Waterbury evening Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury [Connecticut]) 1903-1917, 1904-11-10
ArORNEYs WRANGLE.
ri Evidence Taken In the LawIo r
Will Case.

~ IS it is how supposed the hearing of
in ! contest over the will of the late
n, tther Martin p. Lawlor will occupy
u, week or more, the superior court,
.e Judge Roraback presiding. took up
+. he matter ut $50 this morning.
TO Mrs Mary A. Lawlor was on the
witness stand when court adjourned
yesterday afternoon. and she was on
when it opened this morning Her
evidence pertains entirely to the prop
erty owned by her and Father Law
Tor. In 1885 there were q number or
attachments on the property once
known as Lawlor's hotel on East Main.
street. These were for taxes and
liens mostly. There was a cloud on
the title and the liens We're foreclosed
hi order to clear up the title. 1t was
understood that the foreclosure shoulG
not interfere with the agreement then
existing between her and Father Laws
lor After the foreclosure the title to
the hotel rested in the names OF Mary
A. and Martin p Lawlor.
Mrs Lawlor did not know that
Father Lawlor ever gave his note for
$1,000 to pay off the liens, or that he
afterward induced the board of alder,
men to cancel the city's claims against
the property for taxes, etc. THAT is
false. utterly false said Mrs Lawlor;
Father I.awlor never did that"
In 1898 Mrs Lawlor entered a sui.
against Father Lawlor for a division
Of their property. She then claimed to
own half interest in the following
properties, the value OF which Mt that
time, she said, was as follows: Corner
South Main and Grand streets, $16,.
900; corner Seovill and Brook streets,
$1,000; Lawlors hotel, $15,O00;s corner
Ma 40 Tofr c%~. ~Ac,
1t seemed that Father Lawkor had
decided the property situated ON the
corner of East Main and Cherry
streets to Martin j.. Joseph p and
Finton T. McEvoy. The suit, however,
was not heard for the purpose for
which it was entered was accom-
plished without going to that end, At
that time Mrs Isawlor, Father Lawlor,
Mrs Lawlor's son and the. McENoy
boys were with her ON Abbott avenue. y
and she testified this morning that she
did not know that the McEvoy boys
had decided the property back to-
Father Lawlor before he made the d.
vision OF the property she had sued
him for.
Before living on Abbott avenue Mrs
Lawlor had lived in the Lawlor hotel
with the McEyoy boys and Father
T.
the place was so large and roomy.
She wanted 1t remodeled and Father
Lawior did not. So she thereuppn
moved to Abbott avenue with her
son and the MeEyoy boys remained
with Father Lawlor, who was their
uncle, at the hotel. In December,
1894 the Platt block fire occurred, and
practically destroyed the Lawlor no.
tel. Father Lawlor and the McEyoy
boys lost all their personal effects and
took UP house with Mrs Lawlor then.
When the parting between Mrs Law
lor and Father Isawl0r took place
their relations were quite harmonious, |
In 1896 they all moved to their pres.
emit residence, Situated on the corner
of North Main street and Spencer ave.
nue, where Father Lawlor died.
This mornings session Of court was
interrupted for short while by a /
wrangle between Mr. O'Neiil and Mr.
Williams over the formers method of
cross examining Mrs Tsawlor. MIR |
O'Neill asked her to identify certain
deed. She did SO and said it was
written by Father Lawlor. OF that
she was positive Mr. O'Neill held she
was mistaken and again asked her to
look at the paper. Two or three times
she said it was written by FatherI
Lawlor. OF that she was positive,
could not he more so, but vet Mr.
O'Neill held she must be mistaken.
Upon the final examination of the doc
ument she said the main portion OF II |
was written by Father Iawlor, and
the rest by Judge Lowe. This, how
ever. did not>effect her first statement |
for il was the main portion of the pa
per she had reference to then.