Case Name: Kansas City, Springfield & Memphis Railroad Company v. State
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1896-10-24
Citations: 63 Ark. 134
Docket Number: 
Parties: Kansas City, Springfield & Memphis Railroad Company v. State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 63
Pages: 134–140

Head Matter:
Kansas City, Springfield & Memphis Railroad Company v. State.
Opinion delivered October 24, 1896.
Raieroad — Penalty for Faii/ore to Signab — Nature of Proceeding. — The failure of a railroad company to give the signals required by §6196, Sand. & H. Dig., subjects it to a penalty, to be recovered by civil action brought by the prosecuting attorney in the name of the people, and it is error to proceed with the case as a criminal action.
Appeal — Peejudiciax, ERROR. — The error of bringing- a criminal action against a railroad company for failure to signal at a crossing, instead of a civil action, as provided in §6200, Sand. & H. Dig., is not ground for reversal of a judgment against the company where it is not shown that a different judgment might have been rendered in a civil proceeding.
Appeal from Sharp .Circuit Court.
Richard H. Poweee, Judge.
Wallace Pratt and Olden & Orr, for appellant.
The mode of procedure prescribed by section 6200, Sand. & H. Dig., is exclusive. * Sand. & H. Dig. secs. 6196, 6200; 26 S. W. 824; 55 Ark. 200; 56 id. 166; 29 id. 173. Where a statute creates a new offense, and provides a specific remedy or punishment, the statute is exclusive, and must be followed. 8 Otto (U. S.)., 555; 91 U. S. 59; Sutherland, Stat. • Constr. sec. 399; 39 Mich. 141; 67 Barb. 350; Sedgwick, Stat. & Const. Daw, 343; 55 Ala. 408; Expressio imites est exclusio alterius. 2 Bish. St. Cr. sec. 249, 250; Bndlich, Int. Stat. sec. 78; 5 Blatch. 225; 29 Ala. 651; 14 Md. 184; 13 Beav. 22. The indictment was not sufficient as a complaint at law. 26 S. W. 824; 54 Ark. 546; 58 id. 39. Treating the indictment as a complaint, appellant was not required to plead before the third day of the term, and a trial before that time was premature. Sand. & H. Dig. sec. 5735; 2 Tidd’s Prac. p. 512; 34 Mo. 321; 58 id. 242.
E. B. Kinsworthy, Attorney General, for appellee.
The offense charged is a public offense and may be prosecuted by indictment. Sand. & H. Dig. secs. 6200, 6196, 1928-9. The remedy is cumulative. The jurisdiction of one court is not taken away by an affirmative statute giving the same to another. Bish. St. Cr. sec. 164; 52 Ark. 54; 45 id. 387; Suth. St. Const, sec. 396; 85 Mo. 480; 121 Ill. 99; 54 Ark. 546; 78 Ya. 422. The indictment is a good complaint at law, and can be treated as such. 55 Ark. 200. The court will not reverse a judgement for an error which could have been corrected below. Sand. & H. Dig. sec. 1061, 5772, 5764. Appellant refused to plead, set up no defense, and the judgment should stand. 52 Ark. 80; 50 id. 458.
Nature of proceeding* to recover penalty.
No reversal for error not prejudicial.

Opinion:
Wood, J.
A failure by a railroad to comply with the requirements of sec. 6196, Sand. & H. Dig., subjects it to a penalty to be recovered by civil action brought by the prosecuting attorney in the name of the people of the state. Sec. 6200, Sand. & H. Dig. The act creates no public offense. The circuit court erred, therefore, in proceeding with the case as a criminal, instead of a civil, action. Railway Co. v. State, 55 Ark. 200; Railway Co. v. State, 56 id. 166.
But this court will not reverse except for errors which are substantial and prejudicial. Sand. & H. Dig. p. 414, note q, and sec. 5772.
The record does not show that the result would or could have been different had the court adopted the civil, instead of criminal, procedure, which it should have done. The indictment, treated as a complaint, though not as specific as it should be, states a cause of action. Appellant was present, and, through its attorney, refused to plead to the indictment, insisting that the indictment should be treated as a complaint, and that it was not required to plead until the third day of the term. But the court ordered a plea of not. guilty entered for appellant, and proceeded regularly with the trial. Eyidence was adduced, the jury were charged, and a verdict and judgment were rendered for $100.
Treating appellant's motion in arrest as a motion for new trial, it does not show that a different judgment might have been rendered in a 'civil proceeding. It should, at least, have shown to the trial court that it had a good defense to the action. Merely alleging in general terms that it had a meritorious defense was hot sufficient. This court will not go through the idle ceremony of reversing and remanding the cause for new trial when the result, for aught that appears to the contrary, must remain the same. Prima facie, this record shows a good cause of action. Affirmed.