¶1The building, which is the subject of this suit, was erected fifty years ago; and occupied as a meetinghouse. More than twenty years since, it was dwelt in, by a poor family; and for ten or fifteen years past, was used as a joiner’s shop, until it underwent very extensive repairs, and was converted into a dwelling-house. The court below instructed the jury, if at the time Booth built the cellar, raised up the building, and made all the improvements described, the building was a dwelling-house, the repairs were rightly made; but if it was not, that he had erected a wooden dwelling-house, contrary to the statute. In my opinion, the charge was unquestionably erroneous. The statute exclusively prohibits the erection of wooden dwelling-houses, or of additions to them or other buildings, of the same materials, in which there is placed a chimney, fire-place, or stove. The law being penal, must receive a strict construction; (Daggett v. State of Connecticut, ante 60.) and the point or determination is merely this; Whether the facts in this case shew, that a wooden building has been erected. That a former building was extensively repaired, and converted to a new use, is not disputed; but, whether regard be had to etymology, or the popular meaning of language, no dwelling-house was built or erected, and of consequence, no law has been contravened.
¶2Judgment to be reversed.