Waterbury evening Democrat., 1907-05-22
MRS KlgAPP'S LICENSE
Judge Gager Handed Down 9
 Decision in Her Favor.

Camps appeal from the county com missioners' decision in granting Mrs Sarah J. Knapp liquor license at the entrance to the Driving park on the Watertown road. MT Camp and his fellow remonstrants held the place and the person were unsuitable for the business, and Attorney N. R. Bronson, counsel for them, main tained that as the ground on which the licensed premises are built IS held on a lease from the> city of Waterbury. the county commission CTS either exceeded their authority in granting the license or did not know the law on the matter.
 Carmody and Lynch, counsel TOT Mrs Knapp. maintained that the lease gave full possession and control over the property and that the city consequently had nothing to do with 1t until the lease expired. In his az cision Judge Gager says:
 "Under the review powers Of the court upon such an appeal l do not think there Is any question but that the decision of the commissioners should be affirmed, unless 1t was Sr- roneous on the following essential facts, viz: The land upon which the building occupied by the licensee Is situated Is owned by the city of Wa terbury, having belonged to the town before consolidation. Long before consolidation the town leased to the Waterbury Driving Co and others. This lease was in 1900 renewed for twenty-five years from January |, 1904, for "a driving track and TOT holding agricultural meetings ana for any and all other purposes. It appeared by parole that the land had been leased to the licensee. The land as originally leased was swampx. It was filled in at the lessee's expense and the building put up by him, and he claims to be the owner of the building.
 "No evidence to controvert this claim was offered, but in argument it was claimed that in any event the title to the building followed the land and was in the city, and that the granting of the license was con trary to the statute section 2,674, which provides that mo spurious or intoxicating liquors shall be sold or exchanged or given away in any building belonging to or under the state, or any county or town in the state "In other words, 1t was claimed that by the express provisions of the statute the place is unsuitable. and that the county commissioners had no discretion in the matter. It did not appear that at the hearing be- fore the county commissioners the question of ownership was gone into, though 1t did appear that the com missioner from Waterbury supposed the city owned the land. It was ad- mitted by the appellant that the city had no authority over the use of the property.
 "The sole question then Is whether issuing license to sell spurious and intoxicating liquors in this building is prohibited by the statute. and If It is, then the action of the county commissioners should be set aside. If 1t is not. then it dees not appear anywhere that they have acted con trary to the law or have abused the administrative discretion in them vested by the statute.
 "I do not think the statute justi- fies the claim of the appellant. The property is the property of the city. The statute refers to property be- longing to the state, county or town. That the land once belonged to the town and Is now vested in the city by force of the consolidation action does not make 1t town property; and, whatever the reason may have been the legislature clearly did not in- clude the property of every munich pality under the prohibition, but only of those corporations specifical- ly mentioned. Further than this, l cannot find from the testimony that the building is the property of the town, or even of the city. It Is quite possible that the title to building may be in one person while the title to the land Is in another. The evil dence of MT Hayes, who claims to own the building. was uncontradict- ed, unless as a matter of law 1t is impossible for the titles to the land and to the building to be in different persons.
 I conclude that there is no statu- tory objection to the granting of the license in question to sell in the building in question, and that in no respect have the county commission CTS exceeded their powers or abused their discretion.
 The action of the county com missioners is affirmed and the appeal Is dismissed"