New Britain herald., 1924-12-27
WOODING PERMIT
 STANDS AS O. K.
Public Works Board Refuses to
 ACcede to Council Request

The board Of public works, at an adjourned meeting held yesterday afternoon, voted to recommend 10 the common council that the appli- cation Of c, II. Wooding for a per nit to move two houses owned by Attorney George Levitt, from Pino 10 Ellis streets through Cherry street be granted.
 Yesterday afternoons meeting was held as result of the decision of the common council to have the board of public works reconsider it's first action. The board first voted to recommend to the common coun- cil that the permit be granted and the recommendation was adopted, but in the meantime a remoustrance }-as circulated to have the common council reconsider lis action. This petition, which was signed by about 4Q people. set forth that the permit should be revoked because of the danger which would be incurred as result Of the blocking of the streets along the route to be followed, It was the receipt of this remonstrance which led the council 10 rescind Tits former action and request the board of public works to take the matter up again.
 At a meeting held last Tuesday night the board Of public works yot- ed to request the corporation coun- sel for a decision in the matter and in answer to this request Corpora ton Counsel Kirkham submitted the following communication:
 Board Of Public Works,
 "Now Britain, Conn,
 Dear Sjrs:
 Tn general the common council and the building commission have not the right to revoke or modify the permits given to Woo1ing, without making him or the parties that he represents, just compensation, but neither he nor they will be entitled to expected profits of which they might be deprived.
 "Therc is ,his exception, however, Under is police powers, the city, as represented by the common council, has the right to rescind or modify the permit as such permits are made upon the implied condition under stood and accepted by the grantee, that if the safety, health or morals Of the public shall require the rescis- sion or modification of permit, it may 50 h" rescinded or modelled.
 No rights Of third persons have vested in this case, as Wooding was simply the agent Of the owners Of the buildings and received a permit lN the same way that an architect receives a permit as agent for the owner of the house.
 "In that ease, the question then that the city has is this; Does the safety. health or morals Of the pub Tie require a revocation or modifca- ton of the permit? Is public nuis arce being created? Is there a manifest and material danger from fires, highway accidents, etc?
 There being 10 rights of third persons, but only the rights of the liccnsee himself involved. it is my opinion that if the situation is really a serious one. then the licensee hav- ing been granted his permit upon the implied condition that it might be rcscindnd or modified, that the city would not hn liable for damages. In any event, f the permit is revoked, The rceneee should be given hear irg and the license fee rendered Lack.
 " IS only fair 70 add that there IS q gr-at conflict Of decisions in the courts and in different jurisdictions rpon the qu.s stion Of whether a H. censee would be entitled 10 comptn- sa,ion on revocation of a permit from tho city. Various provisions of s-s,o laws and city charters enter so1ewla. into these iro'stons. Tlere is no r.porlel rasr fin CorN"c'icut so frr AS I car G.1, dirccr'y on tEs Ic.ot.
 "Nours respfr''u''N
 U. IT EIEKITAN,
 "COrDora+iOn CourscD'