The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1905-11-01

tuted and conducted. / have been un-
! able to find single case holding that ii
! lay within the province of a municipal
or political corporation to pass ordi
nances the breach Of which constitutes
a felony. This could not have been
! contemplated by our Legislature. II
| would seem, therefore, that the 1nten
, 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 other
| power can grant to a court of limited
! jurisdiction any further powers or IN
| creased jurisdiction except the power
| creating the court. Certainly this is
true Of a municipal corporation. 'Mu.
nicipal authority can not invest the of
! fee of police judge with any powers OF
| functions of its own creation; and any
! person assuming as police Judge to eX-
ercise judicial functions under no other
! license than that conferred by munich
pal authority, is guilty of usurpation.
People VS.. Curley. ) Colo, 412, cited
Is Enc. Pl. & Pr, AIS.
"A municipality has no implied
power to either erect its own courts
on in anywise extend their jurisdic-
ton
McNulty vs.. Connew, 80 Ind. 500
So in State VS.. Connew, 40 La. An,
TAG, it was held that a justice of the
peace. being a state officer, can not en-
terrain jurisdiction to enforce a mu-
nicipal ordinance by the imposition of
fine or Imprisonment office Of jus
tice of the peace, being that of an in
ferioy court-with no prescriptions &C
jurisdiction in its favor.
| It is difficult to find cases bearing
directly in point with the ca" under
consideration. the question Of mun;ci-
pal courts having been 'tealt with by
the act creating the corporation in
every instance. But those cases We do
find seem universally to concur in the
opinion that no act Of any municipal
or political corporation can confer upon
an inferior court any jurisdiction not
given to it by the statute or the power
creating the court.
We therefore hold that the court has
no jurisdiction sitting rs a court 70
of any ordinance Of the Board of the
County of Oahu.
But one question remains, whether
or not this is civil action.
In this question there IS considerable
diversity of opinion exhibited by the
reported cases. BY far the best au-
thorities. however, seem to hold that
it is a civil and not criminal action.
The question is not here fairly raised,
as this action is entitled 1.-The Terri
tory of Hawaii vs.. Pau Lin and 81
others the defendants were brought
before this court by summary arrest,
and the case presents in all respects
case pn the criminal side of the court.
very brief discussion of the question
may not. however. be out of place.
The following courts hold an action
for breach of a municipal ordinance to
he 4 civil proceeding purely.
Colorado, District OF Columbia, Geor-
gia. Illinois. Indiana Missouri. Louis
lana. New Jersey, New York also hold
ing in some respects that saeh action
is quasi criminal, North Carolina, Ore