The Waterbury Democrat., 1938-11-02
Three Liquor Dealers
 Lose Their Licenses
(Continued from Page D

Continued was simply said that Becker and Mulligan had served sandwiches with beer, and the general inference was that 6 sandwich might be con- sidered Q meal.
 Judge Simpson Backs Him Judge Simpson substantiates this opinion of Referee Peasley, but claims that the Becker and Mulli- gan cases are no different from the Keenan case, insofar as the cover for sale of liquor" allegation is con- cerned. "The court can see no dis tinction in the other two cases"
 while a sandwich may under certain circumstances constitute a meal, yet when served as a pretext for the purpose of obtaining or the sale of intoxicating liquors, it is not the service of liquors with meals, but rather the service of liquor on the pretext of serving food" the de- cision states.
 All Matter of Intention Liquor dealers believe that in this statement, Judge Simpson upholds that contention of the liquor com- mission that 'it is all 8 matter of intention" Meaning that if a man enters Q tavern for sandwich and casually orders a beer on Sunday he is within the law. But if a man enters the tavern for beer, and takes a sandwich just to cover the re- straints of the liquor act, he is vio- lating the law.
 Judge Simpson says that "the commission might have been more specific in stating it's reason for revoking the permits" although he admits it is not strictly necessary for it to do 80. Tt would be good practice and helpful if 1t did," he states.
 Text of Finding
 The complete text of Judge Simp. sons memorandum is as follows:
 Memorandum of Decision
 "While these three cases are not companion cases, the same principles of law are involved in each, and may be considered to- gether.
 "The three cases are appeals from an order of the Liquor Con- trol Commission. The cases were referred to 6 state referee to hear the facts and the cases came be- fore the court upon motion for judgment fin accordance with the referees report" no remonStrance having been filed.
 Each of the appellants operate restaurant in the City of Water bury and had been given a permit by the liquor control commission to sell intoxicating liquors in his restaurant.
 Notice was served upon each of the appellants on July 27, 1888 that his restaurant liquor permit had been revoked after Q hearing. The reason given for the revoca- tion in each instance was: Sales of alcoholic liquors on Sunday without menus" in violation of sec tion 1074c of the Cumulative Sup- plement 1895.
 "In case number 12806, 'Keen- ar), the referee has found that on Sunday, July 10, 1898, at 2:10 D. m. Frank A. Farren of Bridgeport and his wife entered appellants restaurant, took seats at table and were approached by one of appellants walters. MT. Farren or- dered two Rum Collins drinks and was informed by the waiter that he would be unable to serve drinks except with food, whereupon Mrs. Farren said to the waiter, That is too bad because we have just had our dinner" MT. Farren then or- dered two cheese sandwiches which were served with the two Rum Collins drinks. MT. Farren and his wife, having consumed the sand. wiches and having finished the drinks served herewith, then or. dered two more Rum Collins drinks and those were served to them without further food service. The referee reached the conclusion that the sale of the sandwiches was a mere cover for the sale of the liquor.
 "The facts of the other two cases are essentially the same, and are that on Sunday, July 10, 1888. John T. Donahue of Bridgeport. an inspector of the appellee, en- tered the appellants restaurant and went to the bar and ordered a glass of beer, and was told by the bartender in one case that to get the beer he would have to or- der something to eat. In each in- stance after being informed as above stated. MT. Donahue ordered a sandwich which was served with the beer, and in each instance, be. fore having consumed the sand- wich, Mr. Donahue ordered and was served another beer.
 ''The commission gave no other reason for revoking the permits than "Sales of alcoholic liquor on Sunday without meals"
 'The Issue before the court is whether the commission acted ar- fAtfNnraISr f,1s aI1aeso1 11xv ~, se ssva~an