The Waterbury Democrat., 1938-01-19

Liquor dealers throughout the state today regarded with interest the finding of Judge Frank P. Mo- Evoy in Superior Court yesterday, which recognized the appeal of Mrs. Elizabeth Saginario from the action of the Liquor Control Commission in revoking her restaurant license.
 Statewide Reaction
 The main question raised by the appeal was the allegation that Mrs. Saginario violated stipulation at tached to the original granting of her liquor permit. Numerous other liquor dealers, throughout the state, also have permits affected by such stipulations.
 Attorney Thomas F. McGrath ap- peared for Mrs. Saginario and As siStant Attorney General Leo Gaff- ney appeared for the liquor control. The memorandum of Judge Mo- Evoy'S decision is as follows:
 "In the report of the Referee it appears that on March g, 1886 the appellant signed and filed with the appellee stipula- tion in which 1t was, substantially, agreed by the appellant that she would not employ her husband to perform any work in connec- ton with said restaurant, nor would he be permitted on the premises. In that stipulation the appellant further agreed that any violation of the conditions of this stipulation, will result in a revoca- tion forthwith of my permit with out notice or hearing
 "The stipulation was apparently worded by the appellee and is drastic. Since the stipulation pro- vides for forthwith revocation and without notice or hearing it is essential that its provisions be examined carefully as to its perti- hence in accordance with the law and the regulations of the con- mission.
 Unsuitability
 "The basis for it's ,exaction seems to have been that in Oc- tober, 1885, the husband of the appellant applied for restaurant permit and that this was denied on account of the unsuitability of the place for which the permit was asked. There were further proceedings with reference to that application and also in reference to another application and finally all were withdrawn-that is, the second application was withdrawn and the first was denied.
 subsequently, when the appel lant filed her application for permit she was, apparently, re- quired to file the stipulation in question. It is obvious that there was no connection between the denial of the application filed by the husband and his character or reputation - however the same may be termed. The denial was on account of unsuitability Of place-not of unsuitability of per- son. It may be that there was unsuitability of person but it does not appear in the record and it may, therefore, not be taken into consideration,-if it exists. Upon the argument no claim was made as to unsuitability of person - that is, of the husband.
 | Regulations
 Tt does not appear in the rec ord and it was not claimed upon the argument that there is any, thing in the statutory regulations nor in the regulations of the 1 commission which imposes this vicarious connection. Upon the record it would appear that the stipulation upon which the claim for revocation is made was eX- acted from the appellant without authority of law and without any basis in any of the regulations of the commission. Under these cir cumstances, whether the Stipula- tien carried over from year to an other is of no importance. If It had no basis in fact or in law 1t