108 STATUTORY CIVIL LIABILITY FOR TIMBER TRESPASS 



Although the United States government has granted the 

 free use of timber on public lands to citizens and residents 

 for certain specific purposes under executive regulations, 

 and has allowed very wide lati tude in the appropriation of 

 such timber for personal use, there is no law or custom which 

 can be construed as implying a general license to anyone to 

 cut timber from public lands for purposes of sale. l and 

 if a defendant relies upon a statutory license in justification 

 of the cutting, he must set out in his pleadings all the facts 

 necessary to establish such license. 2 When the United 

 States has shown the cutting and carrying away of timber 

 from public lands and the possession of such severed timber 

 by the defendant, 3 the burden of proof is shifted upon the 

 defendant to justify such cutting and asportation, 4 or 

 to show that the trespass was not wilful. 5 



The government is entitled to nominal damages for a 

 trespass even where no substantial damages are shown, and 

 is entitled to every reasonable inference which may be drawn 

 by the jury from the testimony of its witnesses as to the 

 amount of timber cut, 6 and to exemplary damages if the 

 circumstances of the trespass show reckless indifference 

 to the rights of the government or a deliberate purpose to 

 commit the unlawful act. 7 However, the defendant is 



1. U. S. v. Mock, 149 U. S. 273, 13 S. Ct. 848, 37 L. Ed. 732; U. S. v. Humphries, 149 



U. S. 277, 13 S. Ct. 850, 37 L. Ed. 734. Teller v. U. S. t 117 Fed. 577, 54 C. C. X. 

 349. 



2. U. S. v. Mullan Fuel Co., 118 Fed. 663: U. S. v. Ordway, 30 Fed. 30. See U. S. v. 



Williams, 6 Mont. 379, 12 Pac. 851. 



3. U S. v. Denver etc. R. Co., 191 U. S. 84, 24 S. Ct. 33, 48 L. Ed. 106 (Rev'sg 9 



N. M. 382, 55 Pac. 241, 11 N. M. 145, 66 Pac. 550) ; Norris v. U. S. 44 Fed. 739; 

 U. S. v. Denver etc. R. Co., 31 Fed. 886; U. S. v. Williams, 8 Mont. 85, 19 Pac. 

 288. Cf. U. S. v. Saucier, 5 N. M., 569, 25 Pac. 791. 



4. U. S. Basic Co., 121 Fed. 504, 57 C. C. A. 624; U. S. v. Eccles, 111 Fed. 490; 



Stubbs v. U. S., Ill Fed. 366, 104 Fed. 988, 44 C. C. A. 292; U. 8. v. Price Trad- 

 ing Co., 109 Fed. 239, 48 C. C. A. 331; Stone v. U. S., 64 Fed. 667, 12 C. C. A., 

 451 (Afl'd in 167 U. S. 178, 17 S. Ct. 778, 42 L. Ed. 127); U.S. v. Denver etc. R. 

 Co., 31 Fed. 886; U. S. v. Gumm, 9 N. M. 611, 58 Pac. 398. 



5. U. S. v. Baxter, 46 Fed. 350. 



An acquittal under an indictment for unlawfully and feloniously removing timber 

 from public lands is not a bar to a civil action for the value of the timber re- 

 moved. Stone v. U. S., 64 Fed. 667 12 C. C. A. 451 (Aff'd 167 U. S. 178, 17 S. 

 Ct. 778, 42 L. Ed. 127). See Cotton v. U. S., 11 How. 229. Morgan v. U. S., 

 148 Fed. 189, 78 C. C. A. 323; U. S. v. Scott, 39 Fed. 900; Cox v. Cameron Lbr. 

 Co., 39 Wash. 562, 82 Pac. 116. See U. S. v. Murray, 27 Fed. Cas. No. 15843, 

 5 McLean 207. Ely v. U. S., 4 Dill. 464. 



6. U. S. v. Mock, 149 U. S. 273. 13 S. Ct. 848, 37 L. Ed. 732; Santry v. U. S., 117 Fed. 



132. 55 C. C. A. 148. See Woodenware Co. v. U. S., 106 Fed. 432; U. S. v. 

 Perkins. 44 Fed. 670; U. 8. v. Heilner, 26 Fed. 80; U. S. v. Kelly. 3 Wash. Ter. 

 421, 17 Pac. 878. U. S. v. Flint Lumber Co. (Ark. 1908) 112 S. W. 217. 



7. U. S. v. Mullan Fuel Co., 118 Fed. 663; U. S. v. Taylor, 35 Fed. 484. 



