconsistent with the complaint and constitutes a departure, where the complaint alleges that the defendant’s location is an unlawful encroachment because within the lateral passageway of plaintiff’s traps, and the reply admits that the defendant’s trap as remodeled was not within plaintiff’s lateral passageway, but alleges that it is within the lateral passageway of a trap owned by one L, and was a public nuisance, especially injurious to plaintiff because it stopped and caught fish which otherwise his traps would catch.</p> <p>Fisheries—Fish Traps—Location—Conflict—Lateral Passageway on Columbia River. Under Laws 1899, p. 197, § 4, a fish trap in the waters of the Columbia river, is not within the lateral passageway of other traps already established, where it does not come within parallelograms extending thirty feet from each end and nine hundred feet from each side of the established traps, the thirty feet being measured at right angles to the shore and the nine hundred feet at right angles to the lead of the other traps.</p>