The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1909-09-30
APPLICATION
 IS REFUSED County Commissioners Re fuse Liquor License for Broad Street and South
 Avenue
 T. J. Murphy Was Petition CT and a Number of Tax Paying Residents of Neighborhood Favored the Application, But Many Were Opposed to It.

There was a hearing this morning before the County Commissioners on the application of T. J. Murphy for a saloon at 701 Broad street which was favored by a number of we'll known residents of that part of the city and demonstrated against by a. like num- Der. Attorney John J. Cullinan ap- peared for the applicant and Attorney Robert Gould and James H. ORotrke for the remonstrants. Col. Murphy ex- plained that the proposed place of business was at Broad street and South avenue in a newly fitted over apartment house. and in a ne1ghbor- hood where there were not at present many saloons.
 Edward Crowley, a we'll known tax payer of the section, residing at 599 Broad street. could see no objections to a saloon to be placed in the local ity, as it was nearer to those who de- sired to: frequent it, than others.
 David ca5ey s4s ths4 hafayetss rbeet for 43 years. could not find any ob- lection to the proposed location. in fact he thought it would be an advan- tage, and an accommodation to the people.
 ' Jeremiah D. Toomey explained that the neighborhood was not what could bo called fashionable. What it needed most was an up-to-date saloon. one that would put some life into the There are a number of fanatics about saloons. some of whom are driven to say what they do not want to say
 William D. Clifford. of SIS South ave nue. who owns considerable property in that neighborhood. stated that he thought the. location was most desir-. able for a saloon for any one that wanted a drink. It would be an ad- vantage to the locality. as he thought it would make it more home like; '.
 Charles J. Be<ger. a we'll known busi- ness man, owner of the property. stated that he had acquired the land only a short while ago. that he fixed up the buildings there and next to it, and raised the rents from sS to so per month and there was no kick coming. In his opinion the saloon would not in jure the property. A number of other taxpayers who favored the application voiced their opinions.
 Commodore Frances Burritt, of 607 Broad street. was the first of the remonstrants. He stated that he built house in this neighborhood about four years ago, as 1t was entirely residential section. He was not op- posed to saloons taking a drink when he felt like it. M
 s.But to saloon in this section he was opposed, as it was not only a det- riment, but was a loss to property. SIl cFOSS uS-. nied the statement that LaCroix & Anderson and Morrissey and other owners of saloons in this locality had approached him to get up a remon-, strance against the proposed saloon.s
 Mrs. Ann E. Hubbard, of 543 Broad street, was very much opposed to Sa- looms in any sections. Saloons" she said, ought to be on Water street. And they wouldn't be there if had my way" She stated that she had been a resident of this locality for a number of years.
 Mrs. Mary c. Christianson, of 191 South avenue, appeared against the application. Her home was the next door to the proposed saloon, which if established would depreciate the val ue of her property. She explained that a number of children pass the corner on their way to Prospect Street School, only a block away. She added, "I have no objection to saloons or to Col. Murphy, but I wish Col. Murphy would try somewhere else. It is business object to the saloon. have a very good class ofp boarders, whom I feel sure I cannot honestly retain, if the saloon is located there" Attorney Cullinan inquired: Don't you think the corner would be much frightened up if a saloon with a number of bright lights in the front was placed there.'' 'If nice little home was placed there, think it would add more to the attractiveness of the scene" re-, sponded Mrs. Christianson. "But," ad-l ded Attorney Cullinan,'' if a nice lit tie saloon was there?" 'But, I don't know of any nice saloons" chimed in Mrs. Christianson.
 David Gibson of Houston street was the last remonstrant called. He stat ed that he had no objection to saloons, but thought there were enough in the neighborhood already. .-s
 Other witnesses called testified that the neighborhood was a very peaceful one.
 At the conclusion of the testimony the commissioners went into executive session and decided to refuse the ap- plication on the ground that it had been shown that the neighborhood was sufficiently residential fa exclude