116 INJURY TO TREES AS A CRIME 



tentionally done with a wrongful purpose," : although 

 not necessarily with an evil intent to do wrong to some 

 particular person. The legal malice required to constitute 

 the crime may be inferred under certain circumstances. 2 

 96. The Establishment of Criminal Intent is 

 Essential to Conviction. It is ordinarily held that crim- 

 inal intent must be shown to support a conviction under one 

 of these statutes even where the statute does not restrict 

 its application in the matter of intent, and trespass com- 

 mitted under a bona fide claim of title, 3 or through acci- 

 dent, 4 or a misunderstanding 5 will not render one liable 

 to the penalties of such acts. However, the claim of title 

 must rest upon a reasonable basis 6 and a mere belief in 

 the right will not exempt a trespasser from the penalties 

 of an act. Ignorance of the law will not constitute a de- 

 fense, 7 and it has been held that criminal intent was not 

 essential under a Federal statute. 8 Failure to observe 

 the directions of the statute has been held to establish the 

 criminal intent, 9 and the doing of the forbidden act in it- 



1. McMorris v. Howell, 89 N. Y. App. Div. 272, 85 N. Y. Suprl. 1018; See, Hewitt v. 



Newburger, 141 N. Y. 538, 36 N. E. 593; Parker v. Parker, 102 Iowa 500, 506, 

 71 N. W. 421 ; State v. Dahlstrom, 90 Minn. 72, 95 N. \V. 580; Anderson v. How. 

 116 N. Y. 336, 22 N. E. 695; State v. Yellowday, 152 N. C. 793. 67 S. E. 480; 

 State v. Sneed, 121 N. C. 614, 28 S. E. 365. 



2. Langston's Case, 96 Ala. 44. 11 So. 344; McCord's Case, 79 Ala. 269; Pippen's 



Case, 77 Ala. 81; Johnson's Case, 61 Ala 9. See Com. v. Dougherty, 6 Gray 

 (Mass.) 349; Ex. p. Eads 17 Neb. 145, 22 N. W. 352. 



3. Hateley v. State, 118 Ga. 79, 44 S. E. 852; Mettler v. People, 135 111. 410, 25 N. E. 



748; Wagstafl v. Schippel, 27 Kan. 450; State v. Prince, 42 La. Ann. 817, 8 So. 

 591; Baker v. Hannibal etc. R. Co., 36 Mo. 543; State v. Luther, 8 R. I. 151; 

 Allsop v. State (Cr. App. Tex. 1901), 62 S. W. 1062; Lackay v. State, 14 Tex. 

 App. 164; Ex. p. Donovan, 15 N. Brunsw. 389. 



4. U. S. v. Darton, (U. S. C. C.) 6 McLean 46; See State v. Parker, 81 N. C. 548; 



State v. Simpson, 73 N. C. 269 (Injury to animals) ; State v. Lewis, 10 Rich. 

 (S. C.) 20 (Negligently firing the woods.) 



5. State v. Hause, 71 N. C. 518. 



Sawyer etc. Lumber Co. v. State, 75 Ark. 309, 87 S. W. 431. But see People v. 

 Christian, 144 Mich. 247, 107 N. W. 919; State v. Shevlin-Carpenter Co., 99 

 Minn. 158, 108 N. W. 935; State v. Dorman, 9 S. D. 528, 70 N. W. 848. (Hold- 

 ing criminal liability under the statutes not dependent on intention) ; State v. 

 West, 10 Tex. 554. 



6. State v. Wells.il42 N. C. 590. 55 S. E. 210; State v. Durham, 121 N. C. 546, 28 



S. E. 22; State v. CaUoway, 119 N. C. 864, 26 S. E. 46; State v. Glenn, 118 N. C. 

 1194, 23 S. E. 1004; State v. Fisher, 109 N. C. 817, 13 S. E. 878; State v. Craw- 

 ley, 103 N. C. 353, 9 S. E. 409; State v. Bryson, 81 N. C. 595; See, People v. 

 Stevens, 109 N. Y. 159, 16 N. E. 53; State v. Mallard, 143 N. C. 666, 57 S. E. 

 351; Boykin v. State, 40 Fla. 484, 24 So. 141; Landley v. State, (Tex. Cr. App. 

 1898), 44 S. W. 165. 



7. United States v. Murphy, 32 Fed. 376. 



8. United States v. Murphy, 32 Fed. 376. U. S. v. Reder, 69 Fed. 965. 



9. Derixson v. State, 65 Ind. 385; Deaderick v. State, 122 Tenn. 222, 122 S. W. 975 



(overruling Dotson v. State, 6 Coldw. (Tenn.) 545); Cf., State v. Turner, 60 

 Conn. 222, 22 All. 542. 



