Waterbury evening Democrat., 1904-11-18
THE LAWLOR CASE.
VIII Not Be Taken Up Again Until
 Next VI eek.

The final hearing of tho LawIor will case for this week closed yesterday af- ternoon with Judge Roraback warming the jury against influences of any kind. and to not discuss the matter in the presence of anyone but them. selves.
 Christopher Lawlor. the appellee, was recalled to the stand for a few minutes yesterday afternoon and he testified that he never asked Father Lawlor for any money to buy a horse Then he went into long story of the numerous horses he claimed to have had and then the prosecution closed.
 Mir Williams opened the case for the will by reading the certificate of the proceedings in the probate court rela- tive to the removal of Father Lawlor as conseryator over John Hosey. These papers showed that Matthew Lynch had originally been appointed conserv- ator and upon the petition of parties interested Father Lawlor was appoint ed in his stead This was on August 3l, lS06. A year or so later Father Lawlor was released from this respon- sibility upon the petition of MT Hosey, who was\ thereupon restored to his ca pacfty and the management of his property. This paper shows that Fath- CT Lawlor was not removed upon the petition of anyone for irresponsibility or incapacity. but solely upon the pe- ution of Mir Hosey that he was compe- tent to take care of his own property. It will be recalled that other witnesses testified that Father Lawlor resigiied that office
 Edward L. Futile, teller of the Co., ionial Trust Co, Archie E. Lord, as- sistant cashier of the Manufacturers National bank. testified substantially to the same effect, that is, that Father Lawlor had numerous business trans actions mt the banks in which they were employed, that they always con- sidered him fully competent, bright in mind, physically strong, finely educat- ed and hard to influence. Mir Tuttle testified that he frequently asked his advice about affairs in which he was personally interested. For instance, when he was offered his present posi- tionI he consulted Father yLawior about the advisability of accepting 1t. He always spoke well Of the McEvoy boys. particularly of Martin and Frank.
 Under cross examination MT O'Neill amused the jurors by his questions of MT Futile, as to what standard he gauged Father Lawlor's education by. MT Tuttle ran off the names of score of ancient and modern authors on pub- lfc economies. which caused AIrS Will Hams to occasionally remark, Whats that? I didn't catch that" | Mir Tuttles answer was that he con- sidered Father LawIor was finely ed- ucated because he knew great deal about national affairs and the early history of Waterbury. and he thought that only we'll educated man could know about such affairs.
 Mir Futile frequently called at the house on social as we'll as business matters.
 l The drift of Mir Lords evidence was that Father I.awlor could not be easily 1 influenced.
 1 John Hosey, who has been already mentioned in the case, was q strong l witness for the will. He said that the only reason he applied for tire removal of Father Lawlor as his conservator was because he considered he was com petent to manage his own affairs, and that Father Lawlor did not oppose the petition. He was under the impress sion that his own sisters were opposed
 to the removal of Father Lawlor. ! Attorney Charles c. Root said he
 knew Father Iawlor well and that in
 his opinion he was alwuys competent
 and a gentleman.
 John s. Monagan, neighbor of
 Father Lawlor, was on the stand when
 court adjourned He was also very ! strong witness for tho will. notwitn- { standing that his evidence was of a
 general nature. Court adjourned. ais
 tho opposing lawyers raised point of
 argument as to the financial standing i of Meriden as Catholic parish