24 EIGHTH REPORT OF THE 



from the expense of further litigation, after which he made a satisfactory arrange- 

 ment with each of the aggrieved parties. The negligence of the supervisor in this 

 instance cost him $1,659.79 to settle the various claims, not including the additional 

 expense of litigation, all of which he must lose unless the taxpayers of the town 

 vote to reimburse him. 



It has also happened that in the prosecution of persons for violation of the Fire 

 Law satisfactory results were not always obtained, owing to the reluctance of the 

 jury to find a verdict in favor of the State as against a neighbor In each case 

 the attorney for the defendant appealed to the sympathy of the jury in favor of 

 his poverty-stricken client, so described, and at the same time derided and denounced 

 the State officials, who were represented as persecuting the poor farmer and seeking 

 to prevent him from planting a few potatoes on his own land, or burning a fallow 

 preparatory to the same. 



Last spring the Chief Firewarden arrested two men in Lewis County for burning 

 brush and logs during a period prohibited by law, and for allowing the fire to 

 escape to adjoining forests, where it caused a serious destruction of timber. It was 

 a second offense, the defendants having been convicted of the same violation of 

 law in the previous year. The case was tried at Lowville before a justice of the 

 peace and a jury summoned especially for this action. The evidence was more 

 than sufficient to prove the guilt of the prisoners. Reputable citizens testified that 

 they were on the ground and saw the parties heaping up the brush and logs on 

 burning piles. The local firewarden swore that he remonstrated with them for 

 starting a brush fire at that time in violation of the statute, and further testified 

 that the forest fire which ensued was directly traceable to the burning brush heaps. 

 But the jury rendered a verdict of not guilty. The evidence against the defendants, 

 however, was so ample and convincing that the Chief Firewarden appealed the 

 case to the Supreme Court, where the action is now pending. 



Some of the farmers living in the forest towns complain that the close season 

 on fallow fires interferes with their agricultural work. The State Forestry Law 

 provides that in certain specified towns fallows shall not be burned between April 

 1st and June 10th, or from September 1st to November 10th. This provision 

 became necessary owing to the large number of woodland fires that caught from 

 burning fallows each year during these periods, and which could not well occur if 

 the trees were in full leaf. It is admitted that the law is a hardship to some extent, 

 but the carelessness of petty farmers in the use of fire for clearing wild land 

 became so widespread and unrestrainable that no other remedy was available. 



During the past season the Chief Firewarden has prosecuted successfully thirteen 

 actions against parties who burned their fallows out of season, the fines thus 



