Skip to main content
· 4/15/1913

State v. Pacific American Fisheries

Citations

  • 73 Wash. 37
  • 131 P. 452
  • 1913 Wash. LEXIS 2142

Syllabus

<p>Master and Servant — Hour§ of Service — Regulation—Statutes —Construction. Under the act of 1911, p. 131, entitled an act to regulate and limit tbe Fours of employment of females in any mechanical or mercantile establishment . . . except establishments engaged in . . . canning . . . certain perishable articles, which provides for an eight-hour day, with the proviso that the act shall not apply to females employed in packing or canning any variety of perishable fruit or vegetables nor to females employed in canning fish, fishing canneries are not exempted from the operation of the statute, and female labor therein is restricted Unless such labor is employed in “canning fish.”</p> <p>Criminal Law — Appeal—Review—Verdicts. A conviction will not be disturbed on appeal for insufficiency of the evidence, if there was evidence to support the verdict, although it may not be the most convincing kind.</p> <p>Master and Servant — Regulation of Hours of Service — Criminal Prosecution — Trial—Instructions—“Canning Fish.” Upon a prosecution for violating the eight-hour law by employing female labor in a fish cannery in work other than “canning fish,” it is proper to instruct the jury to the effect that the “lacquering of cans” is not a part of the work of canning fish if the lacquering was done after the canning to prevent the cans from rusting and was not reasonably immediately necessary to preserve the contents of the cans and could have been done in the usual course of business by employment of females for not more than eight hours per day (Mount and Morris, JJ., dissenting.)</p> <p>Criminal Law — Apfeal—Harmless Error — Conduct of Counsel. Reversible error cannot be predicated on statements of counsel outside the record, where the court promptly instructed the jury to disregard them, and they were not of that flagrant character the prejudicial effect of which could not be removed by the prompt action of the court.</p>

Judges: Main, Morris, Mount

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.