Morning journal and courier., 1882-10-02
The Court Record.

Superior Court-Judge Stoddard.
 On Saturday afternoon, before Judge
 Henry Stoddard of the Superior Court, were
 heard arguments on the rule to show cause
 why an order should not issue restraining
 the County Commissioners from revoking the
 liquor licenses of Kelly Brothers and Patrick
 Willis. William c. Case appeared for the &C.,
 cused and discussed the Willis case as cover
 ing both. Willis was arrested on a warrant
 issued by Prosecuting Agent Daley, charging
 him with violating the Sunday law. He was
 found guilty and fined. From this fine he
 took an appeal to the Superior Court and the
 appeal is still pending. On the 25th of Au-
 gust MT. Daley petitioned the County Court
 to revoke the license. The case was contin-
 ued from time to time until the order of the
 court was served
 Mir. Case said the complaint to the con-
 missioaers asking for the revocation of the
 license was based on section 6, part 3, of the
 act of 1882. In reading this he empha- sized the power the commissioners had to revoke such license, ''Upon cause
 found after due hearing had" This
 means proceeding of some kind. It is 8 criminal proceeding before tribunal estab- lished by the Legislature to punish for the violation of penal statute. Section pro- vides that in addition to the fine and impris- onment in the City Court the license may be revoked and all moneys paid therefor forfeit ed. The of Hinman vs. Taylor, 2d Conn. 357, was cited to show that the object and result of proceeding determine it's character.
 The Legislature never intended to pass a law establishing two separate tribunals for the same thing, and never passed such law The commissioners cannot revoke license l. L.. the Superior Court The statute says revo- cation may ensue ''upon cause found after due hearing be had' ''Cause found" is not merely violation of the law but a convic- tion for such violation. The cause is not anything found by the commissioners. As stunning that the commissioners are court, what evidence have I that they don't acquire jurisdiction first?'' asked Judge Stoddard MT. Case said he thought he had made that clear in his opening statement. Mir. Daley admitted that the City Court acquired ! jurisdiction first.
 The Judge said he didn't care to hear fur. ! ther on the question whether the court of I prohibition was proper remedy. MT. Case l was beginning to read from the case of Quimbo Appo vs. The People, in the New York reports
 The Judge said that was not the trouble in his mind If the County Commissioners were court to try criminal causes he was inclined to think some method ought to be I adopted to stop them from proceeding with I the cases now. MT. Case proceeded to argue l that license not police regulation. ] MT. Daley, for the County Commissioners and himself, said the first question was whether the act under which the County I Commissioners were proceeding was in con- 1 hict with the Constitution of the United 1 States the State of Connecticut whether 1 the Legislature of this State had power to pass such an act. The opinions of Chief Jus l tice Taney Justices Gr1er and Mclean of
 the Supreme Court of the United States, were
 read, where they gave the opinion in license | cases that the Legislature of the States had 1 the power to pass such laws for the preser- vation of public morals as they saw fit. l The law of 1872 relating to licenses gave 1 commissioners the power to revoke for cause l The law of 1881 pointed out how commits l sioners should do this The law of 1882 under which the present proceedings were l founded, gave the commissioners the same l powers that justices of the peace had in their
 towns for the purpose of securing witnesses
 to appear before them. This board can in \ no sense be called court The City Court 1 has primal jurisdiction to fine or imprison, not to revoke 8 license. This power is given | to jury after conviction. The commission 1 CTS must revoke such license.
 ! This is the criminal side. The civil side is given to the commissioners, who for cause, after due hearing had, may revoke any per- sons license. This, said Mir. Daley, is a l civil proceeding, like proceeding lin rem" against the license which may be destroyed. The statutes of New York were read, show 1 ing that the license law there is substantially the same as ours. In the case of the people vs. Presmeyer, 59 New York, the Supreme Court says: 'sThe power of commissioners to revoke licenses rested with the Legisla- ture, and the manner and mode in which it