MULTIPLE DAMAGES AND PENALTIES 9& 



the statutes are so worded as to clearly indicate that the 

 multiple damages or penalties are to be awarded only when 

 the trespass is malicious, fraudulent, inexcusably negligent 

 or otherwise aggravated; but even where the application 

 of the statute is not expressly limited to trespasses of this 

 character, the courts will generally construe it as not in- 

 cluding unintentional trespasses and will allow only actual, 

 or compensatory, damages where the trespass was acci- 

 dental or done under a bona fide claim of ownership and 

 color of title. l While in compensatory, or single, dam- 

 ages the intent of the trespasser is immaterial, 2 an intent 

 to commit the unlawful act is necessary to the maintenance 



(Footnote 1 concluded from proceeding page) 

 Wis. Andrews v. Youmans, 78 Wis. 56; Lee v. Lord, 76 Wis. 582; Cotter T. 



Plumer, 72 Wis. 476. 

 Double damages allowed for timber trespass on state land : State v. Shev- 



lin-Carpenter Co., 102 Minn. 470, 113 N. W. 634, 114 N. W. 738. 

 Recovery of enalties allowed as to state land: People v. Bennett, 56 Misc. 

 (N. Y.) 160, 107 N. Y. Suppl. 406. (Afl'd in 125 N. Y. App. Div. 912, 

 109 N. Y. Suppl. 1140.) 



1. Ala. Long v. Cummings, 156 Ala. 577, 47 So. 109; Bradford v. Boozer, 139 Ala. 



502, 36 So. 716; Glenn v. Adams, 129 Ala. 189, 29 So. 836; White v. 

 Farris, 124 Ala. 461, 27 So. 259; Williams v. Hendricks, 115 Ala. 277, 22 

 So. 439, 67 Am. St. Rep. 32, 41 L. R. A. 650; Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. 

 Lenoir, 107 Ala. 640, 18 So. 266; Russel v. Irby, 13 Ala. 131; But see, 

 . Louisville, etc. R. Co. v. Hill, 115 Ala. 334, 22 So. 163. 



Cal. Barnes v. Jones, 51 Cal. 303. 



Ga. Yahoola River, etc. Co. v. Irby, 40 Ga. 479. 



111. Cushman v. Oliver, 81 111. 444; Watkins v. Gale 13 111. 152; Whitecraftv. 

 Vanderveer, 12 111. 235; See also, Satterfleld v. Western Union 

 Tel. Co., 23 111. App. 446; Belt v. Reid, 84 III. App. 501. 



Iowa. Werner v. Flies, 91 Iowa 146, 59 N. W. 18. 



Kan. Cf. Wright v. Brown, 5 Kan. 600. 



Mich. Skeels v. Starrett, 57 Mich. 350, 24 N. W. 98; Clark v. Field, 42 Mich. 342; 

 Osborn v. Lovell, 36 Mich. 246; Russell v. Myers, 32 Mich. 522; Wallace 

 v. Finch, 24 Mich. 255. 



Miss. Cumberland Tel. etc. Co. v. Martin, 93 Miss. 505, 46 So. 247; Lusby v. 

 Kansas City etc. R. Co., 73 Miss. 360, 19 So. 239, 36 L. R. A. 510; 

 McCleary v. Anthony, 54 Miss. 708. 



Mo. Chilton v. Missouri Lumber Etc. Co., 144 Mo. App. 315, 127 S. W. 941; 

 Missouri Lbr. Etc. Co. v. Zeitinger, 45 Mo. App. 114; Lindell v. Hanni- 

 bal, etc. R. Co., 25 Mo. 550; Emerson v. Beavaus, 12 Mo. 511. 



N. H. Batchelder v. Kelly, 10 N. H. 436, 34 Am. Dec. 174; See, Morrison v. Be- 

 dell, 22 N. H. 234. 



N. Y. Smith v. Morse, 70 N. Y. App. Div. 318, 75 N. Y. Suppl. 126; Nixon v. 

 Stillwell, 52 Hun. 353, 5 N. Y. Suppl. 248. 



Ore. Loewenberg v. Rosenthal, 18 Ore. 178, 22 Pac. 601. 



Pa. Shiffer v. Broadhead, 134 Pa. St. 539, 19 Atl. 688; Kramer v. Goodlander, 

 98 Pa. St. 353. 



Vt. Davis v. Cotey, 70 Vt. 120, 39 Atl. 628; Brown v. Mead, 68 Vt. 215, 34 

 Atl. 950. 



Wash. Gardner v. Lovegren, 27 Wash. 356, 67 Pac. 615. 



Wis. Cohen v. Neeves, 40 Wis. 393. 



2. Quillen v. Betts, 1 Pennew (Del.) 53, 39 Atl. 595; Mi Itown Lbr. Co. v. Carter, 5 



Ga. App. 344, 33 S. E. 270; Mishler Lbr. Co. v. Craig. 112 Mo. App. 454, 87 

 S. W. 41; Chase v. Clearfleld Lbr. Co., 209 Pa. St. 422, 58 Atl. 813; Cf. Guttner 

 v. Pacific Steam Whaling Co., 96 Fed. 617. 



