Biz v. Liquor Control Comm'n.

• Decision Date: 01 May 1947
• Citation: 133 Conn. 556,53 A.2d 655
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: BIZ v. LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION.

133 Conn. 556

53 A.2d 655

BIZ

v.LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

May 1, 1947.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Tolland County; Molloy, Judge.

Proceedings in the matter of the appeal of Vasco F. Biz from an order of the Liquor Control Commission denying appellant's application for a permit to conduct a package liquor store. From a judgment dismissing the appeal, applicant appeals.

No error.

John Buckley, of Hartford, and Joel H. Reed, 2d, of Stafford Springs, for appellant (plaintiff).

William L. Hadden, Atty. Gen., and Harry L. Brooks and Pasquale Vioni, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee (defendant).

Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS, and DICKENSON, JJ.

DICKENSON, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas dismissing an appeal from a ruling of the liquor control commission denying the plaintiff a package store permit. The trial court heard no additional testimony, deciding the case upon the evidence before the commission. There was, therefore, no occasion for the court to make a finding of facts and we do not consider the one which it made or the plaintiff's assignment of error in the denial of a correction of it. Sorensen v. Cox, 132 Conn. 583, 587, 46 A.2d 125; Dion v. Dion, 128 Conn. 416, 417, 23 A.2d 314.

The plaintiff's claims are that General Statutes, Sup.1945, § 634h(3), upon which the denial of a permit was based, is unconstitutional as an unwarranted delegation of legislative authority to the commission; that, if the subsection is constitutional, the facts do not warrant the action of the commission; and that the term ‘a suitable place,’ as used in § 640h, refers to a plot, building or structure alone, and not, as the trial court held, to a ‘community.’

Section 634h is as follows: ‘The commission may, except as to a store engaged chiefly in the sale of groceries, refuse to grant permits for the sale of alcoholic liquor if it has reasonable cause to believe: (1) That the proximity of the permit premises will have a detrimental effect upon any church, public or parochial school, convent, charitable institution, whether supported by private or public funds, hospital or veterans' home or any camp, barracks or flying field of the armed forces; (2) that such location is in such proximity to a no-permit town that it is apparent that the applicant is seeking to obtain the patronage of such town; (3) that the number of permit premises in the locality is such that the granting of a permit is detrimental to public interest, and, in reaching a conclusion in this respect, the commission may consider the character of, the population of, the number of like permits and number of all permits existent in, the particular town and the immediate neighborhood concerned, the effect which a new permit may have on such town or neighborhood or on like permits existent in such town or neighborhood; (4) that the place has been conducted as a lewd or disorderly establishment, or (5) that there is any other reason as provided by state or federal law or regulation which warrants such refusal.’

The plaintiff apparently does not contend that the legislature has no power to delegate any discretionary authority. His claim, as indicated by the authorities he relies upon, is that subsection (3) contains no primary standards sufficient to guide the commission in its enforcement. Specifically, he questions whether, in granting the commission power to determine whether a permit would be detrimental to public interest because of the number of permits in the locality and in the immediate neighborhood involved, the legislature furnished a sufficient standard, or left too much to the discretion of the commission.

In Connecticut Baptist Convention v. Mc. Carthy, 128 Conn. 701, 25 A.2d 656, where the mayor of a city of more than ten thousand population was given legislative authority to issue certificates of approval of location for gasoline stations, we held that there were no standards set up for the determination of suitable locations and that the act was unconstitutional as an unauthorized delegation of authority to the mayor. In Devaney v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 132 Conn. 537, 540, 45 A.2d 828, 829, we said that ‘To attempt to give to any small group of individuals such as a zoning commission or appeal board the power to determine in the exercise of its unrestricted discretion what uses might be made of the properties in a community would not only be contrary to sound social policy but clearly unconstitutional.’ And see State v. Van Keegan, 132 Conn. 33, 36, 42 A.2d 352. In State v. Stoddard, 126 Conn. 623, 13 A.2d 586, where extensive powers were given to a milk administrator by the legislature, we held, at page 628 of 126 Conn., at page, 588 of 13 A.2d, that, while the legislature in creating a law complete in itself and designed to accomplish a particular purpose, may expressly authorize an administrative agency to fill up the details by prescribing rules and regulations for its enforcement, in order to make such a delegation of power constitutional the statute must ‘declare a legislative policy, establish primary standards for carrying it out, or lay down an intelligible principle to which the administrative officer or body must conform, with a proper regard for the protection of the public interests and with such degree of certainty as the nature of the case permits, and enjoin a procedure under which, by appeal or otherwise, both public interests and private rights shall have due consideration.’ And see H. Duys & Co. v. Tone, 125 Conn. 300, 312, 5 A.2d 23, and cases therein cited.

The general purpose of the act must be considered in construing it; Leete v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 87...