New Britain herald., 1929-07-11

commencement or the same, and De- cause the alleged renewal of the permit dated November 21. 1925, was unlawful. The city court sus- tained this demurrer on the ground that the work of building the cul- vert and the filling in were only a preparation of the land for the be- ginning of construction within the meaning of the ordinance. The su- perior court on appeal sustained the view of the city court and made the | injunction permanent. and the de- | fendant then appealed to this court. Injunction Blocked Construction
 Tt is found as a fact that the con- struction of the gas station could have been completed within one year 1 from the date of the adoption of the zoning ordinance save for the in | junction, and this leaves a single question of interpretation for our consideration, viz: whether the de- fendant began the construction of i the station for which he had per init within three months after the date of the permit.
 eve take judicial notice of what a so-called gas filling station con- sists. It is defined with substantial comprehensiveness in the complaint made by the city in present action | and includes not only the house or building provided for the storage of supplies and the use and shelter i of the operatives but also tanks, l pumps. structures and filling station l | for business purposes and the sup | plying of gas and oil for automobiles of the general public It also in- cludes of necessity, suitable ap- breaches and exits at substantially the level of the street. It is apparent | that this was what the defendant sought permits to construct and use upon these premises, and that this was what the permits allowed him | to do. The established facts also ren- der it apparent that the permits were issued with the understanding | of the authorities that the 'construc- ton could not be made complete unless the culvert and filling in were | first done. To have given 8 permit | | simply to erect a building on the | | lafd in it's then condition would have been giving the defendant right to do an impossible thing. The intent of | the officials clearly was to permit | the defendant to place a complete gas station at this point on the 1 highway and it is this complete sta ton or plant which is prohibited by the ordinance. We do not think ei- ther the permit or the ordinance in- tended only that part of the station which could be called a house or building, but both must be consider ed as referring to the station as whole.
 Did Begin "Constructon''
 "When the defendant began the actual work of installing the gas station on these premises he had be- gun the construction of the gas station. He had begun the work which all parties contemplated and expected would be done This is broad interpretation of the eXcep- ton provision of the ordinance, but it effectuates the intent of the excep- ton as we view it. The exception we think fairly seeks to avoid the un- just imposition of loss upon those who have in good faith and in re- liance upon the act of the city thus invested their money and labor in building operations. To fail to pro- tect this defendants investment of about S4500 in reliance upon the city's permit would be unfair and in- equitable. This is an equitable action and he who seeks equity must do equity. We are bound to assume that the intent to do equity inheres in this exception and the language used fairly permits the interpreta- ton we have given it; nor do we think a proper consideration of pub lie interests or policies dictates the narrow construction of the ordinance which the city now seeks to put on it.
 "The definitive or Pathological significance of the word 'construC- ton is not conclusive of the legisla- tive intent in this provision of the ordnance. Rather do we attach sig
  word in other legislative enactments in this state.
 Favors Liberal Interpretation
 I've are satisfied that the bene- ficial purpose underlying both enact ments can only be fully served by the liberal interpretation we give them, and we accordingly hold in the instant case that the defendant began the work of constructing the gas station authorized by his permit within the three months period pre- scrbed.
 The plaintiff in it's brief dis cusses the question whether the orig inal permit of May 2l, 1925. was lawfully issued, but the defendants brief makes no mention of the ques- tion and it was not argued on the appeal
 Under these circumstances we can only treat the permit as lawfully issued and any question of it's legal ity as not properly before us,
 There is error and the cause is remanded with direction to enter judgment for the defendant for the defendant"
 Railroad oNt Responsible for Grapes
 A finding in favor of the railroad. sustaining the opinion of Judge Howard of the court of common pleas was handed down by the state