City of Portland

<p>From Multnomah: Melvin C. G-boro-e, Judge.</p> <p>Criminal action by the City of Portland against August Erickson. From a judgment of the circuit court on a writ of review setting aside a judgment of acquittal by the municipal court, defendant appeals.</p> <p>A prosecution for a violation of a municipal ordinance is not such a criminal action that the constitution of the state prevents the city from having a writ to review the wrongful discharge of the defendant by the municipal court, where the record shows that the municipal court exceeded its jurisdiction in so discharging the defendant, and the facts are undisputed and appear upon the face of the record: Wing v. Astoo'ia, 13 Or. 538 (11 Pac. 295) ; Seattle v. Peai'son, 15 Wash. 578 ; Cross y. People, 8 Mich. 113; People v. Walsh, 67 How. Prac. 482; People v. Knoxon, 40 111. 30 ; 1 Dillon, Mun. Corp. (4 ed.), §§ 411, 925-928.</p> <p>On Petition nor Rehearing.</p> <p>We respectfully submit that the court was in error in holding that the prosecution for the violation of a municipal regulation is a criminal offense within the meaning of the Constitution of Oregon. The constitution provides in Article IV, § 23, that the legislative assembly shall not pass local or special laws for the punishment of crimes and misdemeanors ; in Article XI, § 2, that municipal corporations may be created by special law ; and in Article VII, 1, that municipal courts may be created to administer the regulations of incorporated towns and cities. Municipal charters are local and special laws within the meaning of the constitution. This leads to the unavoidable conclusion that the legislature can not give power to municipal corporations through their charters to create crimes and misdemeanors, unless the legislature can authorize a city to do what it can not itself do. This court has already decided that a municipal corporation can not make the violation of a municipal ordinance a crime or misdemeanor: Portland v. Schmidt, 13 Or. pp. 17,