The Waterbury Democrat., 1935-07-12

Judge Frank P. McEvoy re- served decision on two important liouor injunction proceedings brought before him in superior court at Waterbury to-day, which have bearing on liquor permits expiring between July and July 22, throughout the, state. The hear ing of the applications occupied the attention of Judge McEvoy the entire morning.
 The first matter was in the na- ture of an application presented by Deputy Attorney General Harry Brooks of Hartford, asking Judge McEvoy to dissolve the in- function obtained earlier Tn the month by Peter Ballard of Nor wich, restraining the liquor com mission from taking any action against him in the operation of his tavern until his old application Is renewed, or a new application is granted. His permit expired on July l.
 No Provision Made
 The state legislature in adopting fits new liquor law, made no pro- visions for those permitees whose permits expire between July and July 22, the date when new appli- cations will start to be issued.
 The second matter was present. ed through counsel in behalf of the Connecticut Retail Package Stores association. The associa- ton wants Judge McEvoy to de- termine whether the permits with which the package stores have been operating, may be continued tn full force, and effect by the fil- ing of applications for renewals.
 Counsel for Parties
 The firm of Schofield and Wood house and Attorney Fisher of New Haven appeared for Ballard asking that the injunction be made per- manent. Attorney Brooks ap- peared for the state liquor com mission and the attorney generals office in both matters.
 Meyers & Meyers of Waterbury, Weisman & Weisman of New Ha- ven and Attorney Jacob Maretz of New Haven appeared for the pack age stores.
 
 Deputy Attorney-General Brooks declared himself in sympathy with the positions of the parties at is- sue with the liquor commission and said that while the attorney generals office conceded it is a hardship upon permitees in Bal laro's predicament, yet the attorney generals office wanted to be as broadminded as possible in apply ing the law. He conceded that the legislature never intended that all persons falling in the position of Ballard, should close their doors because their license expired be- tween Judy and Judy 22.
 He stated, however, that the claim covers them. He added that the commission did not know what they had been enjoined from, the issuance of the injunction in Bal laro's favor, because they had done nothing that was not strictly within the law. He pointed out [ that ip 4efusing to grant a renew al to Ballard, the commission could not have done otherwise, nor could the commission grant a new li- cense. He mentioned also that there is an unjust charge against the commission in the injunction.
 Demur To Proceedings
 After the position of the pack age store owners was presented to Judge McEvoy, who incidentally, announced from the bench that he was sitting as a judge in chambers and only in court for convenience, Deputy Acknowledgement Brooks stated he would demur to the en- tire proceedings. He said he did not know why the proceedings were instituted in the first place. He suggested that better pro- cedure would have been for the permittees who believed themselves in an unjust position, to have gone ahead with their businesses, even though their permits had expired and to have applications for new permits under the new law. Then. he pointed out, if the state au- thorities. such as county and state prosecutors, stepped in, 1t would