State v. Paul

• Decision Date: 21 January 1891
• Citation: 47 N.W. 773,81 Iowa 596
• Parties: THE STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. GEORGE PAUL, Appellant
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

47 N.W. 773

81 Iowa 596

THE STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. GEORGE PAUL, Appellant

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

January 21, 1891

Appeal from Webster District Court.--HON. S. M. WEAVER, Judge.

INDICTMENT for wilful trespass on land of another. The charging part of the indictment, as set out in the abstract, is as follows "The said George Paul, on the twentieth day of December 1888, in the county aforesaid, did then and there wrongfully unlawfully and wilfully cut down a large number of standing and growing trees, the exact number thereof being to the grand jury unknown, the same then and there being the property of another or others, to-wit, the property of the heirs of one Madison Young, deceased, the same being then and there standing and growing upon the land belonging to the estate of said Madison Young, deceased, and to the said heirs of said estate, the said land on which said trees were standing and growing being described as follows, to-wit 'The southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of section number twenty-two (22), and the southeast quarter of the northwest quarter of section number twenty-six (26), and lots number four (4), five (5) and six (6), in section number twenty-six (26), all being in township number eighty-seven (87), range number twenty-seven (27), west principal meridian, Webster county, Iowa.'" And, as descriptive of the offense charged, it is alleged that he, "the said defendant, did then and there carry and haul away from said premises the said trees and timber so cut down as aforesaid, which said trees and timber were then and there the property of said estate, and of the value of more than two hundred dollars ($ 200), the exact value thereof being to the grand jury unknown, and that the same was cut down without the consent of the owners of said land, or said trees."

AFFIRMED.

R. M. Wright, for appellant.

John Y. Stone, Attorney General, and C. H. More, for the State.

OPINION

GIVEN, J.

I.

It will be observed that the two forty-acre tracts from which it is charged trees were cut and taken are in different sections and not contiguous. Appellant claims that cutting trees on each constitutes separate offenses, and, therefore, the indictment charges two offenses. If cutting the trees was but one transaction, then it constitutes but one offense. That it was upon different tracts of land does not make it separate offenses, any more than the cutting of each...