1. Definition of Crime.-A crime is any act or omission prohibited by public law for the protection of the public, and made punishable by the state in a judicial proceeding in its own name.1 It is a public wrong, as distinguished from a mere private wrong or civil injury to an individual. Other Definitions.—Various definitions of the term "crime" have been given in the text-books and in the cases, but few of them are satisfactory. Blackstone's definition-"An act committed or omitted in violation of a public law, either forbidding or commanding it"2-has frequently been quoted with ap 1 In re Bergin, 31 Wis. 383; People v. Hanrahan, 75 Mich. 611, 42 N. W. 1124; State v. Ostwalt, 118 N. C. 1208, 24 S. E. 660. "A crime is any wrong which the government deems injurious to the public at large, and punishes through a judicial proceeding in its own name." 1 Bish. New Crim. Law, § 32. A crime, "in a general sense, implies any act done or omitted in violation of public law, and for which the person is liable to punishment by indictment, presentment, or impeachment." Smith v. Smith, 2 Sneed (Tenn.) 473, 477. 24 Bl. Comm. 15. C. & M. Crimes-1. proval, but it is inaccurate. In the first place, it is not the “act omitted" that constitutes a crime, but the omission to act, and, in the second place, the term "public law" is too broad, for it includes many other laws besides those which define and punish crimes. An act is not necessarily a crime because it is prohibited by a public law. It is necessary to look further, and ascertain the ground upon which the act is punished, and by whom the punishment is imposed. To constitute a crime, it must be punished to protect the public, and it must be punished by the state or other sovereign power. Violations of Municipal Ordinances.-By the weight of authority, the violation of a municipal ordinance, enacted by a city under legislative authority, as in the case of ordinances prohibiting and punishing gaming, and the keeping of gaming houses, bawdy houses, etc., is not a crime, in the proper sense of the term, for such ordinances are not public laws, and the punishment for their violation is imposed by the municipality, and not by the state. For this reason, it has often been held that the state may punish the keeping of a gaming house, bawdy house, or other common nuisance as a crime, notwithstanding the same act has already been punished by the city in 3 State v. Bishop, 7 Conn. 185; State v. Collins, 1 McCord (S. C.) 355; Slattery v. People, 76 Ill. 220; State v. Peterson, 41 Vt. 511; U. S. v. Eaton, 144 U. S. 677; Withers v. State, 36 Ala. 252; Schick v. U. S., 195 U. S. 65. 4 Williams v. City Council of Augusta, 4 Ga. 509, 513; Withers v. State, 36 Ala. 252, 261; State v. Heuchert, 42 La. Ann. 270, 7 So. 329; State v. Boneil, 42 La. Ann. 1110, 8 So. 298, 21 Am. St. Rep. 413; City of Greeley v. Hamman, 12 Colo. 94, 20 Pac. 1; Wiggins v. City of Chicago, 68 Ill. 372; State v. Rouch, 47 Ohio St. 478, 481, 25 N. E. 59; Schmeider v. McLane, 36 Barb. (N. Y.) 495, 4 Abb. App. Dec. 154; City of Oshkosh v. Schwartz, 55 Wis. 483, 13 N. W. 552; Ex parte Hollwedell, 74 Mo. 395; City of Kansas v. Clark, 68 Mo. 588; Same v. Neal, 122 Mo. 232, 26 S. W. 695; Cooper v. People, 41 Mich. 403, 2 N. W. 51. Contra, People v. Hanrahan, 75 Mich. 611, 42 N. W. 1124; State v. West, 43 Minn. 147, 43 N. W. 845; Bautsch v. State, 27 Tex. App. 342, 11 S. W. 414; Jaquith v. Royce, 42 Iowa, 406; State v. Vail, 57 Iowa, 103, 10 N. W. 297. which it was committed, as a violation of its ordinances, and that this is not punishing twice for the same offense.5 The decisions on this question are in conflict, however, the opposite conclusion having been reached in some cases. 