The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-09-29
A Correction.

In this connection I refer to the State
of Minnesota VS.. Shevlin & Carpenter,
60 MINI. 99-1O9 inclusive, where Chief
Justice Start says Accordingly, this
court has adopted and repeatedly applied
the following rule in actions Of trespass
in trover: Where the defendant is
wilIful trespasser, the measure Of dam
ages is the full value Of the property at
the time and place of demand but if
he is only an unintentiOnal or mistaken
trespasser-that is where he honestly and
reasonably believed that he had the legal
right to take the prOperty-then the
measure of damages is the value Of the
property at the time and place, and in
the condition it taken "-EXtract
from R. c. Dunn's reply to the public
examiners report
The act of 1895 provided for double or
treble damages in case of Willful timber
trespass. But supreme coelrt, the
case Of The State VS.. shevlin & Carpen-
ter Co., has for practical purposes neu
tralized this law, SO that it is now diff
cult, if not well-nigh impossible, to COL
1ect more than actual damages.-Extrac ct
from Senator Nelson's speech at Madi-
son.
Mr.. Dunn's literary bureau is MAX
ing liberal use of this decision, and an
editorial is going the rounds of the
country papers claiming that the law
of 1895 is neutralized by the language
of tho court.
1t is about time to call a halt on
this misrepresentation of the facts into
which Senator Nelson has been limo
Gently led. He fell into the error Of
assuming the truth of everything con-
tanned in Mr.. Dunn s reply.
/. The decision in the Shevlin-C Carpenter
case did not touch the law of 1895.
1.-The suit was brought in Hennepin
County March II, 1894, and the Ease
was tried before Judge Russell in De-
Ecember of that year. The decision was
biased on the law of 1878, as incor-
porated in the General Statutes Of 1891.
Mr. Dunn's reply conveys the impress
ssion that this decision crippled the law
COT 1895. That law has never been at
Stacked construed as to it's trespass
provisions, for very obvious reason
&During his eight years administration
Rof the auditor s office Mr.. Dunn never
prosecuted single trespasser The law
Us on the statute books, and has been
%declared valid by the attorney general s
aoffice 1t is not the fault Of the law
Cor of the courts that it has never been
@enforced
H The old law gave the state power tc
collect treble damages for wilful tres
pass but only the actual value Of thu
%tlmber 1t the trespass was involuntary
#Ihe language quoted did not even in
#Jure the old law. 1t simply followed E
LONG established rule for the "measurt
5$of damages.'' On this rule the value
cot the timber must be figured. Whe1
1.-THE value is ascertained the state i.
Ssempowered to collect three times tina;
value for cases of wilful trespass. The
state has now and always had thai
$8power, and no court has ever denied it
mo court has ever passed upon it, be
t@cause in the few cases where the stat,
@held out for treble value the trespass
@5ers paid it without question rather thar
Igo into court.
g The law of 1895, still in force ant
valid in every respect, gives the stat,
1.-THE right to collect treble DAMAGES fo
&fw1lful trespass, and double damage
Tor involuntary trespass. The audito
is empowered to compromise cases. bu
never for less than double the value
land in recognition Of this Mr.. Dunn
I'm $s1n now famous letter explained tina
she had instructed "Jim'' to estimat
&the value of the trespass low, becaus
it had to be doubled. He was not al
E@fways particular to double the estimates
S1however.
ii When Mr.. Dunn cites the foregoin
$declslon to excuse his dereliction O
duty, he is resorting to misrepreser
.ftation of the facts