Waterbury Democrat., 1902-03-26
HE QUESTION OF LICENSES
County Commissioners Held 8
 gession Here To- Day.


 Several Police Officers Testified
 That the Men and the Places Were
 All Right-The Decision Was Re-
 served.
 The remonstrance against liquor li- censes being granted Andrew Leary and Michael Moynihan was heard by County Commissioners Walter and Thompson in the district court today The remonstrants were Father Curtin, Earl Smith and Nathaniel R. Bronson. Only the first named was in court ney Pierce The defense was con- ducted by Attorney Carmody. The remonstrance is based on the ground that the persons and their places are unfit for the conduct of the liquor bus mess.
 The first witness called was Officer Maurice Noonan. He testified in re- sponse to Attorney Carmody's ques- tions that he has been on duty on the Abrigador for some time and that he saw nothing against the law carried on in either Leary's or Moynihan's places. Leary's place is popularly known as ''Sheehy's" and all through the hearing it was referred to by At torney Carmody as "Sheehy's." The officer further stated that he on Sev- eral occasions went to the place in question to see if the law was being violated and he found it was not. In his opinion Sheehy was a responsible and clean" man and suitable to carry on suitable business. He thought MOynihan was also suitable. In re- sponse to Attorney Pierce he said that if it was so that two violations of the law had been committed in both places he would say that they were not proper places for liquor business
 Officer Brearton was the next wit ness. He has been "abouI both places for the past two months and he saw nothing contrary to law car ried on at either of them. He was not aware that the law was ever vio- lated by either of the applicants at their respective saloons. Mir Pierce then asked him the question that had been asked Officer Noonan regarding repeated" violations of the law hav- ing occurred there and he answered like the preceding witness
 Officer Claffey corroborated the above testimony. Upon cross-exam- ination he testified that he had been through Sheehy's place about seven years ago in the performance of his duty. Officer John Sullivan followed. He said that a saloon has been in Sheehy's place for the past 25 years and in Moynihan's for 20 years. He thought both places and the men were suitable for the business in question. Furthermore, in his opinion, the local ity of both saloons was sufficiently po- lfced. Mir Pierce questioned him on this point. He did not seem to agree with the officer because two men cover beat of one square mile, the extent of the beat in question on Sundays The officer said that about eight policemen live in the vicinity of the saloons. Mir Pierce objected to this on the ground that the policemen are not on duty when at home. Mir Carmody claimed It on the grounds that policeman is practically always on duty. He is not allowed to leave the city without leave and place wherein a number of policemen live is necessarily better policed than place where they do not live. For instance, the vicinity of the police station is better protected Hs cause solely of the constant presence or polcemen. The commissioner. however, did not agree with MT Car mody and the evidence referred to was ruled out.
 Officer James Healey was the next witness. The same questions were asked him. He differed from his broth CT officers who had testified regarding saloons where the liquor laws have been violated. He thought it depend ed a great deal on the proprietor One may not be suitable and another may. ''Then you differ from the supreme court" said MT Pierce.
 The following then testified to the suitability of both places for saloons and to the qualities of the men for con- ducting them: Timothy Guilfoile, David Altman, Thomas Fitzgerald, Policeman William Goggins, Patrick Connor, Eugene Sullivan, Thomas Fer ris, Michael Johnson. George Lyuesl and William Fitzgerald The. remon- strants put in no evidence, whereupon Attorney Carmody began his argu- ment. He said that the opinion of those who live in the vicinity of the places 1n question, who knew the men Intimately, who have property in the locality and lived there all if not the greater part of their lives, ought to be taken and have more weight than the evidence of men who neither live there, do not know the applicants. have no property in the locality, and to all practical effects are strangers in that part of the city. He laid much stress upon the fact that licenses have already been granted the men and that there is not single conviction against either of them. It was not fair to the applicants to attach to them the reputation attached to the places by their former proprietors. There are two convictions against each of the places Of the first the speaker knew nothing, but the second everybody was acquainted with. It was ob- tained through the evidence of spot ters, men who have been discredited in the local courts, and one of them was arrested for blackmail not long after his appearance here. Men who have not college educations make a little more noise drinking their glass of beer than men who have been edu- cated. Sheehy and Ferris, the for mer proprietors of these places, lost $500 each, their bonds having been forfeited upon the evidence of spot