The Waterbury Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury, Conn.) 1917-1946, 1935-07-16

4
Waterbury, July Is, 1885.
Memorandum of decision ON
motion to dissolve temporary
Injunction as to the defendants,
| Frank S. Bergin, Samuel II.
Spencer and John Buckley, con-
stituting the Liquor Control
Commission.
Upon application duly made to
the undersigned temporary in
junction in favor of the plaintiff
and against all of the named de-
PENDANTS was granted.
On July S, 1895, motion to dis
solve the temporary injunction in
sofar as it applies to the defend
ants who constitute the members
of the Liquor Control Commission
was made by the named defend
ants, Frank S. Bergin, Samuel r.
Spencer and John Buckley.
The other defendants, named in
said injunction, are all enforce
ment officers and have made no
motion to dissolve the injunction.
They are therefore not parties to
the present proceedings.
opOu LllC III OoSAb pAOSOCNAh5 hS
evidence was offered.
Counsel were heard in oral ar
guments and briefs were also filed.
Upon the present whole record
it does not appear that the named
defendants intended to nor that
they did act arbitrarily or un-
reasonably.
On the contrary it appears that
the members of the commission
"endeavored to act fairly, reason
ably, and with due regard and con-
sideration for the rights of all who
might be affected by any act or
action of this commission and
find no basis for any claim that in
any of it's actions or rulings this
commission was in any way biased
or actuated by any motives except
to render the best possible service
to the state of Connecticut"
The named defendants are obvi-
oLsly perplexed in their attempt to
fairly interpret and reconcile the
conflicting provisions of the Pub
lie Acts of 1888 and of 1885 inso-
far as they relate to the actions Uf
the liqu control commission.
The main difficulty arises from
the attempt to define the status OF
those permittees whose permits ex-
pire after July l, 1885.
The commission claims that 1t
has no authority to renew such
permits, whether the application
for the renewal was made prior to
July 2, 1895 or for new permit
Dtyh1in ANfC nf
1898, as amended.
AS to an application by the
PLAINTIFF for a new permit under
the 1895 act or amendment of the
1898 act the commission Is, tech
nically, in a different position.
Assuming that an applicant for
a permit under the new" 1885 law
to be filed on July 1. 1895, 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
il is conceded that the time re-
quired for the advertising and
other essential details in connection
with the application either for
renewal or a new permit Is at
least twenty-five days.
This does not necessarily mean
that action upon the application
is necessarily taken at the end OF
twenty-five 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 of
the applicant expired on July q
1895.
If he filed an application for a
new permit he could have no ac-
ton before on or about Jul ~,
1895.
The Liquor Control Commission
raised the question of law in para
graph three of its 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 ISL of the Public Acts of 1898,
or any of the amendments thereto,
which would give to the plaintiff
the right to conduct his said tavern
business under said permit No. T.
727 after July 2, 1895, at 1880
p. M, whether said plaintiff had
made application for renewal Of
said tavern permit prior to July 2,
1895, or made application thereaft-
er for a new tavern permit under
said Chapter ISL of the Public Acts
of 1888, as amended"
In paragraph four of its motion
to dissolve the Injunction the Com
mission alleges that it intends to
file a 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 asst at