The Great Redmond Trout Betrayal
A friendly fishing wager among gentlemen turns into a formal, litigious scandal in Justice Miller's court.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
A suit that to all appearances is brought more in jest than in earnest was filed in Justice Miller's court last evening. G. W. Yancey and E. F. Blaine appear as plaintiffs and W. L. Russel and D. A. McKenzie as co-defendants. R. H. J. Pennyfather and J. Boyd Tallman are attorneys for the plaintiffs. The complaint states that on June 30, 1888, the plaintiffs, along with several others, were engaged in catching fish at Redmond in King County. To stimulate their efforts and provide fresh brook trout to a market in short supply, they wagered $1 each, with the prize going to the person who caught the largest number of brook trout. D. A. McKenzie was to act as judge. At the end of the day, plaintiff Blaine presented nine fish, and defendant Russel presented nine. The judge declared all of Russel's fish to be brook trout and awarded the prize money to both men. However, the plaintiffs later learned that one of Russel's 'trout' was actually a chub, a species so similar that only a skilled angler could distinguish the two. The complaint alleges that the judge knew of the fraud and colluded with Russel for a cut of the winnings. The plaintiffs are suing for $4 in damages, plus attorney fees, noting that Russel has since departed the territory, making a joint judgment the only way to recover their losses.
“One of the said nine fishes placed before said judge as defendant Russel's catch... was not a brook trout, but was in fact a chub, a species of fish so far like in resemblance to a brook trout that only the most skillful piscatory may distinguish between said species.”
Long before Redmond became a global tech hub, it was a rural destination for anglers and local disputes. This case highlights the peculiar mix of Victorian-era litigiousness and frontier humor that defined early Seattle’s civic life, where even a common fish was enough to spark a courtroom drama.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.