State v. Van Keegan
| Decision Date | 22 March 1955 |
| Citation | 142 Conn. 229,113 A.2d 141 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. William O. VAN KEEGAN. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut |
John S. Barton, Bridgeport, for the appellant (defendant).
James J. O'Connell, Prosecuting Atty., Bridgeport, for the appellee (state).
Before O'SULLIVAN, WYNNE, and DALY, JJ., and ALCORN and PHILLIPS, Superior Court Judges.
The defendant was charged, in the information, with the crimes of making and fitting ophthalmic products without having obtained a license from, and without having been registered by, the commission of opticians, in violation of the provisions of § 4508 of the General Statutes; of operating an optical establishment without an optical license selling permit as required by the provisions of § 1702c of the 1953 Cumulative Supplement to the General Statutes; and of processing optical glasses and instruments without an optical license processing permit as required by § 1702c. His case was tried to the court. He was found guilty on each of the three counts and has appealed from the judgment.
The facts are as follows: On or about February 23, 1946, the defendant, by his attorney, filed with the commission of opticians his application for a permit as a licensed optician. In an accompanying letter, it was stated that the defendant had reservations as to the validity of the statutes providing for the licensing of opticians and that the application was filed without waiver of his rights. The commission approved his application for a license and notified him to appear in Hartford on April 18, 1946, for an examination. By letter to the commission dated April 17, his attorney claimed that § 665h of the 1945 Supplement to the General Statutes, then in effect, neither permitted nor required the taking of an examination as a prerequisite to obtaining a license and stated that the defendant would not submit to the examination. In addition, it was claimed that, if § 665h did require the defendant to take an examination, it was discriminatory and unconstitutional. On October 30, 1946, the commission notified the defendant to appear for examination on November 11. On November 5, his attorney notified the commission that the defendant again refused to take any examination on the grounds previously stated.
On February 5 and 11, 1954, the defendant produced and reproduced ophthalmic lenses, mounted them to supporting materials and fitted them by mechanical means. He also operated an optical store in Bridgeport where he made and dispensed reproductions of optical glasses. He had not obtained any of the licenses provided for by §§ 4508 and 1702c. For at least eleven years he had engaged in business as an optician and had maintained an optical establishment in Bridgeport.
The defendant claims that § 4508, the violation of which was charged in the first count, is unconstitutional and invalid, 'in that it, together with Section 665h of the 1945 Supplement to the General Statutes, and Section 767i of the 1947 Supplement to the General Statutes, as amended,' 1 constitutes a grant of exclusive public emoluments or privileges, deprives him of liberty and property without due course or process of law, abridges his privileges and immunities and denies him the equal protection of the laws. He asserts that § 4508 had its origin in § 665h, which was, he contends, as he did in 1946, unconstitutional and invalid because of the provisions contained in its subsections (c), (d) and (e). He takes the position that licenses held by others at the time he was convicted under § 4508 were renewals of licenses which were issued without examination by the commission under, and by the purported authority contained in subsections (c), (d) and (e) of § 665h and which were invalid because they had been granted to holders of licenses or renewals of licenses previously issued, without examination, under and by the provisions of § 1164c of the 1935 Cumulative Supplement to the General Statutes, which was held invalid for uncertainty in State v. Van Keegan, 132 Conn. 33, 38, 42 A.2d 352.
The rationale of the contention of the defendant that § 4508 is unconstitutional is that he was discriminated against in being tried and convicted under it while other persons who had invalid licenses, obtained without examination and under the provisions of invalid statutes, were permitted to make and fit ophthalmic products. He does not maintain that the provisions of § 4508 or those of any other existing statute permitted or caused the situation of which he complains. On the contrary, he relies upon invalid provisions of § 1164c of the 1935 Cumulative Supplement, which was repealed in 1945, at the time when § 665h became effective; Sup.1945, § 667h; and claimed invalid provisions of §§ 665h and 767i, which were repealed when the 1949 Revision, which included § 4508, became effective on January 15, 1949. General Statutes, § 8894; Public Act No. 8, Spec.Sess., Aug.1948. Any discussion of the claims of error as to matters in the determination of which §§ 1164c, 665h and 767i were involved would be academic as far as the decision of this case is concerned. It is the established policy of this court not to decide issues of that nature. Anastasio v. Gulf Oil Corporation, 131 Conn. 708, 719, 42 A.2d 149.
It is true that the trial court did conclude that the validation of licenses, permits and certificates of others and the denial of an optician's license to the defendant under § 665h did not abridge his privileges or immunities, did not deny him the equal protection of the laws, did not deprive him of liberty and property without due process of law and did not constitute a grant of exclusive public emoluments or privileges. The correctness of these conclusions, however, is immaterial if the conclusion that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of violation of § 4508, as charged in the first count, is supported by other valid grounds. Chouinard v. Zoning Commission, 139 Conn. 728, 732, 97 A.2d 562; Dillon v. American Brass Co., 135 Conn. 10, 16, 60 A.2d 661; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Richmond, 107 Conn. 117, 119, 139 A. 702; Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc., § 18.
Section 4508 authorizes the commission of opticians 'to issue license certificates * * * to all persons who lawfully apply for the same, upon their submitting to the commission an acceptable written application, and after they have passed examinations' as thereinafter provided. It contains no provision empowering the commission to issue a license certificate to any person who has not passed the required examination. The statute under which the defendant was convicted in the first count is not unconstitutional on the grounds claimed by him. If it should be determined in a proper proceeding that other persons who, as claimed by the defendant, had invalid licenses were making and fitting ophthalmic products in violation of the provisions of § 4508, their having done so would not relieve the defendant from complying with its requirements. In any event, it is not for us to determine in this case whether...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Krozel
...of a given case, and must thereafter be kept alive by appropriate steps; otherwise it will be considered waived. State v. Van Keegan, 142 Conn. 229, 236, 113 A.2d 141; Kenmike Theatre, Inc. v. Moving Picture Operators, Local 304, 139 Conn. 95, 100, 90 A.2d 881; Grasso v. Frattolillo, 111 Co......
-
State v. Daley
...State v. Hicks, 213 Or. 619, 638, 325 P.2d 794, certiorari denied 359 U.S. 917, 79 S.Ct. 594, 3 L.Ed.2d 579; see State v. Van Keegan, 142 Conn. 229, 234, 113 A.2d 141. Claims similar to those advanced here by the defendant have been held in other jurisdictions to be insufficient to establis......
-
State v. Cullum
...to that oral testimony. We do not feel constrained to rule on this claim, since it is now made for the first time. State v. Van Keegan, 142 Conn. 229, 236, 113 A.2d 141. Furthermore, the doctor's oral testimony was identical with that appearing in his notes, which were admitted in evidence,......
-
Jeschor v. Town of Guilford
...at the trial, ruled upon and decided by the court adversely to the defendant, it is not necessary to discuss them. State v. Van Keegan, 142 Conn. 229, 236, 113 A.2d 141; American Brass Co. v. Ansonia Brass Workers' Union, 140 Conn. 457, 463, 101 A.2d 291; Practice Book, § 409. The plaintiff......