
    [No 8,240.
    Department Two.]
    July 1, 1882.
    THE CITY OF SANTA BARBARA v. C. E. SHERMAN ET AL.
    Action to Enforce Penalty for Violation of Ordinance of Municipal Corporation—Civil Action—Penal Action.—In an action in the Police Court of the City of Santa Barbara the complaint, after alleging • the enactment of an ordinance and its violation by the defendants, demanded that they should be adjudged guilty of violating the ordinance and punished by fine and imprisonment.
    
      Held: The action is in no sense a civil action. If it be an action it is criminal, and should have been prosecuted in the name of the people.
    Appeal from a judgment for defendants in the Superior Court of the County of Santa Barbara. Hatch, J.
    
      Thos. McNulta, for Appellant.
    This is not a criminal prosecution for a public offense. (President &c. v. Holland, 19 Ill. 271; People v. Johnson, 30 Cal. 104.) If not clearly a civil action, it is at most but quasi criminal. (Sec. 344, Dill, on Mun. Corp., vol. 1 and notes; 
      Davenport v. Bird, 34 Iowa, 524; Williamson v. Com., 4 B. Mon. (Ky.) 146.)
    
      W. C. Stratton, for Respondent.
    This is a criminal action—actions are of two kinds. (C. C.P.22, 24.)
   The Court:

This action is in no sense a civil action. The complaint demands that defendants be adjudged guilty of violating ordinance No. 62, and that they be punished by fine and imprisonment. If it be an action, it is criminal, and should have been prosecuted in the name of The People. (Sec. 684, Penal Code.) It is not necessary to notice the other points presented.

The judgment of dismissal is affirmed.  