erate fish traps. All of the shares
of stock save a few were divid
ed between them. Then came
along Commissioner O’Malley
and closed the Point Higgins
trap. Thereafter E. K. Houston
died and his widow, Laura Hous
ton, became the owner of his
shares cl stock
Shortly pr or to April 6, 1929,
I U'a II mston, it is claimed,
proceeded to have the trap re
ctored to entry, and, according
lo the complaint, “instead of
making such application in the
i ame of the Houston Fish Com
pany, the owner of said fishing
rights, falsely and fraudulently
represented to Commissioner
Henry O’Malley, commissioner
of fisheries of Alaska, who had
so]e power to close and reopen
fishing locations in the waters
•f Alaska, that she, Laura Hous
ton, since the decease of her
'disband, was the sole owner of
said fish trap location; that said
commissioner of fisheries for
Alaska, acting upon said repre
sentations and believing them
to be true, issued an order on
April 6, 1929, reopening and re
storing said location to entry for
fishing purposes; that defend
ant Laura Houston possessed
the information that said loca
tion would be restored to entry
before said date, and withheld
such information from the
plaintiff, its officers and stock
bo- ’ers; that she thereupon,
wi'h the intent to defraud
plaintiff of its rights in said lo
cation and of its rights to anply
for and receive a Territorial li
cense and war department per
mit to fish said location, arrang
ed in advance of April 6, 1929. to
have application on file at the
office in Juneau.”
The complaint further alleges,
ey-iojnei Reoresentative-elect
A H. Ziegler, that it has been
the “express policy of the bureau
of fisheries,” with an under
standing with the war depart
merit which issues licenses, that
in all cases where fish trap loca
tions have been closed, to give
the prior owner the preference
to acquire the right. Repre
sentative elect Ziegler, not fear
ing the fishermen’s vote at this
time, declares it his belief that
piior rights to fish traps should
govern. In clearer terms, that
nrior owners to a trap site have
cn equity in the waters, certain
possessory rights which should
be given preferential recogni
tion over that of any other ap
plicant for license to fish on the
same location. Mr. Gore, at
torney for defendant also de
clared it his belief that “prior
i ights to fish traps should gov
ern.
Attorney Gore in defense, for
his chent, argued that she had
a perfect right to apply for the
trap site as an individual de
snitc the fact that she was a
stockholder in the campany and
had violated no law and was ful
ly entitled to the proceeds from
the trap.
The comolaint alleges that the
Naknt Packing Company leased
the trap for three years at an
annual rental of $3,750, amount
ing- to a total of $11,250, and
that Laura Houston already col
lected $P 000 and will colleet the
remainder unless the Nakat
Packing Company is restrained
from pay:ng it to her. The com
Tdaint also asked that an order
bn issued to have the Nakat
Packing Company show cause
and to restrain it from paving
nnv morn rental pending settle
ment of the case.
A hypothetical question was
nut to the attorneys by Judge
Harming as follows: if a stock
holder of shares of steel, for in
stance, would not. have the right
to acquire property rights with
out nnv legal objections of the
parent, company. Mr. Ziegler
contended that this case was dif
ferent in that no person gain
ing PROPERTY through fraud
or misrepresentation should be
allowed to benefit by reason of
that fraud at the expense of a
parent company or corporation.
The court intimated that it was
not so sure about that point.
Mr. Ziegler pointed out that
there were a number of new and
pecuUar elements in the case
which should be considered and
that there were no specific cas
es in law to cover the case before
the court. But he was positive
in his contention that the de
fendant being a stockholder of
a corporation should not be al
lowed to retain title to the trap
site OWNED by plaintiff, the
securing ot site by defendant be
ing through fraud and misre
presentation.
Judge Harding asked attor
neys to submit briefs setting
forth authorities which they
might And bearing on the case
end that he would take the de
murrer under advisement until
he received the brief.
The main auesticn upon which
the briefs will be submitted, un
der the circumstances, is wheth
er or not a stockholder of a fish
trap '■''■■prration is a trustee of
the corporation, on account of
the fiduciary relation existing
between the stockholder and the
eomovat’on. Ha^ the corpora
tion property rights in navig
able waters prior to that of any
individual, especially a stock
holder in that corporation?
x
FOSTER LEADS BY 34 VOTES
-x
According to returns recently
made public by the Clerk’s office
at Valdez, the vote for legisla
tive candidates now stands as
follows: Brosius 1984, Murray,
1886, McOntcheon, 1731, Foster,
Fi’23, Roach 1689. The nrecincts
yet unreported are Koggiung,
Nilcoski and Egegik.