Waterbury Democrat., 1902-05-12
EXPERT TESTIFIES
E. w. Mooring on Stand To-Day
 in Will Hearing.
RENTS ON EAST MAIN STREET.

"
 The Idea Being to Show That the
 Dead Man Did Not Get Enough for
 His Property -Nephews of the Dead
 Man Were Also on the Stand To-day.
 The probate hearing on the contest ed will of the late Daniel l.. Chipman was resumed to-day in the superior court room before Judge Huntington of Woodbury. There were not so many of the interested parties pres ent as there were at the last hear ing, nor even so many real estate dealers. And the attendance of spec tators was so small that no one would get the idea that there were in issue $114,000 of the dead mans money.
 E. w. Mooring was the first wit ness. He was put on to follow out the line of evidence that was started at the second hearing; that is, to show that the lease given by testator to Thomas H. Hayes for 20 years of the premises on East Main street, where MT Hayes conducts a cafe and liquor business, was an improvident bargain for MT Chipman. He was asked the same questions as previous witnesses were relative to the annual rental of MT Hayes premises under conditions like those which Mir Hayes leased 1t, that is, replace a weather-beaten, tum- ble-down frame building in 1891 with the present two-story structure and pay all the taxes and all incidental ex- penseS. MT Mooring could not say what rent such place should draw as he did not know what the taxes are. Tn reply to AIr O'Neill he said that $40,000 building on the site in question would not pay for itself in 20 years. the lower floor to rent for $175 a quarter. He thought the build ing in '91 was worth S60 a month and that the land is worth from $35O to $500 a front foot.
 James K. Phelan, the tea and coffee man on East Main street. told that his rent for the store near MT Hayes is $6O for the first six years and $7O for the ensuing six years.
 l.. R. King, the tobacconist next to MT Phelan, gave similar testimony, also Mrs Martha, next door, The next witness was William IF. Lowe, rent collector and real estate dealer. He said that the property, minus the buildings on it, is worth about S42.OOO. Before 1891 he would not give more than $500 or $6OO year. It ought to draw $1.O0O for ground rent now, the tenant to pay all the taxes.
 Daniel l.. Chipman, nephew of tes- tator and named after him, stated he l is 20 years old and lives on Clark street. His associations with testa- tor were always very friendly, but he recalled a few occasions on which they had a difference. Once his uncle struck him and he-the uncle-said the witness would be sorry after he-the | uncle-were gone. Another occasion witness would have left his uncle's house but for his aunt Eventually witness did leave testator's house when he rented his place to a family | named Spears. This was in 1893. | During the last few years of his life testator was very deaf. Once he said to witness, 'Now, I suppose your in- come is considerable every year?'' Witness did not know what testator meant and could not get him to ex- plain, he was so deaf Another time testator failed to recognize witness This was the first indication witness noticed of what he considered mental weakness. At that time he was a bookkeeper in wholesale fruit and produce house in this city. Witness considered it very strange that his uncle should think his income Icon siderable" when he ought to have known that it was far from consider able. Witness thought testator did not know what he was talking about Witness had no income only his sal ary as bookkeeper
 Edgar Chipman, the nephew who was disinherited by the codicil to the 1 will, was the next witness. He said ] he did not know of his being left a i legacy of $2,000 and that he had been afterwards cut off until he had read it in the papers. Witness was once to testator's house since his second mar riage. Then he was one in sur prise party gotten up by the Metho- l dist church congregation. At that l time witness did not notice anything l peculiar in his uncles conduct
 Hollis B. Segur, who was also in the surprise party, testified that he married a niece of testafor. He said ! that the greater part of the evening 1 testator sat in his chair and spoke I very little to his guests. He did not seem to be interested i'll them, but was evidently pleased with the com 1 pliment implied i'll their coming. II i a general way witness considered tes tator feeble old man in his dotage' His second marriage witness looked upon as a farce. Testator did noth- ing irrational at the party. but from his general appearance and his talk witness concluded his mind was af 1 fected, vet he could not recall any. thing he said either in a particular ol a general way, or even the substance of any of his conversation.
 ''You are interested in breaking the will, are you not?" asked MT Will Hams.
 My wife is niece"
 ''You know what I said and what mean"
 "I know that my wife is niece"
 s'Did you not go to Beacon Falls t effect a settlement?'
 No. sir.''
 I sDid you not see MT Church, one o
 the witnesses to the will?'
 'Yes. I saw him in Derby, but I di, not see MT Baldwin,"
 The latter lives in Beacon Falls.
 The next witness was Irwin Church