Waterbury Democrat., 1901-07-12
LIQUOR LICENSES.
Suitability of Place Not to be Consider


 ed When License is Transferred. Judge Shumway of the superior court has handed down an important
 decision at Bridgeport in the appeal from the ruling of the Fairfield coun- ty commissioners on the transfer or the liquor license of one Bracken to
 l.. F. Nealon. which is of more than or
 dinary interest in this city where H.
 censes are often transferred from one person to another.
 He supports the action of the coun- i ty commissioners and makes an m portant ruling to the effect that Ill these transfers the only appeal that ! can be taken Is on the commissioners | judgment as to whether the person
 who is to have the license is suitable l ill the meaning of the law. No appeal | can be taken on the suitability of the | place.
 The following is the full text of the decision:
 Section 3,071 of the general statutes l provides that in case of the death of any person licensed to sell intoxicat- ing liquors, his executor or admins trator may with the consent of the
 county commissioners transfer his Ii
 cense to any other suitable person but the person to whom such trans fer is to be made shall make applica- | tion and procure recommendation and
 execute a bond similar to those re | quired for an original applicant fol license.
 Chapter 175 of the public acts of 1893, page 319, provides for an ap-
 peal by any taxpayer of the town in
 which the business is to be carried on | under the license, who is aggrieved by the action of the county coinmis- l sioners ill granting a license, or in
 refusing to revoke a license. There l is no provision made4for an appeal from the action of the county com I missioners in consenting to the trans. l fer of license under the provisions | of general statutes, section 3,071. Both | parties have treated this appeal as
 properly taken, probably upon the ground that the transferee stands ir | the same position as an original appli. cant for q license. at least for the pur.
 poses of appeal from the action of ls the county commissioners in consent. r ing to the transfer | However. the only action of the l3county commissioners by which the
 appellant is aggrieved is the consent l to this transfer The only fact to 5e found by the commissioners is wheth.
 CT or not the traIsferee is q suitable person tG have a1license, and this finding of the Commissioners is the only
 one to be reviewed by the court. The suitability of the place on this appeal
 is immatcrial only so far as this may be involved in determining the suit ability of the person.
 l find the appellee Nealon is a. suit able person to have license. The fact
 that one Kinsella has the benefits and profits arising from the sale of liquors
 under this license, does not render Nealon an unsuitable person. so long
 as it does hot appear that KinselIa is
 an unsuitable one. There has undoubt-
 edly been a change in the sentiment
 of the neighborhood since athe license was granted to the original liicensee
 as 10 the suitabiIfty of tic place for
 the sale of intoxicating liquors. If
 this change has been brought about
 for any good reason, the commission
 CTS and the court will undoubtedly. con-
 slider the sentiment of the neighbor-
 hood and give it weight should there
 be an application for license in the
 same place after this license expires.
 The action of the county commis-
 sioners in consenting to the transfer
 of this license is affirmed.