intoxicating liquor is not involved, one has to be specially and injuriously affected in his property or other legal rights. 153 C. 37. Plaintiff, as a taxpayer, is an aggrieved person in a case in which traffic in liquor is involved without having to show that he has an interest peculiar to himself. Id., 117. Where transcript of board hearing was incomplete and plaintiff raised constitutional issue of confiscation, he should have been permitted to introduce additional evidence. Id., 343, 344. Cited. Id., 433, 437. In order to qualify as aggrieved persons under section, plaintiffs must show that the value of their property would be lessened or that their legal rights would be injuriously affected. 154 C. 46, 47. Right to produce evidence under section may be waived by stipulation of a party. Id., 393. Plaintiffs did not qualify as aggrieved persons to appeal granting of variance where only claim to aggrievement was that their property adjoined that for which variance was granted. 155 C. 241, 242. In light of record and express allegations of impropriety and illegality, additional testimony of what occurred at executive session of board was necessary and permitted. Id., 245. Where plaintiff appealed claiming amendments were an unconstitutional denial of due process since they were confiscatory and would put him out of business, trial court should have permitted introduction of additional evidence limited to question of constitutionality of ordinance, complete transcript of hearings before commission being insufficient evidence in the case. Id., 265. Cited. 155 C. 365. Order of reference for a finding of facts on the issue of aggrievement and to take additional evidence to complete the record is not final judgment from which appeal lies under Sec. 52-263. Id., 617. While