Waterbury evening Democrat., 1888-10-30
THE SALOON CLOSING LAW.

The Waterbury Selectmen Upheld 1n Their Decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors.
 The opinion of the Connecticut Supreme court of errors on the construction of the law of 1887 regulating the hour of closing saloons at night has been published. It clearly establishes the claim that the selectmen of town have jurisdiction Tather than the city or borough authorities, when a city or borough is within the limits of the town.
 The test case taken to the supreme court arose in Waterbury. On the 18th of June 1884, the selectmen voted that saloons in the town might be kept open until 1s o'clock. Pursuant to this vote, Marcus Hellman kept his saloon open, and was arrested the following day on a charge ot violating the law by keeping open after 1 1 The case went to the supreme court, where jury found Hellman guilty, and he ap- pealed to the supreme court of errors. The error claimed was that the court below charged the jury that the selectmen ot Waterbury had no power to fix the closing time within the city limits. The city authorities had not taken any action ir the matter.
 The opinion of the supreme court is written by Judge Loomis, and the other judges concur. The opinion sets forth that the two controlh ne questions are: l. Had the selectmen any authority tt extend the time for keeping open the saloon And if so
 9 Was their authority co-eXtensive witt the town limits, or restricted to that DOT ton of the town outside the city limits >.
 After discussing the ordinary powers o selectmen as the ''municipal authorities o1 town," the opinion holds that the select men had the same power the town itsel would have had. We quote:
 Suppose town meeting had beer called for the purpose of acting on this question, would its action have been llml ted to fraction of it's territory ! The voters from all parts of the town, including tht city, would decide the question, and by what right would the action so taken b, restricted to the rim of territory outside the city If all the electors vote, do the, not vote for the benefit of all the inhabi tants Do the voters within a city vote fo regulation having no effect on themselves while 1t is binding on others It seems tC us the regulation made by all the voters O. the town must apply to the entire territor. and to all the inhabitants, and not to | part thereof"
 ''The argument which prevailed in tn court below assumed that neither tn action of the town nor of its selectmel could operate at all within the city limits Were this so, then all tn towns within the state havin limits co-extensive with city limit would be entirely exempt from the opera tion of the statute. To so hold, it seem to us, would afford striking instance o judicial legislation. Why should the cit in such case absorb and annihilate tn town any more than the town the city There is nothing in the statutes to justif such an int .pretation.
 We conclude sthens that under the cil cumstances of this case the extension C time by the selsctmen had the effect to eA empt the defendant from criminal liabilit for keeping open his saloon within ths time. It is obvious that other question concerning the construction of the statut will be likely to arise. We forbear, how ever, to proceed any further than th exigencies of the present case require. I'll language of the act is obscure that n judicial interpretation founded upon
 can be very satisfactory. It must be le to the legislature itself to make the meal ing clear.
 'There was an error in the ruling con plained of, and new trlal is ordered"