Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

42 Okla. Crim. 361

276 P 240

Link v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · decided 1929-04-13

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1929-04-13

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently September 1978

14 state decisions

60192919301940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

EDWARDS, P. J.

¶1 The plaintiff in error was convicted in the county court of Choctaw county of permitting sawdust from a sawmill operated by him to be deposited in a stream, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $100.

¶2 The prosecution is under section 6526, Comp. Stat. 1921, and is as follows:

“No person shall deposit, place, throw, or permit to be deposited, placed or thrown, any lime, dynamite, poison, drug, sawdust, crude oil or other deleterious substance, in any of the streams, lakes, or ponds of this state, and any person violating the provisions of this section shall be punished by a tine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than fiVe hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year.”

¶3 The plaintiff in error admits depositing sawdust in the stream as alleged, but contends that as he deposited oak sawdust only and that oak sawdust is not injurious to fish, the statute does not apply. We do not so read the law. The statute forbids the deposit of sawdust in a stream. *362 By its terms it is not limited to such sawdust as is injurious to fish, and we cannot presume that was the sole purpose of the law.

¶4 The evidence sustains the judgment, and no error requiring a reversal is made to appear.

¶5 The case is affirmed.

DAVENPORT and CHAPPELL, JJ., concur.
/42/oklacrim/361 · .json · Public domain