Waterbury Democrat., 1902-05-03

Sa1Q that klndneSS Woulu uO d SAOde deal with MT Chipman, but anyone who annoyed him would be apt to make trouble for themselves. Yet Mr Adams could not tell of an instai;ce where kindness was rewarded by him or kindness influenced him except on one occasion. That was that he be- lieved Mir Chipmans first wife inf1u- enced him to get after witness about his note. Witness induced him to get q carriage to take his wife out by tell ing him that Rob Brown would do Just that thing: but witness believed that was precisely what Mir Chipman ought to do whether or not MT Brown would do so In '95 witness first made up hls mind that Mir Chipman was not com potent to make q will, and since then he had not been competent. Witness qualified this statement by saying he would not have Mir Chipman do much business for him.
 William T. Riether, who was one Of the witnesses to the will. was the next witness He testified that he did not hear the will read; but lie did hear MT Chipman say that the paper was his will. Witness did not know the con- tents of the document, nor did ne have to read it when he went to sign it. He, however, presumed that everything was right then and he had no reason to change his mind since.
 Attorney Fenton J. Phelan, another witness to the will, said he knew noth- ing as to the circumstances attending the drawing up of the will. whether it was drawn up from instructions left by Mir Chipman or at his dictation. The will and the cOdicil were not read out loud to AIr Chipman. but he knew 1t was MT Chpman's will. and Mir Chipman knew it also. else witness would not have signed it. He consid- cred MT Chipman always competent to do business. and he did not remember If Mrs Chipman was present when either the will or codicil was signed.
 To MT O'Neil1 witness repeated that he considered MT Chipman was always competent to make will and do busi- ness. Mir O'Neill asked him if he would give MT Chipman $500 to loan out for him. and he said he would He allowed that MT Chipman might be wheedled out of the money. but that might happen to anyone else, but not to himself.
 Mrs Mary Butler. widow of Florence Butler of Bishop stret, testified to her husband being employed by T. H. Hayes on what is referred to as the Brown street property
 Emmon Chipman, one of the contest Ing nephews. gave a brief history of me above named property. Witnesss hrst recollection of it was it was occu- pied by his father as a grocery and hquor store; then by Thomas. William and Edward Longworth. and then by John Hayes and lastly the present ten ant. T. H. Hayes. That was all from this witness.
 ID. H. Tierney was next. He was put on as an expert real estate dealer to give evidence as to the value of tht property mentioned He said that h. has not leased any property on Eas Main street during the last twent, years, but he was we'll acquainted witt rents and property on it.
 Assuming" said MT O'NeilI. "tha In '91 there was an old establishe, business there. what do you thinl ought to be the rent. assuming ther was to be lease for twenty years?"
 Objected to on the ground that tn question did not describe the building MT O'Neill thereupon described. II then slated that Mir Hayes was no obliged to make the repairs or put u .. the present building. Opposing cour sel claimed that MT Hayes was bonn to put up such a building and pay a, the taxes on if. A wrangle betwee the attorneys was the result. afr Wi Hams held that the evidence was tha the twenty years lease to AIr Have was given under the express agreemer that such building as it is should Il erected, and he should also pay all fll taxes. Mir O'Neill held that the Ieas contained no such provision. MT Wi Hams answered that AIr Hayes and Al Chipman understood each other. Ina full confidence in each other and was on the above agreement that il lease was given. Mir O'Neill quote the lease and stated that according 1t MT Chipman could not make \ Hayes put up any building on il property or make any repairs. Wha ever improvements he has made l made voluntarily. He was rot boilr to make any,
 The question was ruled out 1t ": then put in another form. describil the property as it stood thirty yea ago. and that the Improvements no existing in it should be made. w 1CSS SdlU d annual rent for SIch place under such conditions would S1,IOO. He thought that to keep in I pair such building as this was befo the improvements were made wou cost about $34 or S35 a year. TT taxes. he said. ought to be about S2 or $500 a year. This was in 1891. F was then asked if $7O0 a year was II just rent He said he did not, e elusive of paying taxes and water rel Answer was: "No. sir''
 What is the difference in value Il tween the old building as it was in ; and the present building?"
 Objected Allowed. Witness a swered: ''I don't place much value the present building" Asked to
 more definite, he> said, after To pause: sI would not give $500 for | difference
 ''Then you mean to say that [ present building is not worth Iac than $500 over the old building as was in 1S71T"
 Yes, for that site"
 Adjournment was taken at this poi
 This morning Mir Tierney resum the stand. In reply to Mir O'Neill,
 l. loo