Rose v. Liquor Control Com'n
| Decision Date | 09 June 1938 |
| Citation | 199 A. 925,124 Conn. 689 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | ROSE v. LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Edward J. Quinlan Judge.
Proceeding before the Liquor Control Commission to consider whether the liquor permit of John D. Rose should be revoked because of unsuitability of person. From a judgment of the superior court sustaining an order of the Liquor Control Commission revoking the permit, John D. Rose appeals.
No error.
David M. Rosen, of Stamford, for appellant.
Frank J. DiSesa, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Charles J. McLaughlin, Atty Gen., for appellee.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HINMAN, AVERY, BROWN, and JENNINGS JJ.
The plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court from the action of the liquor control commission in revoking his restaurant beer permit. The reason for that revocation was that police officers had found a minor girl drinking beer on the premises. The plaintiff was not present at the time. The beer had been served by the bartender. He had previously been notified not to sell to minors. He was arrested convicted and fined $100 and costs. The Liquor Control Act subjects to criminal prosecution any permittee who by himself, his servant or agent, shall sell or deliver alcoholic liquor to any minor, and alcoholic liquor is defined by the statute to include beer. General Statutes Cum.Sup.1935, §§ 1012c and 1071c. The act at the time of the matters involved in this appeal provided that when any permittee should be convicted of a violation of any of the provisions of the act, he should, in addition to the penalties imposed for the offense, incur a forfeiture of his permit and that the commission must revoke it. The act also gave the commission power on its own motion to revoke any permit upon cause found after due hearing. § 1052c. Had the plaintiff been convicted under the provisions of § 1071c of the sale to the minor, the statute at the time made it the duty of the commission to revoke his permit. § 1053c. As he was not so convicted, this imperative obligation resting upon the commission did not come into existence. The fact of the sale to the minor remained, however, for the commission to consider in determining whether to exercise its discretion to revoke the permit. Wilks v. Liquor Control Commission, 122 Conn. 443, 445, 190 A. 262. The statute makes plain the legislative policy that alcoholic liquor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hughes
...the instrumentality of a licensed or permitted activity. State v. Lougiotis, 130 Conn. 372, 376, 34 A.2d 777; Rose v. Liquor Control Commission, 124 Conn. 689, 690, 199 A. 125; State v. Koenig, 120 Conn. 39, 44, 178 A. 923; State v. Faro, 118 Conn. 267, 270, 171 A. 660; State v. Katz, 122 C......
-
State v. Erlandson
...knowledge, or even against his express prohibition.' 8 R.C.L., Criminal Law, sec. 17, p. 66, notes 17 and 18. See: Rose v. Liquor Control Commission, 124 Conn. 689, 199 A. 925; State v. Grams, 241 Wis. 493, 6 N.W.2d 191, 192; State v. Schull, 66 S.D. 102, 279 N.W. 241, 115 A.L.R. 1226; Mogl......
-
State v. Chernov, CR
...sell or deliver alcoholic liquor to any minor, and alcoholic liquor is defined by the statute to include beer.' Rose v. Liquor Control Commission, 124 Conn. 689, 690, 199 A. 925; see General Statutes §§ 30-86, 30- 113. 'Beer with an alcoholic content of less than one half of one per cent by......
-
Balog v. Liquor Control Com'n
...defendant, whether of revocation or suspension. See cases such as Welch v. McKane, 55 Conn. 25, 29, 10 A. 168; Rose v. Liquor Control Commission, 124 Conn. 689, 690, 199 A. 925. The plaintiff lays great stress on Koval v. Liquor Control Commission, 149 Conn. 63, 64, 175 A.2d 358. That case ......