EXEMPLARY DAMAGES FOR WILFUL TRESPASS 95 



ble. * The character of evidence necessary to indicate 

 wantonness on the part of the trespasser has been denned, 2 

 and it has been held that the taking of timber from lands 

 of the United States was in itself prima prima facie evi- 

 dence that the trespass was wilful. 3 If the trespass is 

 proven or admitted, the burden of proof is upon the de- 

 fendant to show that it was not wilful, 4 and the courts 

 will generally allow exemplary damages in civil actions 

 where the wrongful cutting of timber was deliberately 

 done with a knowledge of its unlawfulness, 5 or when the 

 conduct of the trespasser was grossly negligent, 6 reckless, 7 

 wanton, 8 malicious, 9 or fraudulent. 10 It has been held 

 that exemplary damages may be given even when the plain- 

 tiff does not recover substantial actual damages; n but they 

 will not be given if the cutting was done under a bona fide 

 claim of right 12 and with no fruadulent purpose or inten- 

 tional wrong, 13 except where there are aggravating circum- 

 stances. 14 The higher courts will not ordinarily disturb 

 the verdict rendered in a lower court for the unlawful cutting 

 of trees if there was no error in the instructions to the jury, 

 but if the damages allowed below are clearly excessive the 

 verdict will be set aside. 15 



1. Kentucky Stave Co. v. Page (Ky. 1910), 125 S. W. 170. 



2. Paris v. Amer. Tel. etc. Co., 84 S. C. 102, 65 S. E. 1017. 



3. U. 8. v. HomestakeMin. Co., 117 Fed. 481, 54 C. C. A. 303; Cf. U.S. v. Gentry. 



119 Fed. 70, 55 C. C. A. 658. 



4. Miss. River Logging Co. v. Pae, 68 Minn. 269, 71 N. W. 4; Trustees Dartmouth 



College v. Int'l Paper Co. 132 Fed. 99. 



5. Bentley v. Fisher Lbr. etc. Co., 51 La. Ann. 451, 25 So. 262; Tissot v. Great So. 



Tel. & Tel. Co., 39 La. Ann. 996; Ward v. Ward, 41 Iowa 686; Smith v. Thomp- 

 son, 55 Md. 5, 39 Am. Rep. 409; Boetcher v. Staples, 27 Minn. 308, 38 Am. Rep. 

 295; Storm v. Green, 51 Miss. 103; Ensley v. Nashville, 58 Tenn. 144; Board- 

 man v. Goldsmith, 48 Vt. 403; Day v. Woodworth, 13 How. 362, 371; U. S. v. 

 Taylor, 35 Fed. 484; Willis v. Miller et al., 29 Fed. 238; Barry v. Edmunds 116 

 U. S. 550; Berry v. Fletcher, 1 Dill. 67; Refused in N. J. where no peculiar 

 injury, HoUister v. Ruddy 48 Atl. 520. See Note 12 infra. 



6. Emporia Lumber Co. v. League (Tex. Civ. App. 1907), 105 S. W. 1167; Kolb v. 



Bankhead, 18 Tex. 228. 



7. Berry v. Fletcher, 3 Fed. Gas. No. 1357, 1 Dill. 67. 



8. Jones Lbr. Co. v. Gatliff, 82 S. W. 295, 29 Ky. L. Rep. 616. 



9. Berry v. Fletcher, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1357, 1 Dill. 67; Cosgriff v. Miller, 10 Wyo. 



190, 68 Pac. 206. 98 Am. St. Rep. 977. 



10. Kentucky Stave Co. v. Page, (Ky. 1910) 125 S. W. 170; Cumberland Tel. etc. Co. 



v. Cassedy, 78 Miss. 666, 29 So. 762. 



11. Rothschild v. Bay City Lumber Co., 139 Ala. 571, 36 So. 785. 



12. Hollister v. Ruddy, 66 N. J. L. 68, 48 Atl. 520. 



13. Keystone Lumber Co. v. McGrath (Miss. 1897), 21 So. 301; Gwaitney v. Scottish 



Carolina Timber etc. Co., 115 N. C. 579, 20 S. E. 465. 



14. Cumberland Tel. etc. Co. v. Cassedy, 78 Miss. 666, 29 So. 762. 



15. Cumberland Tel. etc. Co. v. Cassedy, 78 Miss. 666, 29 So. 762. 



See Watterson v. Jetche, 7 Rob. (La.) 20 (1844); Tissot v. Great S. T & T. Co. 39 

 La. Ann. 996, 3 So. 261; Ferguson v. Buckell, 101 App. Div. 213, 91 N. Y. 

 Suppl. 724. 



