Waterbury evening Democrat., 1906-03-20
GARRETT SAVERS LICENSE.
Lengthy Hearing To-Day Before the
 County Commissioners.

Garrett Savers application for a transfer of his liquor license from 296 Bank street to 141 Baldwin street came up for a second hearing to-day before the county commission CTS. Attorney Russell appeared for the petitioner and Attorney Minor for the remonstrants. Morris Apple baum, whose name was on the re- monstrance, testified that when he signed it he was under the impres- sion that it was for another purpose. He had no objection to Savers being granted d license. Attorney Russell then stated that the others whose names were on the remOnstrance lived in various parts of the city, far away from 147 Baldwin street. The only parties who testified against the application were Sergeant Blakely, Officers Healey, Mclean and J. Mc- Carthy. The gist of their evidence was that arrests had been made at the place for violating the liquor laws and that the cellar was connect ed with the cellars of the other ten- ants, but not with the saloon inside.
 Daniel Sullivan, the owner of the premises, testified that anyone can see the interior of the place from the sidewalk. notwithstanding that the police officers testified to the con- trary. There is a door in the build ing, not directly connected with the saloon premises. through which a few holes had been bored for yenti- lation purposes. Savers then took the stand and testified that he was never in trouble with the law and that 147 Baldwin street is far better adapted for saloon purposes than 29G Bank street. by which he meant there was more business in that con- munity.
 The situation was summed up in the arguments of counsel. Attorney Russell referred to Attorney Minors connection with the board of public safety. insinuating that because he was a commissioner of that board he was engaged to contest this applica- tion. It was an unusual remon- strance, he said for only four police men testified. He asked if the day has come when the board Of county commissioners shall be dictated to by any person or corporation as to whether a citizen shall be denied . chance of making a living under fair and proper conditions. The board Is a court. he contended. and the case before 1t was to be tried like a case in court. Policemen can be had any day to testify to whatever is wanted. Is Savers responsible for the acts of others? he asked And has there a person in the community in which he asks this license offered any ob- lection to it? No. not even those who keep saloons there.
 Attorney Minor in reply said his being on the board of safety had nothing to do with the case. Attor- ney Russell was shy on the main question involved. What better tes- timony could be had than the police mems? Are there any more compe- tent witnesses to be had2 Don't they know everything that is going on. What were the holes in the door for? Strange. they were put only in one door. Attorney Minor spoke only a few minutes.
 Attorney Russell in closing said John Hurley conducted saloon in this place for ten years and had ney- CT had any trouble with the law. and MT Savers was not to be held re- sponsible for the acts of others. If the screen law was violated it was strange there was never any prose cution for so doing. If there are doors that ought not to be there they can be sealed up and partitions torn down and the place SO constructed that the business can be done there in compliance with the law.
 Decision was reserved.