Waterbury evening Democrat., 1904-08-18
BROADWAY HOTEL CASE.
Writ of Execution for Monday May
 be Stay in Proceedings.

The case of M. A. Dougherty vs David Mulcahy for the possession of the Broadway hotel was decided 1n favor of the plaintiff before Judge Peasley and a jury in the city court yesterday afternoon. Attorney Car mody, in behalf of Mrs Dougherty moved for immediate execution while Attorney Durant opposed it, stating that great interests were involved and 1t would be no small matter Tor MT Mulcahy to vacate the premises. He said that there was no need or any hurry in the matter or any cause for fear on Mrs Dougherty's part that she would lose any money by it because MT Mulcahy would fur- nish a large bond that he would pay the rent if the case is finally decided against him. MT Carmody said that his client could not afford to wait un- til the case went to the supreme court and she wanted the money Dad- ly now: $250 a month was pig sum- Judge Peasley granted writ of exc cution for Monday morning at. o'clock. Attorney Durant gave notlce that he would file a writ of error within the next AS hours. II this writ is granted by Judge Peasley It will serve as a stay for the writ of the execution, but if it. is refused Mulcahy will have to vacate the Broadway hotel by next Monday un- less some agreement is reached pe- tween him and Mrs Dougherty.
 The trial was brief, but was char acterized by the exclusion of nearly all the questions asked of his witness, Mir Mulcahy. by Attorney Durant. Mrs Dougherty was the only witness for the plaintiff and MT Mulcahy Tor the defendant Mrs Dougherty testl- fled about the drawing of the lease, about MuIcahy taking possession ana about his violation of the lease by failing to pay the rent of July and August a month in advance or i've days after the first of each month. The lease said that Mrs Dougherty should make certain repairs ana At torney Durant was questioning her III regard to these matters when Attor- ney Carmody objected stating that II was immaterial and irrelevant ><lL mattered not whether Mrs Dougherry had promised to make certain repalrs and had not done so, for this dld not concern the present case. The ques, tfons were excluded by the Juoge anu Attornev Durant took an exception. NIT MulCHuY UOOk JllO oleahN NAAA ed that he had paid the rent under protest several times and finally re- fused to pay it because Mrs Dough erty had not made certain repairs that she agreed to. This testimony was excluded by the judge as being fmmaterial and-irrelevant. Of about bO questions asked by Attorney Du- rant all but five or six of them were excluded. Tn each instance an excep- lion was taken by Attorney Durant. All the questions asked in regard to Mrs Dougherty agreeing to make re- pairs were excluded as immaterial. The lease distinctly states that If the rent, S25O a month, is not paid live s days after the first of each month, Mrs Dougherty has right to take possession of the premises. It was nn this point that Attorney Carmody waged his case and won.
 The jury, which consisted of George Alexander William F. Grilly, U. P. Morgan, John A. Osborn, John A. Edmondson and Charles Miller, was out but 15 minutes when 1t re- turned a verdict for the plaintiff.