120 INJURY TO TREES AS A CRIME 



special circumstances the offense may be a felony, l and in 

 some states the burning of the growing timber owned by 

 another, with an evil purpose, has been specifically de- 

 clared to constitute arson. 2 In several states the firing 

 of one's own woods or grassland for a legitimate purpose in 

 such manner that the fire escapes to the "land of another is a 

 misdemeanor, unless the notice inquired by the statute is 

 given. 3 Under these statutes one can avoid conviction by 

 showing that the firing was necessary for his own protec- 

 tion, 4 or that the escape of it was accidental and unavoid- 

 able. 5 However, a defendant cannot escape conviction 

 on the defense that the adjoining landowner waived the re- 

 quired notice. 6 The word "woods," as used in the North 

 Carolina statute, has been held to mean an actual forest, 7 

 and a neglected field surrounded by an old fence was held 

 not to be a "woods" within the meaning of the statute 8 

 However, an abandoned field surrounded by forest land and 

 not separated from the same by a fence was held a "woods" 

 within the purview of the statute. 9 



99. Special State Statutes Requiring Fire Precau- 

 tions by Railroads. During the last two decades of the 

 nineteenth century, and more especially in the early years 

 of the twentieth century, there has been a general movement 

 in the line of legislation which shall require those operating 

 railroads to provide proper appliances to prevent the setting 

 of fires by locomotives, and to keep the right of way clear 

 of material that is particularly inflammable. The first 

 legislation of this character was enacted in western states 

 as a protection against grass fires, but in recent years the 



1. Creed v. People, 81 111. 565 (burning hay); State v. Harvey, 131 Mo. 339, 32 S. W. 



1110; 141 Mo. 343, 42 S. W. 938. 



2. Revised Stat. Ind. 1888, sec. 1927, from S. L. 1881, p. 174; Rev. L. Minn. 1905 Sec. 



5038; State v. McMahon, 17 Xev. 365, 30 Pac. 1000 (cordwood). Cf. Searles v. 

 State, 6 Ohio C. C. 331, 3 O. C. C. D. 478 (Building) ; Laws of X. Y. 1817, p. 118. 

 1827, p. 244; Rev. St. 1846, Vol. 2, p. 755; Rev. St. \Vis.. 1878, Sec. 4406, p. 

 1045. 



3. Lamb v. Sloan, 94 N. C. 534. 



See Averitt v. Murrell, 49 N. C. 322; Wright v. Yarborough, 4 X. C. 687. 



4. Tyson v. Rasberry, 8 X. C. 60; Tiller v. Wilson, 1 Lea (Tenn.) 392. 



5. Finley v. Langston, 12 Mo. 120. 



6. Lamb v. Sloan, 94 X. C. .334: Robertson v. Kirby, 52 X. C. 477; Wright v. Yar- 



borough, 4 X. C. 687. 



7. Averitt v. Murrell, 49 X. C. 322. 



8. Achenback v. Johnston, 84 X. C. 264. 



9. Hall v. Cranford, 50 X. C. 3. 



