Waterbury Democrat., 1902-05-03

end of twenty years. The rental for the house on the corner or Brook and East Main streets for one year would be of no consequence, fe thought The question being repeated, he replied that he could not say be- cause he had never seen the rooms, whereas he knew the building occupied by Mir Hayes for twenty years. He was asked what would be a fair an- nual rental of the place for twenty years under the same conditions as MT Hayes's lease. After a good deal of | figuring by MT Tierney, Mir Williams got impatient and said that as it took so long to get an answer he would not press the question. MT Tierney said | that there was no use Tn getting rar- i tied. If Mir Williams wanted informa- ton he would give it to him, and he returned to his figures. After another wait MT Williams got tired again and withdrew the question. Mir Tierney said he could not give an idea of the size of the adjoining lot owned by Robert K. Brown. nor could he give any idea of it's value. This seemed to surprise Mir Williams in view of Mir Tierney's statement that he knew the Chipman property next door for fifty years. He said he had made up his mind not to testify to anything orly what he knew about, what he had in quired into. "A years rental for MT Hayes's place from July 1, 1899, with the same building on it before the i'm provements were made" he said,
 would be-
 ] "How much?'' asked Mir Williams.
 NIr Tierney began figuring and after
 some time MT Williams walked up to
 the stand and Mir Tierney said:
 Do you want to see my notes:"
 'No. You haven't done any figuring
 yet''
 ''See here. sir,'' said MT Tierney.
 "Do you think you can bulldoze me:''
 No, sir, I do not. But I would like
 to have you answer that question some
 time this forenoon.'
 'I will, sir, answer it. But when
 you are trying to bulldoZe me I cant
 do it.''
 There was a good deal of laughter ] at this, and MT Tierney resumed his notes. After some time he said thai . he thought the rental for 1899 was S1 800. Mir O'Neill then took the witness . and he said allowing the land to be worth about S24,000, a fair renta ] would be $2,400.
 ] l.. R. Carter thought the BrocI
 street property worth $1O0 iron . foot and the East Main street property :. S450 or $500 a front foot. He agreed with MT Tierney that in twenty years , the present buildings would not hay,
 increased the value of the property The buildings would have to be tor1 { down and the material in them would 5 be second hand. A fair rental vaIu, under twenty years lease of the Eas l Main street property, beginning il l 1891, would be $1,S00. and for the liy 2 cry stable next door $500 a year. Tn, . Brown property next door ought |, l bring $2,000 a year.
 Mrs NJ. A. Dougherty was question S ed on the same point She though r the East Main street property wortl e about $500 a front foot. the house an, e lot on the east side of Brook stree t $500 a foot and on Brook street S15O V She thought the property occupied b, h Mir Hayes ought to be worth s. 600 :
 year in rent. All these calculation # she made on her personal experience q and she said that if she were in M k Hayes place she would turn the stor @ into three and charge $7O montl
 rent.