Waterbury evening Democrat., 1888-01-30

could fix the time one day and alter 1t the next He argued that if they intended do ing any such thing they would have put the word ssaltered" there instead of fix" MT ONeil argued at length as to naked powers. Suppose, continued MT O'Neil, that the selectmen and the Court of Com mon Council was in conflict. One body had as much power as the other. The first one that took jurisdiction over the matter had the right to control the jurisdiction. With conflict of jurisdiction there is a governmental quarrel. Had the selectmen the richt to rescind the vote the next day? If the selectmen have the right to alter the vote the Common Council have the right to alter the closing hour. He argued that if the selectmen fixed the time they fixed the time not for a year, nor during the license, but for all time, except, of course, under some other statute. Other cases may be appealed to the higher courts, but the law did not give the selectmen right to recon sider In support of this he said that the decision of an arbitrator was final, from which there is no appeal, The vote of the board certainly did not lose it's force until the term of office of the board expired. Here MT O'Neil began quot ing more extensively from opinions of Chief Justice Sherman of the Connecti- cut Supreme Court of Errors, showing that the powers delegated to referees, arbitrators and committees scored when they had ex- ercised those powers. These cases he claimed were analogous to the case in ques- tion. He also, read from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the State against the Norwalk and Danbury Turn | pike Company The Turnpike Company had established gate and subsequently changed it's location, and the Supreme Court held that the changing of the loca- tion exhausted the power imposed. He referred to case involving the powers of the Board of Assessors, in which the Bris- tol Board of Assessors after having handed the list of one Gridley to the Selectmen altered the list, the Supreme Court holding that the Board had exhausted it's powers by it's first action. He quoted other au- thorities, closing at 1925. He said that he would not have taken up much time had not Brother Burpee sprung the thing on him Saturday. He had to stay at home from church Sunday and hunt up these cases. An adjournment was had until o'clock.
 Attorney Burpee began his argument al 2:20, when the court resumed it's session He argued that the Court had no right te consider those saloon keepers who did not sign the application for this injunction. H. questioned the right of the petitioners tc secure an injunction on the strength thai the selectmen were going to rescind the vote, and quoted Connecticut case il support of his statement. The case of the celebrated memorialist, Henry Goodwin o1 East Hartford, against the Consolidated road, in which he failed to secure an in junction forbidding the Consolidated roao from issuing passes to the members of thu Legislature. He held that the petitioner should show that they are suffering an ir reparable injury. In regard to the litiga tion alleged by the petitioners, he said tha the only litigation would be the taking tn case to the Supreme Court. But now the, had dragged the town into court. Thi vote of the selectmen, he claimed, stood o1 the same footing as that of an ordinance. H read from authorities to sustain his state ment.
 MI Burpee argued that if the Court o Common Council had fixed this hour the, would have the right to change the law He held that this question should be placed on the same grounds as the local optiol laws. He said that MT O'Neil had no proved that the selectmen had no genera
 powers. Continuing, he said that M
 O'Neil had shown no authority limiting tn powers of the Board of Selectmen. H went back 250 years, reviewing the origi
 of the board and defining it's powers. H
 held that the selectmen had the same pow CTS that town meetings do. MT Burpe had not concluded at 3:3O o'clock.