NOTES AND COMMENTS 



A recent decision of the New Jersey court of errors and appeals 

 sustains a principle which is of great importance to forest conserva- 

 tion and development. This was the case of the Department of Con- 

 servation and Development vs. Yteder, in which the decisions of the 

 lower courts were overruled. 



On April 24, 1912, Peter Y. Veeder, a farmer in Ocean County, 

 undertook to burn over his salt meadow, having obtained from the 

 local fire warden the required permit. A change of wind caused the 

 tire to escape from the control of himself and his helper so that 

 over 200 acres of adjacent woodland were burned. This constituted 

 a violation of the forest fire law, which provides that "no person 

 shall set fire to, or burn, or cause to be burned, any waste land, brush 

 land, or forest lands. . . ." The escape of the fire apparently was 

 due to no neglect or carelessness but to pure accident, and Veeder 

 had shown his ^ood faith by securing the permit required by law. 

 The department therefore offered to settle the case by permitting 

 Veeder to pay the cost of extinguishing the fire for which he was 

 responsible. He refused this settlement and the matter was put into 

 the hands of the attorney general's department for prosecution. The 

 case was first heard in the court of a justice of the peace, where a 

 decision was rendered in favor of the State. Veeder appealed to the 

 court of common pleas, which declared a nonsuit on the ground that 

 the defendant did not intentionally or wilfully violate the law. On 

 writ of certiorari to the supreme court, the judgment of the court 

 of common pleas was affirmed. The case was then carried by the 

 State to the court of errors and appeals, and in an opinion rendered 

 by Chief Justice Gummere the judgment of the supreme court was 

 reversed. The opinion holds that the act of the defendant in allowing 

 the fire to escape was a violation of the statute, notwithstanding the 

 fact that it was unintentional. 



The ruling of the supreme court made it impossible to enforce 

 penalties for forest fires, because in practically every instance these 

 fires are due to carelessness or ignorance rather than maliciousness 

 or intent. The opinion of the higher court in reversing the ruling of 

 the supreme court demands provision against possible as well as 



240 



