STATE CRIMINAL TRESPASS STATUTES 115 



nal trespass statutes is usually limited specifically to those 

 cases in which the unlawful cutting is done "knowingly," 

 "wilfully," "maliciously," or "wantonly"; and such statutes 

 frequently contain two or more of these words connected 

 by the word "and" or the word "or." Wherever any one 

 or more of these words are used in the statute there can be 

 no conviction if the defendant succeeds in establishing that 

 the act was not done with the specific intent required by the 

 statute. l The word "wilfully" as used in an indictment 

 has been held equivalent to "knowingly," 2 but the weight 

 of opinion undoubtedly is that it implies something more 

 than a voluntary and intentional act. It is an "act" in- 



(Footnote 1 concluded from preceding page) 



to cut timber from uninclosed land unless he has a deed of conveyance 



on record in the county where the land is situated, or a written contract 



from another who holds a recorded deed. 

 But see: Shaw v. Fender et al. 138 Ga. 48, 74 S. E. 792 (Defendant had 



made full payment and Plaintiff had no interest). 



N. C. Revised La\ts N. C. 1908, Pell, Sec. 3741, misdemeanor and double dam- 

 ages to cut from public lands before title is complete.) 

 1. Ala. Pippen v. State, 77 Ala. 81; Johnson v. State, 61 Ala. 9; See, Williams v. 



Hendricks, 115 Ala. 277, 67 Am. St. Rep. 32; Southern Bell Tel. Co. v. 



Allen, 109 Ala. 224, 19 So. 1. Davis v. Arnold, 143 Ala. 228, 39 So. 141. 

 Conn. State v. Foote, 71 Conn. 737, 43 Atl. 488. 

 Fla. Preston v. State, 41 Fla. 627, 26 So. 736; Boykin v. State, 40 Fla. 484, 24 



So. 141. 

 Ga. Hateley v. State, 118 Ga. 79, 44 S. E. 852; Murphey v. State, 115 Ga. 201, 



41 S. E. 685; Harvey v. State, 6 Ga. App. 241, 64 S. E. 669; Black v. 



State, 3 Ga. App. 297. 59 S E. 823. See Lbr. Co. v. Carter, 5 Ga. App. 



344, 63 S. E. 270. 



111. Mettler v. People, 135 111. 410, 25 N. E. 748. 

 Ind. State v. Cole, 90 Ind. 112; Lessen v. State, 62 Ind. 437; Dawson v. State, 



52 Ind. 478; Palmer v. State, 45 Ind. 388. 



La. State v. Gainey, 135 La. 459, 65 So. 609. (Proof and variance). 

 Mass. Commonwealth v. Williams, 110 Mass. 401; See Commonwealth v. Wilder, 



127 Mass. 1. 



Minn. Price v. Dennison, 95 Minn. 106, 103 N. W. 728. 

 Mo. Cookman v. Mill, 81 Mo. App. 297; State v. Newkirk, 49 Mo. 84. State v. 



Kempf. 11 Mo. App. 88. 

 N. J. Lott v. Loventhal, 80 N. J. L. 216, 76 Atl. 328; Folwell v. State, 49 N. J. 



L. 31, 6 Atl. 619. 

 N. Y. Hewitt v. Newburger, 141 N. Y. 538, 36 N. E. 593; McMorris v. Howell. 



89 N. Y. App. Div. 272, 85 N. Y. Suppl. 1018. 

 N. C. State v. McCracken, 118 N. C. 1240, 24 S. E. 530; State v. Roseman. 70 



N. C. 235. Cf. Davis v Frazier, 150 N. C. 447, 64 S. E. 200. 

 Tex. Allsup v. State (Tex. Cr. App. 1901), 62 S. W. 1062; Yarbrough v. State 



28 Tex. App. 481, 13 S. W. 775; Lackey v. State, 14 Tex. App. 164: Mc- 



Anley v. State 43 Tex. 374. State v. Warren, 13 Tex. 45. 

 Va. Wise v. Com., 98 Va. 837, 36 S. W. 479; Dye v. Com., 7 Gratt. 662; Rat- 



cliffe v. Com.. 5 Gratt. 657. 

 Wis. See Werner v. State, 93 Wis. 266, 272, 67 N. W. 417. GolonbiesM v. State. 



101 Wis. 333, 77 N. W. 189. 

 Can. Exp. Donovan, 15 N. Brunsw. 389; Reg. v. McDonald. 12 Ont. 381; Reg. 



v. Davidson. 45 U. C. Q. B. 91. 



2. Wong v. Astoria, 13 Ore. 538; See People v. Sheldon. 68 Calif. 434; Welsh v. State. 

 11 Tex. 374. 



