With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: holding that juvenile court that had never declared child dependent had no jurisdiction to enter order affecting visitation rights of father
B: 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
C: holding that to be sufficient stipulations must state than no judgment will be asserted in excess of the value of the limitation fund
D: 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
B.