in Woods v. Littleton, supra, the amount of treble damages in a class action could easily bring financial ruin to a merchant found by a court or jury to have been guilty of a technical, but unwitting violation. These considerations convince us that treble damages is indeed a sufficiently severe exaction as to be within the due process requirement applicable to criminal penalties. See Wayne County v. Steele, 121 Neb. 438, 237 N.W. 288, 292 (1931); Zuest v. Ingra, 134 N.J.L. 15, 45 A.2d 810, 813 (1946); Cleveland C.C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Wells, 65 Ohio St. 313, 62 N.E. 332, 334 (1901); Blake v. Grant, 65 Wash.2d 410, 397 P.2d 843, 844 (1964); Gardner v. Lovegren, 27 Wash. 356, 67 P. 615, 617 (1902); and cf. Helwig v. United States, 188 U.S. 605, 23 S.Ct. 427, 47 L.Ed. 614 (1903) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we must determine whether
holding that to be sufficient stipulations must state than no judgment will be asserted in excess of the value of the limitation fund holding that juvenile court that had never declared child dependent had no jurisdiction to enter order affecting visitation rights of father holding imposition of a further sum for excess of value of imported goods over declared value to be a penalty within jurisdiction of the federal district court though not expressly so declared holding determination of property value in case to decide if assessed value was excessive is not a liquidated demand where only evidence of property value was the conclusory allegation of value in plaintiffs unsworn petition holding the aggregate value of the land and its improvements is the controlling value