Ocean Fisheries—Public Bight—Prescription.—The right of fishery in the waters of the ocean, whether in the open sea or where the waters ebb and flow over tide-lands, is a public right, which may be exercised by any citizen, and is not, and cannot be, exclusive, or the subject of title by prescription, no matter by whom or for what length of time it may have been exercised.

Id.—Forcible Exclusion of Plaintiff.—Sufficient reason appears for plaintiff to desist from an attempt to exercise the common right of fishery with the defendant in fishing-grounds used and occupied by the defendant, where the declarations of the defendant’s agent were such as would satisfy a reasonable man that further attempts to fish therein would be met and frustrated by force.

Id.—Damages for Exclusion—Loss of Profits.—The plaintiff is entitled to introduce evidence upon the question of actual damages for its exclusion from such fishing-grounds, tending to show how many fish plaintiff could with reasonable probability have taken from the fishing-grounds in question, if plaintiff had not been excluded therefrom by the unlawful acts of the defendant, and to show the value of such fish and the profits which would reasonably have accrued to the plaintiff from the fish when canned.' The profits thus sought to be proved were not so remote, uncertain, prospective, or conjectural as to be beyond the range of legitimate damages.

Id.—Punitive Damages—Intention of Defendant—Improper Exclusion of Evidence.—Upon the question of punitive damages, it was improper to exclude evidence offered by the defendant for the purpose of showing the intent and motive with which defendant did the acts complained of, and that they were not done maliciously, but with a bona fide belief in its asserted title to the fisheries in question, and in a bona fide attempt to protect what was believed to be its property. Such intention and motive could be properly shown by the officers and governing body of the defendant corporation, which was not precluded from giving such evidence because it had denied in its answer that it had committed the alleged acts.