Waterbury evening Democrat., 1908-08-06
BREWERS ARE AFFECTED.
By Decision Handed Down by Stu. preme Court in Meriden Case.

The supreme court of this state in a decision handed down Monday at New Haven, has established a precedent that will doubtless af- feet thousands of dollars that the breweries have invested in Connec- ticut saloons. The case is the Con necticut Breweries company against Bernard w. Murphy of Meriden, an action on promisory notes brought to the superior court in New Haven county and tried to the court before Judge Roraback.
 The superior court decision was that Murphy must pay the Connec- ticut Breweries company something over $2,000 on promissory notes. The brewery held license in the name of its secretary and when the company sued Murphy to recover on the notes Murphy's attorney con tested it's right to do so, in that the brewery had no license to sell liquors and that all obligations were invalidated because t was acting il- legally. Attorney Danaher for Mur- phy took an appeal from the su- perior court and the supreme court found error, the judgment of the superior court was reversed and the cause remanded for further proceed ing according to law. The opinion was by Judge Hammersley.
 Commenting on the case the Meri- den Journal says the decision not only affects the paper which the va> rious breweries hold, but 1t seems to be quite slap at the New Haven county commissioners. The com missioners have held that corpor- ation could not hold retail license and they always insisted that it be transferred to an individual on the ground that this would guarantee the state more satisfactory surety In cases of violation than if 1t were held by corporation. The Jour nal hints that the decision of the supreme court given by Judge Hammersley may affect every obli- gation held by brewery in the state in which the sale of liquors Is involved and that all notes, mort gages. and so forth are apparently invalidated by 1t.
 The Hartford county commission CTS are inclined to this same view, but they say 1t will not affect any condition in this county, as so far as they know there Is not a license held by an officer of brewing com pany In the county. The Hartford county commissioners have familiar ized themselves with the provisions of chapter 265 of the. public acts of nd hax Ervfn fNA those provisions to the best of their knowledge. A part of section 1 of chapter 265 says that nothing here in shall prevent a corporation organ ized under the laws of the state from holding in Its corporate name one license 10 sell spirituous and intox- icating liquors at its place of busi- ness in any one town. No more than five licenses shall be issued to any one person, and the county com- missioners may in their discretion refuse to issue more than one li- cense to any one person.
 Section of chapter 265 has been vigorously observed by the Hartford county commissioners. and since the law was passed there have been sev- eTdi lnstdnces WueTe tne COulnliS- sioners have required that the li- censes be transferred to the real owner of the business, and have not allowed the licenses to stand in the name of an agent. The section reads.
 The holder of a license to sell spirituous and intoxicating liquors. except druggists. shall be the bona f1de owner of the business carried on under the license, and before is- suing the license the county commis- sioners shall require each applicant to make oath that he Is the bona fide owner of the business and that no person unsuitable 10 hold a license to sell spirituous and intoxicating li- quors Is in any way interested in the buefnass