City of West Haven v. Dean
| Decision Date | 03 December 1971 |
| Docket Number | Nos. CV,s. CV |
| Citation | 292 A.2d 263,6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 629 |
| Court | Circuit Court of Connecticut. Connecticut Circuit Court, Appellate Division |
| Parties | CITY OF WEST HAVEN v. Peter C. DEAN. CITY OF WEST HAVEN v. HAROLD MONOLITH ASSOCIATES, INC., et al. 8-707-9990, CV 8-709-10219. |
Pasquale Young, New Haven, for appellant, defendant Harold Monolith Associates, Inc.
William F. Gallagher, New Haven, for appellee, plaintiff.
The city of West Haven brought two actions to recover the cost of providing policemen at the defendants' restaurant over a period of many months. The two actions were consolidated for trial purposes. The defendants own and operate a restaurant in the city of West Haven. It has all the required licenses and liquor permits and has been in the restaurant business for eleven years. It can accommodate 278 persons and is open for business seven nights each week. A band or orchestra is always present to provide music for dancing, and on certain nights the orchestra is larger than on other nights. The liquor permits have never been suspended by the liquor control commission for the violation of any law or regulation.
The city of West Haven claims that the defendants are indebted to it in the amount of $2980 for having furnished police officers at the direction of the chief of police for a period covering many months. The defendants deny this claim and assert that the attendance of police officers at the restaurant was always under protest and that such protests were presented to commissioners of police of West Haven. The city claims that it is entitled to collect this amount because of § 7-284 of the General Statutes. 1 The trial court found the issues for the plaintiff to recover of the defendant corporation $1956. That defendant appeals from the judgment and assigns as error (1) the trial court's failure to correct the finding by adding thereto certain facts which were admitted or undisputed, and (2) its conclusion that the chief of police had authority to send officers to the restaurant and require the defendants to pay for the officers' attendance under § 7-284, when the facts found by the court do not support that conclusion and it is contrary to law. There are other assignments of error, but since we conclude that the city of West Haven cannot compel payment under the stated circumstances, the other assignments need not be considered.
The city of West Haven contends that, because on certain nights a larger orchestra is in attendance at the restaurant and a currently popular style of dancing goes on there, it then becomes a place of public amusement. The city also contends that a large criminal element attends on these nights. Because of this, the city claims that pursuant to § 7-284 its chief of police can require the defendants to pay for the attendance of police officers at the restaurant and to pay for as many police officers as the chief of police shall determine are needed. The city does not assert that any law is being violated by the defendants but claims that the restaurant becomes a place of public amusement.
The principal question involved in this appeal is the construction and application of § 7-284 of the General Statutes. Had the legislature intended this statute to apply to restaurants and to dancing in restaurants, it would have been a simple matter for it so to state. It did not. This statute governs games, exhibitions or contests.
The general rule that specific provisions of a statute qualify and supply exceptions to general provisions was recognized and applied by the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morascini v. Commissioner of Public Safety
...claim as an alternative ground for affirmance on appeal, we need not decide it.7 This case is distinguishable from West Haven v. Dean, 6 Conn.Cir.Ct. 629, 292 A.2d 263 (1971), on which the plaintiff relies. In Dean, the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court concluded that a restaurant tha......