The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1909-05-15
JUDGE FINDS
 PROCEDURE
 NOT GOOD
MDermott May Open Saloon, But Who Will Reimburse Him for Loss of
 License Value?
County Commissioners Say They Can. not-City May be Asked to do t. Decision, in Appeal of Jesse A. Stew.
 art, Sustains County Commissioners.

Judge Howard J. Curtis has handed down a decision in the appeal of Jesse A. Stewart from the County Commits sioners. that is regarded as being about as near to rebuke to the methods pursued in the case as g court often gets. Joseph McDermott, made an applica- tion for a license for a saloon, in North Bridgeport. McDermott had formerly conducted a saloon at the west end o1 Berkshire Bridge, but had not beer successful. He had conducted the place so well that there was no objec- tion to him as being an unsuitable per- son. But the Law Enforcement League objected upon the ground that the To- cality of the proposed saloon was not policed.
 Attorney Edward K. Nicholson with drew from the opposition and Attorney Jesse A. Stewart took his place, 1t was said as the representative of former prohibition candidate for governor Matthew E. O'Brien. No contest was had before the County Commissioners, but appeal was taken directly to the Superior Court.
 Upon this procedure Judge Curtis puts the seal of his disapproval, in a memorandum of opinion which sus- tains the commissioners at every point. The opinion says:
 
 making no contest before the Com miSsioners upon the remonstrance, but first contesting the matter in this Court is not to be commend ed
 The Commissioners have sole power to issue licenses. The Court cannot be substituted in their place directly or indirectly.
 The Court upon an appeal has before it for determination but two questions:
 1. Have the Commissioners act ed illegally?
 2. Have the Commissioners ex- ceeded or abused their power?
 The appellant claims that the ac- tion of the Commissioners was il- legal because the place licensed was under certain statutory prohi- bitions.
 l. That the place licensed was in purely residential section of the --towr1--------- s-------
 9 That the place was not in an efficiently policed part of the city.
 3. That the place was unsuit- able.
 Both appellant and appellee have treated the portion of the City bounded by Madison Ave-, Federal St., Main St., and North Ave. as the section of the town" and "part of the city" in which this place is.
 In this section there are already seven groceries, one saloon, a bar Der shop ana several minor places of business.
 The Commissioners in finding that this section was not a purely residential section clearly did not misapprehend or disregard that statutory qualification, and no ex- cuse or abuse of their power or il- legality in their action appears in this particular.
 From the evidence it appeared that this part of the city was in the 1o,- hx.r.& <Af protected to the same extent as similar section of the city south of North Ave. The extent of the beat in distance and the character of the locality is not such as to in dicate that the finding of the Conn missioners that this was an eff ciently policed part of the city was made under misunderstanding or disregard of that statutory qualif1- cation and that they acted in ex- cess of their power or illegally in this particular.
 As to the suitability of the place on general grounds: the evidence does not disclose any unfair arbi- trary, unreasonable or impartial action or misapprehension of facts or law on the part of the Commis- g sioners or any unsuitability so manifest as to justify a conclusion that the Commissioners acted ille- gally or improperly in granting the license It is to be borne in mind that the County Commissioners have sole power to issue licenses. The mere fact that some other tri- bunal might possibly decide other wise under given conditions, is not a sufficient reason for a Court to revoke their. action. It must ap- pear that they acted illegally, or ex- ceeded or abused their power un- der nisapprehension or unreason- ably or unfairly.
 Judgment may be entered em- bracing the finding that the place is not found unsuitable and that the Commissioners did not act il- legally or in excess of or in abuse of their power, and that their ac- ton is confirmed.
 CURTIS J. Now the question is, who will reim- purse McDermott for the loss of license value during the three months that the license was unused. He has made a demand upon the County Commission CTS for a refund of a pro rata amount They have replied that they have no authority to make such refund. It is probable that a demand will be made upon the city, which gets the major portion of the sums paid for licenses within the city limits. FLANAGAN TAKES