The Waterbury Democrat., 1935-07-15
Judge f. P. McEuoy
 Gdue 7wo Decisions
(Continued from Page D

plaintiff for a new permit under the 1885 act or amendment of the 1883 act the commission is, tech nically, in different position. Assuming that an applicant for a permit under the new" 1885 law to be filed on July l, 1885, or July 2, 1885, the pseudo applicant was unable to procure the requisite and proper application and this failure was not to any intent or neglect on the part of the Liquor Control Commission but 1t came about through the delay necessarily caused to the Commission in its at- tempt to abide the results of the enactment of the Legislature at the 1885 session.
 In connection with this situation it is conceded that the time re- quired for the advertising and other essential details in connection with the application either for a renewal or a new permit Is at least twenty-two days.
 This does not necessarily mean that action upon the application is necessarily taken at the end or twenty-two days but t h Is is the minimum time which must elapse before any action may be taken in an orderly way.
 In the instant case the permit ot the applicant expired on July r. | 1885.
 If he filed an application for a new permit he could have no ac- tion before on or about Jul 22, | 1885.
 The Liquor Control Commission raised the question of law in para graph three of it's motion to dis solve the temporary injunction as | follows:
 "3. At the time of the granting of said temporary injunction there was no warrant in law under Chap ter 151 of the Public Acts of 1883, or any of the amendments thereto, which would give to the plaintin the right to conduct his said tavern business under said permit No. IT. 727 after July 2, 1885, at 12:OO p. m., whether said plaintiff had made application for renewal Of said tavern permit prior to July 2, 1895, or made application thereaft- CT for a new tavern permit under said Chapter 151 of the Public Acts 1 of 1893, as amended"
 In paragraph four of its motion to dissolve the injunction the Com mission alleges that it intends to file demurrer to the appeal taken by the plaintiff.
 The real, and practically the only, question now presented to the undersigned is: Should the injunc- ton be dissolved insofar as it af- fleets the named defendants who, alone of all defendants move for its dissolution? Tn the written memo randum filed by the named defend- ants upon argument of this motion 1t is said:
 Let the courts and prosecutors interpret the statutes as to convic- ton and legal prosecutions as they may but place no ban or stay by injunction upon q commission who obeys the mandate of these statutes and refuses to write into the law what the legislature inadvertently omitted; refuses to All up the gap or the void existlng--the period between the old and the new law"
 This is n reasonable and sound suggestion.
 The Legislature has reposed In the Liquor Control Commission the power to receive applications for and to act in tho matter of grant ing or refusing to grant permits or licenses, subject 10 the right of ap. peai Co tho courts.
 The Lglslature by various provi. HionH Of statute, indicated and des oIarod its intention that permittees shall not Do penalised for continu' ing business pending tho final aes ton Of the Liquor Control comHllss sion and if the court Co which an appeal may Do taken,
 Co ltn wisdom C, apparently, aIls iicipnied that lhefo mln8i Dc q difs ference of opinion an Co the TleeFls lna of construction Of ihe various .N1I|on1 og lbe flainIa ana tAal