Clark v. Todd

Delaplaine, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The main question presented by these three appeals is whether violations of that section of the Maryland Oyster Law which restricts the size of boats for dredging oysters in the waters of Dorchester, Talbot and Somerset Counties may be restrained by injunction. Code Supp. 1947, art. 72, sec. 7. This section of the Code, which makes it unlawful to take or catch oysters by dredge in any of these three counties without a license, provides that it shall be unlawful to use any boat exceeding 7 gross tons, reckoned by rules of custom house measurement, to take or catch oysters by dredge in the waters of Dorchester or Talbot Counties (except boats which were licensed to take oysters in said ⁴⁹⁰ waters prior to the year 1900 and have been licensed to do so for each successive year since that time, which boats shall not exceed 10½ tons), or to use any boat exceeding 10½ tons, reckoned in the same manner, to take or catch oysters by dredge in the waters of Somerset County.

Section 7 further provides that every applicant for a license to dredge in the waters of Dorchester, Talbot or Somerset Counties shall make application for the license to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the county wherein he may reside in the same manner that application is made to the Department of Tidewater Fisheries for a license to dredge in the Chesapeake Bay. Upon the applicant’s oath and application, the Clerk shall issue a numbered license and a piece of canvas bearing the number of the license painted in red; and for such license and number the applicant shall pay a license fee of $2 per gross ton for every gross ton the boat shall measure and a special fee of 50 cents for the issuance of the license. Section 16 provides that any person violating any provision of Section 7 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to the penalties provided for violations of Section 6, which prescribes the regulations for oyster dredging in the Chesapeake Bay, i. e., a fine of not less than $50 nor more than $500, or imprisonment in the House of Correction for not less than one month nor more than six months, or both fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the Court. In addition, any boat, dredge or other device used in connection with the violation of any provision of the section may be declared by the Court forfeited to the State of Maryland and delivered to the Department of Tidewater Fisheries for such disposition as may, in the opinion of the Department, be most advantageous to the State.

The dredging license issued in connection with the operation of any such boat may also be declared by the Court suspended or revoked. Complainants, John E. Clark, Allan A. Sollers and George T. Harrison, constituting the Commission of Tidewater Fisheries, charge that defendants in each of the cases are violating the statute. The bill of complaint filed ⁴⁹¹ in Dorchester County alleges that licenses have been illegally issued to defendants for 24 boats with tonnages ranging from 8 to 20 tons. The bill filed in Talbot County alleges that licenses have been issued for 15 boats with tonnages ranging from 8 to 22 tons.

Both of these bills allege that the boats had not been licensed to dredge in county waters prior to the year 1900 and for each successive year since that time. The bill in Somerset County alleges that licenses have been issued for 4 boats with tonnages ranging from 11 to 17 tons. The bills ask the Court to invalidate these licenses, and to restrain defendants from dredging oysters under them. Each Court issued a temporary injunction, but defendants demurred to the bill, and the Court passed a decree sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the bill.

From those decrees the members of the Commission have appealed here. Before discussing the main issue, we take occasion to say that the bills were not demurrable merely because no records of custom house measurement were filed therewith as exhibits. It is true that the complainant in an application for injunction must make a full and frank disclosure of all the facts within his knowledge concerning the subject matter of the suit. There should be no concealment or misrepresentation of important facts, so that “this strong arm of the law, which is interposed only to prevent positive and substantial injury,” as