The King v. Tong Wo
Hawaii Supreme Court
Appeal ebom Police Coubt, Honolulu. Where a statute prescribes a penalty for a breach of its provisions, and provides that the Fire Marshal of Honolulu shall prosecute for all violations of such statute, and pay over all fines collected to the Fire Department for its benefit; held that an action for breach of the statute should not be in the form of a criminal prosecution. Actions for penalties are civil actions in form and substance.
Read the full summary
Appeal ebom Police Coubt, Honolulu. Where a statute prescribes a penalty for a breach of its provisions, and provides that the Fire Marshal of Honolulu shall prosecute for all violations of such statute, and pay over all fines collected to the Fire Department for its benefit; held that an action for breach of the statute should not be in the form of a criminal prosecution. Actions for penalties are civil actions in form and substance. The statutory proceeding must be followed strictly and expressly.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion oe the Coubt by
Austin, J.
The defendant was prosecuted and convicted criminally for an alleged breach of statute relating to the Fire Department in the city of Honolulu. The statute prescribes that for a certain act of neglect, the party offending, on conviction, shall forfeit and pay twenty-five dollars for the benefit of the Fire Department.
Section 339 of the Civil Code, as amended by Chapter 45 of the laws of 1880, provides that “it shall be the duty of the Fire Marshal to prosecute all persons guilty of a violation of any of *21the provisions of this law before the Police Court of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Caswell v. AllenNew York Supreme Court · 1810
- Mayor, C., of New-York v. . Williams PriceNew York Court of Appeals · 1857
- Stearns v. United StatesU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · 1840
- Board of Trustees v. AckerNew York Supreme Court · 1863