5а 2. The Distinction between Public and Private Wrongs. Wrongs are of two kinds,-public and private. A private wrong, otherwise termed a "tort" or "civil injury,” is “an infringement or privation of the civil rights which belong to individuals, considered merely as individuals." A public wrong, or crime, is "a breach and violation of the public rights and duties due to the whole community, considered as a community, in its social aggregate capacity." It is a wrong that affects 917 State v. Lee, 29 Minn. 445, 13 N. W. 913; State v. Ludwig, 21 Minn. 202; State v. Stevens, 114 N. C. 873, 19 S. E. 861; Koch v. State, 53 Ohio St. 433, 41 N. E. 689; City of Yankton v. Douglass, 8 S. D. 441, 66 N. W. 923; State v. Fourcade, 45 La. Ann. 717, 13 So. 187; Hankins v. People, 106 Ill. 628; Levy v. State, 6 Ind. 281; Ambrose v. State, 6 Ind. 351; Town of Bloomfield v. Trimble, 54 Iowa, 399, 6 N. W. 586; State v. Gustin, 152 Mo. 108, 53 S. W. 421; Robbins v. People, 95 Ill. 175; Wragg v. Penn Tp., 94 Ill. 11; Ex parte Hongshen, 98 Cal. 681, 33 Pac. 799; Hughes v. People, 8 Colo. 536, 9 Pac. 50; McInerney v. City of Denver, 17 Colo. 302, 29 Pac. 516; People v. Hanrahan, 75 Mich. 611, 42 N. W. 1124; People v. Detroit White Lead Works, 82 Mich. 471, 46 N. W. 735; Howe v. Treasurer of Plainfield, 37 N. J. Law, 145; Johnson v. State, 59 Miss. 543; State v. Recorder, 30 La. Ann. 454; City of Mobile v. Allaire, 14 Ala. 400; Shafer v. Mumma, 17 Md. 331; State v. Sly, 4 Or. 277; Hamilton v. State, 3 Tex. App. 643; Greenwood v. State, 65 Tenn. (6 Baxt.) 567; Rogers v. Jones, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 237; McLaughlin v. Stephens, 2 Cranch, C. C. 148, Fed. Cas. No. 8,874. The same act may be an offense against the laws of a state and of the United States, and punishable by both. Cross v. North Carolina, 132 U. S. 131; Moore v. Illinois, 14 How. (U. S.) 13; Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. (U. S.) 410; Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371; U. S. v. Marigold, 9 How. (U. S.) 560. Sa State v. Thornton, 37 Mo. 360; State v. Cowan, 29 Mo. 330; State v. Welch, 36 Conn. 215. 64 Bl. Comm. 5. 74 Bl. Comm. 5. See 8 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.) 279, and cases there cited. the whole community, and not merely individual members of the community, and therefore the public good requires the state to interfere and punish the wrongdoer. The punishment is imposed for the protection of the public, and not because of the injury to the individual. The latter must seek redress in a civil action. Illustrations. For example, if I go upon another man's land wrongfully, but without committing a breach of the peace, I commit a wrong which does not affect the other members of the community to such an extent as to require the state to punish me. I am merely liable in an action for damages by the individual whose rights I have infringed. This is not a public wrong, or crime, but a mere private wrong, or tort.8 On the same principle, it is a mere private wrong if I maintain a nuisance which affects a single individual only, or, at common law, if I obtain another man's property by a mere lie.10 On the other hand, it is public wrong, or crime, if I go upon another's land under such circumstances as to render me guilty of a breach of the public peace,11 or if I maintain a nuisance on or near a public highway, so as to affect all who pass, or in a thickly-settled community, so as to affect the whole community,12 or if I cheat another out of his property by using false weights or measures.13 In these cases the wrong affects the whole community to such an extent that the public welfare requires the state to interfere and punish me. 8 Rex v. Turner, 13 East, 228; Henderson v. Com., 8 Grat. (Va.) 708; Kilpatrick v. People, 5 Denio (N. Y.) 277; post, §§ 17, 418. See Com. v. Webb, 6 Rand. (Va.) 726; post, §§ 18, 447. 10 Rex v. Wheatly, 2 Burrow, 1125, Beale's Cas. 97; Com. v. Warren, 6 Mass. 72; People v. Babcock, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 201, 5 Am. Dec. 256; post, §§ 16, 351. 11 Henderson v. Com., 8 Grat. (Va.) 708; post, §§ 17, 418.. 12 State v. Rankin, 3 S. C. 438; Com. v. Webb, 6 Rand. (Va.) 726; Douglass v. State, 4 Wis. 387; State v. Close, 35 Iowa, 570; post, §§ 18, 447. 13 People v. Babcock, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 201; post, §§ 16, 351. |