CRIMINAL INTENT ESSENTIAL TO CONVICTION 11.7 



self constitutes evidence of criminal intent. l A license 

 to cut trees has been held no defense to a wanton cutting 

 of ornamental trees. 2 It has been held under a Texas 

 statute that the plaintiff must show that the trees cut did 

 not belong to the defendant. 3 One is not liable under such 

 a statute because of the cutting of timber by an employee 

 through mistake where the employer had no knowledge of 

 the unlawful cutting, 4 nor is he liable if the employee cut 

 the trees contrary to the employer's orders. 5 



97. Criminal Timber Trespass Statutes are Con- 

 strued Strictly. Under statutes making the unauth orized 

 cutting of timber on the land of another a specific offense, 

 actual severance is necessary, 6 and the injury must be 

 substantial. 7 Such statutes are invariably strictly con- 

 strued because of their penal nature. If the statute im- 

 poses a given penalty for each tree cut or carried away, 

 the product of the unit fine and the number of trees severed 

 or taken may be recovered ; 8 but if the statute merely pro- 

 vides a penalty for the offense of cutting or carrying away 

 trees or timber, the severance or asportation of a number of 

 trees at one time, even though they be taken from non- 

 contiguous tracts, will constitute but a single offense. 9 

 Some statutes make either the cutting or the asportation of 

 the trees an offense, 10 but even under such a statute there is 

 but a single offense committed if the cutting and carrying 

 away are simultaneous or comprise a single transaction; n 

 and if the statute simply prohibits a cutting the offense will 

 be complete without an asportation. 12 It has been held 



1. Knight v. State, 64 Miss. 802, 2 So. 252; State v. Green, 35 S. C. 266, 14 S. E. 619; 



U. S. v. Stone, 49 Fed. 848; U. S. v. Barton, 6 McLean 46; U. S. v. Thompson, 6 

 McLean 56; U. S. v. Redy, 5 McLean 358. 



2. Com. v. Clark, 3 Pa. Super. Ct. 141. 



3. White v. Texas, 14 Tex. App. 449. 



4. Boarman v. State, 66 Ark., 65, 48 S. W. 899. 



5. Fairchild v. New Orleans Etc. R. Co., 60 Miss, 931, 45 Am. St. Rep. 427; See also 



New Orleans Etc. R. Co., v. Reese, 61 Miss. 581. 



6. Com. v. Bechtel, 4 Pa. L. J. Rep. 306; Maskill v. State, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 299 ("cut 



down"). 



7. State v. Towle, 62 N. H. 373. 



8. People v. McFadden, 13 Wend. (N. Y.) 396 (1835). 



9. State v. Moultrieville, 1 Rice (S. C.) 158 (1839). State v. Paul, 81 Iowa, 596, 77 



N. W. 773 (1891). 



10. State v. McConkey, 20 Iowa 574. 



11. State v. Paul, 81 Iowa 596, 47 N. W. 773; Com. v. Searls, 3 Ky. L. Rep. 394. 



12. Johnson v. State, 61 Ala. 9. 



