USE OF THE WORD TIMBER 17 



of the act. In rendering this decision the judge said that 

 mesquite was "a brittle, knotty, skraggy, fibreless wood 

 that can only be used for firewood. It is used in the manu- 

 facture of no useful article." 1 However, when a later 

 case arose under the same section of the Revised Statutes 

 regarding the cutting of mesquite the Supreme Court of 

 Arizona questioned the propriety of the action of the judge 

 in Bustamente v. United States in assuming that mesquite 

 was as a matter of common knowledge not a timber tree, 

 declined to follow the decision in that case, quoted from the 

 definition of mesquite given in the Century Dictionary 

 which indicated that mesquite trees sometimes attained 

 a height of more than thirty feet and the wood was used 

 for various purposes, including foundations for buildings, 

 and held that whether the mesquite trees cut were of such 

 character as to come under section 2461 U. S. R. S. was a 

 question of fact which should be submitted to the jury. 2 

 Another court decided that this Federal Statute included 

 trees fit only for firewood and charcoal wood. 3 In an- 

 other prosecution under the same section it was held that 

 the term "timber" as used in the federal statute did not 

 embrace manufactured articles such as boards and shin- 

 gles. 4 



As generally applied to standing trees in the United 

 States and Canada, the word "timber" signifies those trees 

 which are suitable for the construction of buildings, ships, 

 furniture, fences and tools, 5 but it does not include im- 

 mature trees of such timber species. 6 The courts will 

 give to the word the restricted application which was evi- 

 dently contemplated in a contract or conveyance 7 and 

 in particular cases it has been held that "timber" did not 



1 . Bustamente v. United States, 42 Pac. Rep. 111,4 Ariz. 344. 



2. United States v. Soto, 7 Ariz. 230, 64 Pac. 420. 



3. United States v. Stores, et al., 14 Fed. Rep. 824. See Don worth v. Sawyer, 94 



Me. 243, 47 Atl. 523; Wilson v. State, 17 Tex. App. 393; Liu Kong v. Keah- 

 ialoa, 8 Hawaii 511. 



4. United States v. S^chuler, 6 McLean 28, 27 Fed. Gas. No. 16, 234, Decided June, 



1853. 



5. Alcutt v. Lakin, 33 N. H. 507, 66 Am. Dec. 739; Lord v. Meader, 73 N. H. 185. 



60 Atl. 434; Corbett v. Harper, 5 Ont. 93, 97. See Com. v. Noxon, 121 Mass. 42 



6. Corbett v. Harper, 5 Ont. 93; See Campbell v. Shields, 44 U. C. Q. B. 449. 



7. Kollock v. Parcher, 52 Wis. 393, 9 N. W. 67; See Keeton v. Audsley, 19 Mo. 362. 



61 Am. Dec. 560; Bryant v. United States, 105 Fed. 941, 45 C. C. A. 145. 



