State v. Penner

• Decision Date: 13 June 1912
• Citation: 83 A. 625,85 Conn. 481
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. PENNER.

83 A. 625

85 Conn. 481

STATE v. PENNER.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

June 13, 1912

Appeal from Criminal Court of Common Pleas, Fairfield County; James F. Walsh, Judge.

William West Penner was convicted of entering a place with intent to buy spirituous and intoxicating liquors at unlawful hours and with being found in such place, and he appeals, alleging error in overruling a demurrer to the information and to the charge of the court. Reversed.

John J. Phelan, of Bridgeport, for appellant.

Elmore S. Banks, Pros. Atty., and Albert J. Merritt, both of Bridgeport, for appellee.

RALPH WHEELER, J.

The information charges, in substance, that on the 8th day of October, 1911, William West Penner, not being the proprietor of the place at No. 646 Main street, in the town of Bridgeport, where spirituous and intoxicating liquors were then exposed for sale, did, with intent to purchase intoxicating liquor, enter said place at certain hours during which it was unlawful for said place to be open for the sale of such liquors or to expose the same for sale, and was found in said place during said hours. Nothing is said of license of the place or proprietor in the information.

The finding shows that no license for the sale of intoxicating liquors at said place, No. 646 Main street, in the town of Bridgeport, had been issued by the county commissioners of Fairfield county prior to October 8, 1911 that the accused at the time and between the hours stated in the information entered said place with the intent to purchase intoxicating liquor, and was found in said place during said hours; and that he was not the proprietor of such place, nor an officer or other person visiting such place for the purpose of ascertaining if the law was being violated therein.

There is no section of the statutes which provides for the punishment of a person who enters a place where intoxicating liquors are sold or are exposed for sale with the intent to buy liquors, or who is found in such place, unless it be section 2701 of the General Statutes as amended by chapter 78 of the Public Acts of 1903, and as further amended by chapter 19 of the Public Acts of 1905. It is not suggested that the defendant is amenable under any other statute. The sole question, therefore, presented upon the record, is, Does section 2701 of the General Statutes as so amended apply only to places licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors therein, or does that section apply to unlicensed places as well as to licensed places? As amended, section 2701 reads " Every person, who with intent to purchase intoxicating liquors shall enter any place of any kind or description in which spirituous and intoxicating liquors are licensed to be sold or exposed for sale, during the hours in which it is unlawful for such place to be open for the sale of spirituous and intoxicating liquors, or who shall purchase intoxicating liquors in any such place, or of the proprietor of any such place, or of any of his servants or agents, either in such place or elsewhere, during such hours, and every person who shall be found in any such place during such hours, shall be fined not more than seven dollars; provided, that this section shall not apply to the proprietor of such place, nor to his servants, nor to officers or other persons who may visit such place for the purpose of ascertaining if the law is being violated therein."

There are certain general rules in relation to the construction of penal statutes which are to be observed. They are to be construed strictly. The courts will not apply them to cases which are not within the obvious meaning of the language employed by the Legislature. To ascertain such intent the primary rule is that the statute is to receive that meaning which the ordinary reading of its language warrants. 26 American and English Encyclopedia of Law, pp. 568, 598, with notes. No act is a violation of a penal statu...