The Waterbury Democrat., 1935-07-15

tors had engaged in teh legal skir- mish, but only the liquor control board, and said:
 Avoid Harshness
 "It ought to be possible, and it is expedient for the peace and order of the whole community, that harshness be avoided and that all applicants, the commission and all enforcement officers cooperate that the rights of all concerned be protected and respected"
 Ballard obtained the injunction after the board obtained a ruling that all taverns should close their doors between the time of expira- ton of their permits, July l, and July 22 when the board anticipated new licenses would be ready.
 Ballard claimed that inasmuch as no provision had been made by law for continuing his business pending issuance of the new per- mits he should not be compelled to suffer loss of business because of inability of the board to get its new system quickly into operation.
 luc OHHClht lCCASlOH "uS us
 Follows
 PETER BALLARD vs. FRANK s. BERGEN, EFT AL, constituting the Liquor Control Commission ARTHUR M. BROWN, States At torney for New London County; and ALBERT J. BAILEY, Prose- cutting Attorney of the Town Court of Norwich.
 SUPERIOR COURT FOR HARTFORD COUNTY, Before HON. FRANK P. McEVOY, a Judge of the Superior Court, at Waterbury, July 15, 1885.
 Memorandum of decision on motion to dissolve temporary injunction as to the defendants, Frank $. Bergin, Samuel R. Spencer and John Buckley, con- sfituting the Liquor Control Commission.
 Upon application duly made to the undersigned a temporary in function in favor of the plaintiff and against all of the named de- fendants was granted.
 On July 5, 1885, motion to dis solve the temporary injunction in- solar as it applies to the defend ants who constitute the members of the Liquor Control Commission was made by the named defend ants, Frank $. Bergin, Samuel R Spencer and John Buckley.
 The other defendants, named in said injunction. are all enforce nI motion to dissolve the injunction.
 They are therefore not parties to the present proceedings.
 Upon the present proceeding no evidence was offered.
 Counsel were heard in oral ar gunaents and briefs were also filed.
 Upon the present whole record if does not appear that the named defendants intended to nor that thev did act arbitrarily or un- reasonably.
 On the contrary It appears that the members of the commission ssendeavored to act fairly. reason ably. and with due regard and con alteration for the rights of all who might be affected by any act or action of this commission and l ilnd no basis for any claim that in any of its actions or rulings this commission was In any way biased or actuated by any motives except to render the best possible service lo fhe state of Connecticut
 The named defendants are obvl- ouely perplexed in their attempt 70 faIrIy interpret and reconcile tho eenAlcting provisions Of the Pub' nc Acts of 1888 and of 1883 inSo. far as they relate Co the actions oi fhe llau .F control ooinmlaslon,
 The main difficulty arises rom Iiss ntfampt te define the status oi |Aoaa permiftees whose permits ek' sizs after July 1, 1885, ..
 The commission claims that ~ &az aa authority Co Fenew sueh &Sfmlfn. whether the application zzz lie fe4leWai Wnn made prior 70 IaIf s, fDak of fef . sew permit ..6dnf c|laniff iel. Public Acts oi I*zz. az Amfaae9.
 t& f5 sf fnH''G1i'pn Nf N1