New Britain herald., 1924-01-29
Decision Filed In Cases Of 10 Men Arrested In Raid At 3O7 Laf- ayette Street.
Refers to Arrest on Su- perior Court Bench War rant and Advises Follow ing Precedent Established There.


 Trequenters of places where liquor is sold or reputed to be sold are sub- jeci to arrest and conviction, accord ing to the decision read this morn ing in city police court by Judge Ben jamin W. filling on the motion of the defense that the charges against eight of the ten men arrested during raid on the store at BOT Lafayette street on December 29, be dismissed. The decision sets a precedent for New Britain in the line of prohibition en- forccment, as never before have the mon who were present at a place where liquor was found during d raid been arrested, the police dealing only with tho proprietor.
 The case is the result of a raid made upon the store at S07 Lafayette street and owned by Stanislaw Ogon- owslii, December %, when members of the local detective bureau visited the place armed with u search war rant and found q quantity of liquor. There were ten men in the store at the time or the raid besides Ogon- uwSk and the police arrested them all. charging Ogonowski with keep ing liquor with intent to sell. on Nnich charge he was fined $500 and gwen 30 days suspended sentence.
 Tine other men were charged with frrqurnting. and when their case vas called in the city court. Attorney Michael SeSton made q motion that Inc charges be dismissed as there was G1 lpw on the statute books that per tAincd 10 the ease. Judge Alling asked that the attorney submit q brief on the case, and Prosecuting Attorney Joseph U. Woods submitted a brief Tor the prosecution
 +oiioN Ing thr waxing Of the de- rjsinr d tss, WIS assati by Attorney ; tDH nlter which the cases were ii posed ol 0" pices Of guilty by the atl,Hdiuts Tuny kozhonowlcz and iptrj Grl.iewic1, both of whom haNt beca convicted three times for tioiaiion ol tho liquor laws, were huad thn maximum of s50; Adam l'aWioswk. Hcianti kulGs and Adam Dn.l. ,ull convicted on one occasion pre- cNivnsly. were fined s2b. and s10 Hn,s were imposed upon Charles kpfdrk. Dominic Selanik, Adam Eumbis. Stlni.,law ltomolowsli.
 Judge al'ing's Decision.
 1ur decision of Jndge Alling fol. lows
 "Tbe information upon which the accused arc before thS court pur- ports iu charge a violation of that portion of Section aSia Of the general statutes which reads as follows:
 Every minor and every person 10 \ hom the sale Of spifiiuous and in- tosirsting liquors Is by law forbid den who shall enter any place where tuch liquors arc sold or repnted to be solo. ,o be drunk on the premises. or who shall purchase or attempt to purchase such liquors, or who shall makr any false statement for the pur- pose of procuring such liquors. shall b. fined not more than fifty dollars Csa0.gO.D
 'The facts in this ease over which there can be no dispute arc: That on the goth day Of December, 1923, tho accused were in the store known as No. 2o7 Lafayette street in the town uf New Britain. then place which had the reputation of being and which was in fact q place where l Epirituous and intoxicating liquors were sold to be drunk upon the prem ises.
 There vas no evidence before the l court to show that the accused eith- 1 CT purchased or attempted to pur l chase any liquor. nor was there any | evidence before the court to show 1 that the accused come within that | class of persons to whom the sale Of l spiri;uous and intoxicatinga liquors Is | by law forbidden. Hl
 The state claims that since the pa ssage of Chapter 291 Of the Pub lie Acts of 1921 the sale of spirituous and intoxicating liquors is under all prohibited by law: that because of this prohibition the sale to sn persons IS forbidden and there fore that the accused come within the class of persons to whom the sale of spirituous and intoxicating liquors Is ty law forbidden, and that they are therefore liable under the provisions of section zs1s of the General Stat utes.
 'sThe accused on the contrary claim that Section 2s1s was passed for specific purpose; namely. to prevent ,,ersons to whom the sale of spirituOus and intoxicating liquors was by law forbidden to enter the premises where such liquors were sold to be drupk upon the premises and that sections s7g3, zTs4 and 27s5 defne the ones who form the class to which the sale of spirituous and intoxicat- ing Iiouors is by law forbidden, that inc accused have not been shown to cor,e within this class and that the motion to discharge should be grant eJ.
 s.Tbe question involved here then k the construction of Section 2sIs zhich. being q penal statute. is to be strictly and fairly construed and not
 sfs,...ss.-.-,.a ,.r, Tfara GevGrfperfN