APPEAL from a judgment of tbe Superior Court of tbe City aud County of San Francisco and from an order denying a new trial. William T. Wallace, Judge.

Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion of tbe court

Tbe exercise of discretion by a public board cannot be interfered with by injunction, in tbe absence of fraud, though it may be unwise or improvident. (2 High on Injunctions, 964,965; Davis v. Mayor etc., 1 Duer, 451, 497; Spring Valley Water Works v. San Francisco, 82 Cal. 286, 306, 308, 309; 16 Am. St. Rep. 116; McKinley v. Chosen Freeholders, 29 N. J. Eq. 164; Argo v. Barthand, 80 Ind. 66; Fitzgerald v. Harms, 92 Ill. 375; Andrews v. Board of Supervisors etc., 70 Ill. 65; Wiley v. Alleghany County Commrs., 51 Md. 401, 404; Warfel v. Cochran, 34 Pa. St. 384; People v. Mayor etc., 32 Barb. 113; Lane v. Morrill, 51 N. H. 422.) Tbe order of removal having been made by competent authority, there was no infringement of any vested or property right of tbe plaintiff. (Knoxville v. Bird, 12 Lea, 121; 47 Am. Rep. 326; Salem v. Maynes, 123 Mass. 374; Jacksonville v. Ledwith, 22 Am. St. Rep. 582; Railroad Co. v. Richmond, 96 U. S. 529; New Orleans v. Stafford, 27 La. Ann. 417; 21 Am. Rep. 563.) Evidence to impugn the motives of the board was inadmissible. (Soon Ring v. Crowley, 113 U. S. 708; Ex parte Chin Yan, 60 Cal. 82; 1 Dillon on Municipal Corporations, 311.) <

The action of tbe board of state harbor commissioners, was unreasonable, oppressive, unjust, and unfair, and tended to create a monopoly in the river traffic, restrain competition in trade, and deprive plaintiff of valuable property rights without due process of law, and should be restrained as invalid and void. (Tiedeman on Police Power, secs. 194, 204; Dillon on Municipal Corporations, sec. 362, and note; Ex parte Frank, 52 Cal. 606, 610; 28 Am. Rep. 642; St. Louis v. Weber, 44 Mo. 547; Mayor v. Radecke, 49 Md. 217; 33 Am. Rep. 239; Tugman v. Chicago, 78 Ill. 405; State v. Loomis, 115 Mo. 307; Ritchie v. People, 155 Ill. 98, 105; 46 Am. St. Rep. 315.) The acts of public bodies, other than the legislature, may be impeached for fraudulent motives. (Dillon on Municipal Corporations, sec. 311; Spring Valley Water Works v. San Francisco, 82 Cal. 286; 16 Am. St. Rep. 116; Davis v. Mayor etc., 1 Duer, 451, 498.)