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

club, acted as supervisor OF the
program.
fects the named defendants who,
alone of all defendants move for its
dissolution? In the written memo
randum filed by the named defend
ants upon argument Of this motion
it 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 a commission who
obeys the mandate of these statutes
and refuses to write into the law
what the legislature inadvertently
omitted; refuses to fill up the gap
or the void eXisting-the period
between the old and the new law"
This is a reasonable and sound
suggestion.
The Legislature has reposed in
the Liquor Control Commission the
power to receive applications for
and to act in the matter of grant,
ing or refusing to grant permits or
licenses, subject to the right of ap-
peal to the courts.
The legislature by various provi-
sions of statute, indicated and de-
clared its intention that permittees
shall not be penalized for continu-
ing business pending the final ac--
ton of the Liquor Control Commits
sion and IL the court to which an
appeal may be taken.
In its wisdom 1t, apparently, an
ticipated that there might be a diff
ference of opinion as to the mean
ing or construction of the various
sections Of the statute and that
there might be some difficulty in
reconciling them.
1t is significant that none of the
law enforcing officers who were in
cluded in the Injunction have join
ed in the motion to dissolve it.
It may ultimately be determined
upon hearing up merits that Liz
uor Control Commission has no au-
thority to renew the plaintiffs per-
NIT because it expired after July /,
1895.
It may be determined that the
plaintiff was required to apply for
new permit.
Upon these points no opinion is
herein expressed as such decision
is not within the purview of these
proceedings.
Upon argument of the motion it
was suggested by the named de-
PENDANTS that the plaintiff ought
to surrender his present permit
and apply for a new one or that
he ought to risk prosecution and.
If convicted, appeal therefrom.
1t Is to avoid just such hazards
that the injunction was asked and
granted.
The pertinent feature of the
Injunction now In force is that it
enjoins all of the defendants there
in named from instituting any ac-
tons, suits or proceedings, civil or
criminal, or for forfeitures or pen
alties against the plaintiff or against
the property of the plaintiff, by
reason of his continuing to operate
his tavern from July 2, 1895, until
said Liquor Control Commission
takes final action upon the appli-
cation of the plaintiff now pending
before it for tavern permit or
until further order of the court in
the premises. And the Liquor
Control Commission is further re-
strained from deeming the plaintiff
herein an unsuitable person to hold
a liquor control permit by reason
of any action hereunder or by
reason of his continuing to operate
his tavern under said injunction"
The first sentence quoted is prac-
tically in accord with the statutory
provisions respecting criminal pro-
ceedings.
The 1885 Act goes beyond the
terms of the 1888 Act and indi-
Gates an intention by the Legisla-
ture that all criminal proceedings
be stayed until after final action by
the Liquor Control Commission.
1t should be noted that none of
these statutes undertake to ulti-
mately eliminate criminal proceed
ings against permittees but merely
to suspend them until after final
action by the Liquor Control COM
mission.
A fair reading of this phase of
the injunction shows that the in
junction goes no further than to
affirm and require recognition of
the plain intent of the existing sta
tute.
The second sentence of the con-
GLIDING part of the Injunction
should be read and interpreted in
the light Of its real meaning and
purpose.
II 1t concluded with the word
permit" the injunction would con-
stitute an unwarranted invasion Of
the function of the Liquor Control
commission and usurpation Of au-
thprity by a judge not consistent |
with the obvious intent of the legis-
lature nor with the recognized and
weil-esta blished spirit OF comfy
and respect which has long char
acterized the executive, legislative
and judicial departments OF our
state.
The Liquor Control commission
10 not generally enjoined nor IL It |
required by mandatory Injunction
ITO refrain from deeming the plain
tin an unsuitable person to hold a
liquor control permit" but the re.
gtraint and Injunction ceme into
force only insofar M II may affect |
or be based upon action (hy che