The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-07-06

fraying the general expenses of the club. If any profit appears to have been made upon the serving such li- quors, such profit is used for the bene- fit of all members of the club, but no profit is distributed to the mem bers in any valuable thing; and if a loss appears to have been made, ii is borne equally by all the members of the club, being made up out of the general fund of the club. The club pays a tax of $25 each to the United States Government and the receipt for said tax is framed and hangs upon the wall where said liquors are stored and from which they are served.
 From the above agreed statement of facts, the predominant facts stand out that it is a bona fide club, that the dispensing of liquors is an incident to, the activities of the club and not the purpose of its existence; and that from such dispensing of liquors. no financial profit accrues to any one or more persons
 The State claims conviction of the accused under Section 2690 of the Gen. Stat of 1902, which is as follows:
 Amy person who without license therefor shall, by sample, by solicit ing or procuring orders, or otherwise sell or exchange. or shall offer or ex- pose for sale or exchange, or shall own or keep with intent to sell or ex- change, any spirituous or intoxicating liquors-s be subject to the penalties provided in Sec. 2712.'' (fine or imprisonment in jail.) : ' In the case of State vs. Marchelik. the Common Pleas Court of New Ha- true that member ,of club, or an agent or servant of the club, can dis pense liquors to a fellow member of the club, the club receiving the income of the sale, no member of the club has a right to sell liquors to one who is not 8 member"
 Our Supreme court of Errors, in passing on this case, 80 Conn. 352. found it unnecessary to pass upon the question as to whether a member of club or an agent or servant of a club could dispense liquors to a fell low member of club. and left the question open.
 Turning now to other states, we find wide and irreconcilasble diversity of opinion on this question. -
 Having observed that this statute must be strictly construed with the sole thought of rationa1ly arriving at the intent of the Legislature fram- ing it, and that In it's construction any doubt or ambiguity must be re- solved in favor of. the accused; that the one case decided by any of the higher courts of this State holds that bona fide club may with impunity dispense liquors to it's members; that the highest courts in many states have held that bona fide clubs do not come within the laws relative to the sale of liquors, what, then, is the law of Connecticut on this question? Is the accucsed guilty of a violation of the liquor law of this State upon the facts agreed upon by the State and> the defendant? I think not. There can be no doubt that under all the de- cisions of all the courts that have passed on this question, if any man or body of men forms a club whose object is the dispensing of liquors or the evasion of the liquor laws, the courts will go long way in tearing away the disguise and punish those attempting such fraud. Where on the other hand, it Is admitted or clearly proved that the club in ques- tion is a bona fide club and that the of liquors Is but an inci- dent of the clubs activities; such a of liquors without a li- cense duly issued, is- not a violation of the law of Connecticut as 1t stands at the present time.
 I am therefore of the opinion that upon the agreed statement of facts, the accused is not guilty of the of fence charged in the information.
 A judgment of mot guilty" may be entered. {.
 JUDGE FOSTER.