Waterbury evening Democrat., 1888-01-30
THAT TEMPORARY INJUNCTION.

The Hearing before Judge G well in the
 District Court To-Day.
 The hearing on the dissolution of the temporary injunction restraining the Board of Selectmen from reconsidering their ac- tion extending the hour of closing saloons from Ii to 12 o'clock came up before Judge Cowell in the District Court this morning. There were number of interested specta- tors, among them ReviDr Bowdish. Thomas H. Hayes and D. T. Hart, the plaintiffs in the case, were at City Sheriff Mcdonald g desk, and the lawyers were scattered about inside the rail. Attorney John O'Neil ap- peared for the plaintiff and Attorney l.. F. Burpee represented the town.
 Selectman Doherty read from the min utes of the meeting of the Board of Select men the vote passed January 19, extending the closing hour to 12 o'clock He said all the Board were present.
 He did not think there was any secrecy, ! but he did not propose to tell what it is. | He said there were three petitions for re- consideration of their action. Attorney 1 O'Neil wanted to know if Col Doherty had any intention as to his vote on the consid- eration of the petitions when the meeting was called on Friday afternoon. MT Bur- pee objected to this and MT O'Neil claimed | that the objection was against the opinion of the Supreme Court of every State. The question hereis, said MT O'Neil, is as to whether you will restrain the Selectmen from doing an illegal act. Attorney Bur- pee questioned the right of the plaintiffs counsel to ask the Board what they intend ed to do. It was not admissible to ask them what their intentions were.
 Attorney O'Neil made an extended argu- ment in favor of the ad1nissibility of the evidence.
 l l II. L about the question, but he would admit the testimony. He did not think this tes- timony would throw any light on the mat ter.
 Attorney O'Neil did not care to press the question. Col Doherty said that he would settle the matter. Officially never form an opinion,' said Col Doherty, ''until ] act with the Board. I never personally made up my mind. I am always ready tc be convinced by the weight of evidence 1 Thomas H. Hayes, one of the plaintiffs, 1 and wholesale dealer in liquor, said that | he brought the injunction in the interest of his business and that of his customers. The closing at il o'clock injured his busi- ness.
 sS? Daniel T. Hart, the other plaintiff and a dealer in liquor, said that the closing at Ii o'clock would injure his business. He said that he and MT Hayes saw one of the select men and he told them that there was a petition in the office signed by 600 and he thought that they would reverse their action from what the selectmen told him.
 This closed the testimony, and Attorney O'Neil opened the arguments. In town the governmental boards got their power from the Legislature. That was the sov- ereign power, and these boards had no general power. The selectlnen of the town of Waterbury arc not the towns agents in the same sense that pri- vate individuals are. They can only dc just exactly what the Legislature says they may. The town meeting might instruct a committee to build building at an ex- pense of $5,O00. That committee could not spend cent more, but if an individual or firm did the same thing there would not be necessarily any limitation to the expense. He quoted the recent decision of the Su- preme Court of Errors in the case of Tur- ney vs the Town of Bridgeport, showing that towns are territorial districts subject to the Legislature, and that they had no power other than that bestowed upon them l by that body. It holds that the town is a quasi corporation and that every man in | the town is member of that corporation The restraining of liquor selling was gov ernmental duty. What have they done thena Why, they have cast the duty upon several boards. He read the Matthews law, dootored by the Republican legislature. He said that the law allowed the selectmen, , to fix the tirne, but 1t did not ssy that they