fM Ninth Annual Report of the 



may be imposed upon him as a fine in a criminal proceeding, 

 and that be may be additionally punished by imprisonment. 

 (We shall hereafter discuss the effect of the difference in amount 

 specified in the first and last clauses of section 37). The conten- 

 tion now urged by the learned counsel for the people that it was 

 intended to give the State two causes of action for the same 

 offense, finds support neither in the language of the statute nor 

 in reason. 



Counsel for the defendant, after diligent search, has failed to 

 find any statute anywhere granting two causes of action of 

 this kind without the use of some words to designate clearly 

 that one shall be additional to the other. As hereinafter pointed 

 out, moreover, a double recovery, such as that to which it is 

 claimed the people are entitled, would be violative of the con- 

 stitutional inhibition against putting a defendant twice in 

 jeopardy. Before considering this provision, however, let us 

 examine the subsequent changes of the law which emphasize the 

 correctness of our construction of section 37. 



Chapter 558 of the Laws of 1898, again amended section 37, 

 and changed it to read as follows: 



•• Every person violating any of the provisions of articles two 

 and three shall forfeit to the People of the State of New York 

 a sum not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than one hun- 

 dred dollars for everv such violation. * * * Whoever bv 

 himself or another violates any of the provisions of articles two 

 and three of said chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and 

 upon conviction shall be punishable by a fine of not less than 

 twenty-five dollars nor more than two hundred dollars, or by 

 imprisonment." 



It is to be noted that although by the Laws of 1898 this sec- 

 tion was apparently made to cover violations of article III, the 

 Legislature permitted section 53 of the Agricultural Law, which 

 placed a fixed penalty of one hundred dollars for every violation 

 of article III, to remain unchanged. 



Thus, according to section 37 a violation of article III was 

 punishable by a fine of no1 less than twenty-five dollars and not 

 more than one hundred dollars, whereas bv section 53 a fixed 



