Waterbury evening Democrat., 1906-09-08
DAMAGE BY DEER.
State Must Compensate Mir. Zola for
 Loss of Peach Trees.

ctatc Must Compensate Mir. ZOla for Loss of Peach Trees.
 Attorney General William A. King has given written opinion on the l question of the liability of the state Tor damages to crops by wild deer. The communication containing the opinion is addressed to the Hon George T. Mathews0n of the colnmis- sion on fisheries and game.
 The attorney general summarizes the circumstances of the case on which the question submitted to him I was based as follows: "One Joseph Zola, q farmer living in the town of Glastonbury, is the owner of Il large peach orchard, containing 400 or 800 l peach trees. The land embraced in this orchard is cultivated in accord ance with approved methods of peach culture. The trees were set out by l Zola and have been cared for and nurtured by him for some time, al- though none of the trees have attain ed the fruit bearing age. Some time during the present summer wild deer I entered this peach orchard and de- I stroyed nearly all the trees. A claim ls pending before the appraisers that the damage amounting to some hun | dreds of dollars. sustained as above, should be paid in accordance with the provisions of chapter 108 of the pub lie acts of 1905"
 General King then quotes the act and says: 'The first inquiry is whether, under the language of this | act. the owner of peach trees de- stroyed by wild deer, is entitled to lfany compensation for the damages so sustained. The law provides for com l pensation for damage to crops grown on cultivated land.' The | state, under severe penalties. protects deer. As a result of this policy, iu- augurated some years ago, these an- imals have become numerous and the owners and occupants of cultivated land have suffered and will continue to suffer damage. That fruit trees are frequently damaged and destroy ed by deer, and that the so-called 'le- gal fence does not protect the or chards from incursions of these ani- malls, are matters of common knowl- edge. The object and intent of chap ter 1OS was to compensate farmers for this damage which flows from the policy which the state has adopted, provided the damage is sustained to what grows on cultivated land.' I think it was the purpose of the state to protect farmers from loss arising from the depredations of deer on his cultivated lands and that the Ian guage of the act may be fairly con strued to effectuate that intent wheth- CT the damage was done is to the ma tured crops or to the plants, shrubs, vines. or trees. which produce crops. I therefore advise you that the claim ant in this case is entitled. by virtue of the provisions of chapter 1OS of the public acts of 1905, to compensation for such damage as he has actually sustained by reason of the destruc- ton of his peach tres"
 | Attorney-General Kings opinion fl- so says: You further ask me to nd- wise you In relation to the rule for determining such damage and wheth- CT or not you may consider the prol,- able crops and the value thereof that the trees in coming years might have produced had they not been destroyed. The claimant in this case is entitled to receive as compensation for his damages such sum of money as repre- sents the difference between the value of the peach trees as they were be fore the door attacked them and their value after the damage had been been inflicted. Computing this sum yon would not be warranted in speculat- ing as to the value of the crops which might be produced in coming years had the trees been unmolested. He is entitled to the actual loss which he has sustained, measured as stated above.
 "The act provides that 1t shall he the duty of the fish and game com missioner to "assIst' the appraisers appointed by the selectman in deter mining the damage and you ask me to advise you as to the meaning of the word assist in this connection. When the amount of damage exceeds S2O. the fish and game commissioner becomes one of the appraisers, with powers equal to that of an appraiser appointed by the selectman. Such
 
 however. be acting as an official of the state, and his compensation for such service should be paid by the state as though he were engaged in any other duty of his office.
 "A cursory reading of chapter los. above quoted. reveals antiquities which becomes emphasized as the act is more closely studied. In view of this. I think I ought to say to you that 1t Is incumbent on the fish and game commissioner. as a state official. to be soverned by the opinion of tie at- torney- general construing the act. and the same would be true of the comp troller of the state but as the atfor- ney-general has no power to advise town officials. the appraisers appoint etl by the selectmen are not bound by such opinion. except so far as t may commend itself to them as a correct exposition of the law"