¶1(nem. con.) at the prayer of Mr. Taylor and Mr. Mason, for the plaintiff, instructed the jury, that if they should be satisfied by the evidence, that the defendant knowingly and without necessity, or any reasonable commercial purpose, anchored his vessel within the limits of the plaintiff’s fishery, so as to interrupt the same ; or that the defendant, after he had anchored within the limits of the plaintiff’s fishery as aforesaid, knowingly, and without necessity, or any reasonable commercial purpose, remained within the .same, so as to interrupt the fishery, then the plaintiff is entitled to recover.
4 D.C. 580
Mason v. Mansfield
Decided October 15, 1835
This was an action on the case, for “ that the defendant, not ignorant of the premises, (that is, of the plaintiff’s right of fishing,) but maliciously intending to injure the plaintiff in this behalf, and to deprive him of the use of his said fishery, did, on the day of and continually thereafter, for and during the space of days then next following, wrongfully and injuriously stop and anchor a certain vessel, then under the command of the defendant, in the berth and range…
Decided 1835-10-15