FIRING OF FEDERAL LANDS FORBIDDEN 127 



township, range, section or quarter-section, l and specify 

 the kind of timber 2 cut with sufficient precision to show 

 clearly to the defendant the offense with which he is charged. 

 Although it is sufficient to allege the cutting of a particular 

 species and to allege the cutting of "other timber" in the 

 words of the statute 3 provided the proof correspond; proof 

 that one species was cut when the charge was limited to 

 another species will not support a conviction. 4 An un- 

 lawful intention is essential to the commission of a crime, 

 but from proof of an unlawful act an unlawful intention will 

 be inferred. 5 Ignorance of the law will not constitute a 

 defense, 6 but the defendant may avoid conviction under a 

 criminal statute by showing ignorance or mistake as to the 

 land on which the cutting was done, 7 and only a nominal 

 fine should be imposed where full reparation is made and 

 there is no proof of a fraudulent intention. s It has been 

 held that if the defendant shows an entry of land under a law 

 giving him a right to cut, the burden is upon the government 

 to prove the cutting to be unlawful; 9 However, where a 

 defendant alleged that the cutting of timber was done under 

 a license, the United States Supreme Court has held the 

 burden of proof to be upon him to show that the cutting was 

 justified. 10 It has been held that an information drawn to 

 conform to the requirements of one statute for the prosecu- 

 tion of a timber trespass case may be treated as if drawn 

 under another statute, if it contains all averments necessary 

 to the establishment of an offense under the latter statute. n 



101. Federal Statutes Regarding the Firing of Pub- 

 lic Lands. The first Federal Act making it a specific 

 offense to fire the woods was an act of February 24, 1897 

 (29 Stat. L. 594). This act imposed a line of not over 



1. U. S. v. Thompson 2S Fed. ("as. No. KII'.K), f. McLean 50. 

 U. S. v. Schuler 27 Fed. Cas. No. 1<>234, (> McLean 28. 



2. U. S. v. Redy 27 Fed. ('as. No. 161:5 ', 5 McLean 3.~>x. 



3. U. S. v. Redy 27 Fed. Cas. No. HH33, 5 McLean 35 . 



4. U. S. v. Darton 25 Fed. Oas. No. 14919, (i McLean 1(1. 



5. Ibid. ; U. S. v. Niemeyer 94 Fed. 147; U. S. v. Teller 1 115 Fed. 27:5, 51 ('. C. A. 230. 

 (i. U. S. v. Murphy 32 Fed. 370. 



7. U. S. v. Darton 25 Fed. Cas. No. 14919, (> McLean 40. 



8. U. S. v. Murray 27 Fed. Cas. No. 15S43, 5 McLean 207. 



9. U. S. v. Rou ledge S N. Mcx. 385, 45 Pac. 883. 



10. U. S. v. Denver Etc. R. Co. 191 U. S. 84, 4S L. Ed. 100. cf. U. S. v. Bitter Root 



Etc. Co. 200 U. S., 451, 50 L. Ed. 550. 



11. Stubbs v. U. S. Ill Fed. 3GG, 49 C. C. A. 392, 104 Fed. 988, 44 C. C. A. 292. 



