Waterbury evening Democrat., 1903-11-05
MICHAEL DONAHUE
One of Waterbury's Oldest Citizen'

One of the very old residents of the city. Michael Donahue, formerly Of
 Spring street and now of East Main
 street, was testifying at press hour yes
 terday in the case of Lawlor vs Scad- den, which has been before Judge ,I George w. Wheeler and a jury in the
 superior court a week. MT Donanue
 said he came to this city in the spring
 of 1S36 and after remaining here short time went west. He remained
 west a year or so and then returned.
 In 1843 he went west again and upon
 his return lived on Cole street. BACK
 and forth to the west he went .occa-
 sionally until about forty years ago,
 when he Settled in town and has re- amined here since. Next June, if he
 lives, and his looks indicate that he I will he will be ST years of age.
 MT Donahue said he knew 'old man"
 McGivney very well. His knowledge
 of him, however, did not differ very
 much from that of the other witnesses 1 in a general way. They used Ire
 quently to visit each other and when
 Mrs McGfvney was sick MT McG1vney
 called to see witness to advise him
 about his wife's money. McGivney l wanted Witness's assistance in 1nduc-
 ing her to deed it over to him. Mrs
 McGivney was in doubt as to what
 was best to do and acted upon the sug- l gestion of her husbands friend, wit ness, that it would be the best thing
 she could do with 1t, to will it to her husband. She had about $7,0OO. s'
 Whenever McGivney wished to see witness he invariably sent word through Thomas Scadden, one of the l defendants For instance, when he ! desired to make his will he sent word in that manner to have MT Donahue bring along Attorney Gillette. This was the first will. Thomas Scadden was a witness to that instrument and witness was executor McGivney said 1 the Rev Patrick McGivney wanted to | be named executor, but he, McGiyney,
 would not have 1t. 1 Witness was not sure, but to the best of his recollection the McGivney clergymen got about $250 each in that | will and their sisters about $15O each. ! McGivney often spoke about some ] difference he had with the plaintiffs | father over well. He accused him of having removed the buckets from 1 1t, and he also spoke of some trouble over some sheds in back lot. A sec on& will was drawn in McGivney's
 
 time. He could not say who else was there outside of the Scaddens and At torney Gillette.
 Witness recalled one day the plain tiff visiting McGiyney. The Scaddens entered and a good deal of talk fol lowed. Plaintiff was heard to say that the old man ought to give her family as much as he gave others, and he re piled that he knew what be was doing better than anyone else and he was able to manage his own affairs. ! A few days before McGivney died i witness visited him, and McGivney told him that he had disposed of every thing as fle thought best and hoped there would be no trouble over it after he was gone.
 Under cross-examination MT Dona- hue said that McGivney told him he had disposed of his property as he wished and in way that would place it beyond the reach of the lawyers. He was always very careful of his money and witness considered him of sound mind.
 Witness was asked if he thought McGivney's mind was sound when he drew 5000 from the bank in certit1- cates, leaving the money in bank, but I depriving himself of the interest, and witness said he could not say; he could not tell what he himself would do under the circumstances, and he never l heard him complain of the Scaddens 1 trying to get his property from him.. He never heard him say that no one would get his property while he lived, and witness did not know that for some, time before McGivneys s death he did | e. md Aye penny to his name. Witness was 1 aware that Mrs Patrick Thompson got 1 $1,OOO at the same time Mrs Scadden got $5,OoO. and he asked McGivney why he did not give Mrs Thompson l more, because she deserved it, and Mo- Givney said he would probably give her boy something for his education; yet witness was aware, or understood, l that what was left at that time was reserved for incidentals such as fu- neral expenses and masses. He did not see. nor did he inquire, how Me- G1vney could give away any more l money
 Philip McGivney went on the stand | this forenoon. after MT Donahue. He | said he went no oftener to see his uncle | before he got the money than after, and that when the old man asked him after he hadS given him the money why 1 he did not come oftener, he said his rea- son was-that people would think he was after his money. After he had 1 been given the money the old man told him that he did not want to have any law suits or quarrels over his property when he was no more. The l deed to the lot given by McGivney to witness's children was produced and 3Av~e lyY1nv rsNQ erty as described in the deed, yet wit ness is in possession of a lot purported to be the lot conveyed in the deed men, tioned. He could not tell how McGiy- ney came to describe the lot in that manner The value of this lot was in- uufred into by Attorney O'Neill and Attorney Williams objected. MT O'Neill claimed it was to show that MnGiunau gave tha lnt tn witness he