The Hawaiian gazette., 1905-11-03

the breath That there comes from
This is urged on the grounds that the
fullest possible effect must be given to
acts otherwise valid of legislature or
of legislative board such as the
Board of Supervisors. To hold that
the Legislature of the Territory had
granted the county the right to make
ordinances, but had given them no
method of enforcing violations there.
of would be to hold the efforts of the
Legislature abortive and the entire leg
islation in this regard nullity. Like
wise, it is urgsd, this court is the couit
where petty offenses, misdemeancrs,
violations of the rules and regulations
of the Board of Health and all like
matters are tried, and there was doubt
less no thought in the mines of the
Legislature but that these ordinances
would come under the same category.
On the other hand it may well be urged
that not only is the act silent as to
this, the connection of this court with
the prosecution of violations of Gidi-
nances, but The only mention of sn"h
prosecution is an entirely different
court. the Circuit Court. This allusion
is found in Section 90, subdivision l.,
wherein the duties of the county at
torney are laid down to be to "attend
the Circuit Court in and for said
county and conduct on behalf of the
people all prosecutions therein for of.
lenses against the laws of the Territory
of Hawaii and the ordinances of the
Board of Supervisors of the county"
Either the trainers of the act contem.
plated the passage of ordinances Great
ing felonies and trouble in
the first instance in the Circuit Court
or they mean 1--WE may well infer) that
all prosecutions for offenses against the
ordinances of the Board of Supervisor
of the county were to be there insti
tuted and conducted. / have been un
able to find single case holding that il
lay within the province of municipal
or political corporation to pass ordi
nances the breach of which constitute:
a felony. This could not have been
contemplated by our Legislature. II
would seem, therefore, that the lnten
ton of the body passing the County
Act must have been that these breaches
of ordinances were to be taken into
consideration by the circuit and not by
the District Courts.
In the particular ordinance now un
der consideration, however, jurisdiction
is expressly conferred by the ordinance
itself. Does this alter the situation
1t will not be contended that any othe
power can grant to court of Unite,
jurisdiction any further powers or IN
creased jurisdiction except the powe
creating the court. Certainly this i
true of a municipal corporation. "Mu
nicipal authority can not invest the of
fee of police judge with any powers O.
functions of its own creation; and an,
person assuming as police Judge to ex
ercise judicial functions under no othe
license than that conferred by munich
pal authority, is guilty of usurpation. ;
People VS.. Curley, Colo, 4l2, cite,
10 Enc. Pl. & Pr, Ais.
ga municipality has no implied
power to either erect its own court
on in anywise extend their jurisdic
tion. -
McNulty VS.. Connew, so Ind, 500.
So in State VS.. Connew, As La. An.
l446, it was held that justice of til,
peace, being a state officer, can not en-
|
nicipal ordinance by the imposition o
fine or imprisonment-th Office of jus
tice of the peace, being that of an in
ferior court-with no prescriptions o
jurisdiction in its favor.
1t is difficult to find cases bearin
directly in point with the cate unde
consideration, the question OF munic
pal courts having been ''ealt with b
the act creating the corporation
every instance. But those cases We d
find seem universally to concur in tn
opinion that no act of any municips
or political corporation can confer upo
an inferior court any jurisdiction nc
, given to it by the statute or the powe
creating the court.
We therefore hold that the court ha
no jurisdiction sitting as court :
punish misdemeanors to try violation
\ of any ordinance of the Board of IL
t County of Oahu.
= But one question remains, whetht
r or not this is a civil action.
5 In this question there is considerab
: diversity of opinion exhibited by II
t reported cases. By far the best a.
r thorities, however, seem to hold th'
I 1t is a civil and not criminal actio
T The question is not here fairly raise
n as this action is entitled "The Teri
s tory of Hawaii VS.. Pau Lin and
l. Others" the defendants were brougl
; before this court by summary arres
n and the ease presents in all respects
J. case on the criminal side of the cour