104 STATUTORY CIVIL LIABILITY FOR TIMBER TRESPASS 



believing that the cutting was under one of the exceptions 

 of the statute, l that the cutting was accidental or casual, 2 

 that he acted under a bona fide claim of right, 3 or that it 

 was done with the consent of the plaintiff. 4 



90. Determination of Amount Allowable as Mul- 

 tiple Damages. Under different statutes the basis of the 

 multiple damages has been held to be either the difference 

 in the value of the land before and after the cutting of the 

 trees, 5 or the market value of the trees cut 6 according 

 to the language of the statute and the circumstances of 

 the trespass. Accessory or consequential damages not 

 embraced by the statute will not be considered in the unit 

 basis of multiple damages. 7 To establish the value of 

 trees severed the plaintiff may show either value of the 

 trees on the land, 8 or at the nearest market. 9 Ordi- 

 narily the additional value given the severed article by 

 the labor and expense of the trespasser cannot be treb- 

 led. 10 If the plaintiff proves the wrongful cutting but does 

 not establish a case within the terms of thfe statute provid- 

 ing for multiple damages or a penalty, he will be entitled 

 to single damages. " 



1. Clark v. Field, 42 Mich. 342, 4 N. W. 19; Henry v. Lowe, 73 Mo. 96; Walther v- 



Warner, 26 Mo. 143: Avitt v. Farrell. 68 Mo. App. 665; Humes v. Proctor, 151 

 N. Y. 520, 45 N. E. 948. 



2. Hart v. Doyle, 128 Mi h. 257, 87 N. W. 219: Michigan Land etc. Co. v. Deer Lake 



Co., 60 Mich. 143, 27 N. W. 10, 1 Am. St. Rep. 491 ; Van Siclen v. Jamaica Elec- 

 tric Light Co., 45 N. Y. App. Div. 1, 61 N. Y. Suppl. 210 (Aff'd in 168 N. Y. 650. 

 61 N. E. 1135). 



3. Pitt v. Daniel, 82 Mo. App. 168; Brown v. Carter, 52 Mo. 46; Davis v. Cotey, 70 



Vt. 120, 39 Atl. 628; Ct. Louisville etc. R. Co. v. Hill, 115 Ala. 334, 22 So. 163; 

 Rogers v. Brooks, 105 Ala. 549, 17 So. 97. 



4. Werner v. Flies, 91 Iowa 146, 59 N. W. 18; Rogers v. Brooks, 105 Ala. 549, 17 So. 



97. 



5. Skeels v. Starrett, 57 Mich. 350, 24 N. W. 98; Achey v. Hull, 7 Mich. 423; Mc- 



Crudden v. Rochester R. Co., 5 Misc. (N. Y.) 59, 25 N. Y. Suppl. 114 [Aff'd in 

 77 Hun. 609, 28 N. Y. Suppl. 1135 (Aff'd in 151 N. Y. 623, 45 N. E. 1123);] 

 King v. Havens, 25 Wend (N. Y.) 420. 



6. Arn v. Matthews, 39 Kan. 272, 18 Pac. 65; Michigan Land etc. Co. v. Deer Lake 



Co., 60 Mich. 143, 27 N. W. 10. 1 Am. St. Rep. 491; Herron v. Hornback, 24 

 Mo. 492; Labeaunie v. "Woolfolk, 18 Mo. 514. 



7. Atchison etc. R. Co. v. Grant, 75 Kan. 344, 89 Pac. 658, (Gravel) ; Thayer v. Sher- 



lock, 4 Mich. 173; Van Deusen v. Young, 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 9. 



8. Wagoner v. Silva, 139 Gal. 559, 73 Pac. 433. 



9. Davis v. Cotey, 70 Vt. 120, 39 Atl. 628; Skeels v. Starrett, 57 Mich. 350, 24 N. W. 



98; But See, Hathaway.v. Goslant, 77 Vt. 199, 59 Atl. 835. 



10. Oregon etc. R. Co. v. Jackson, 21 Ore. 360, 28 Pac. 74. 



11. Clark v. Field, 42 Mich. 342, 4 N. W. 19; HoUiday v. Jackson, 21 Mo. App. 660; 



Dubois v. Beaver, 25 N. Y. 123, 82 Am. Rep. 326; Starkweather v. Quigley, 7 

 Hun. (N. Y.) 26; Van Hoffman v. Kendall. 17 N. Y. Suppl. 713; Gardner v 

 Lovegren, 27 Wash. 356, 67 Pac. 615; Conn v. Neeves, 40 Wis. 393. 



