Norwich bulletin., 1911-11-01

about two stores in this neighborhood, which the witness said were small, and the attorney asked the commissioners about court ruling on what resi- i dential section was
 Commissioner Moves replied that purely residential, had been ruled to mean completely residential. Mir. Ballou occasioned some amuse- ment by asking the commissioner 1T Attorney Shields question, whether he was a no-icense man, was d pertinent question: When the attorney said he would not press the question, MT. Bal lou replied that he was ordinarily a license man. He testi6ed that he was the accredited agent of the Slater mill in this remonstrance.
 Attorney Shields made the argument for the applicant, speaking of the fact that the remonstrants had stated they had no complaint about the character of the man who wanted the license. He argued that the neighborhood was not purely residential. that the question of police was entirely in the hands of the town, and the majority vote of the town of Griswold for license should be respected, and this application should not be ruled against.
 Want Saloons Bunched.
 Attorney Murray for the remon- strants contended in his argument that they felt that it would be. better to have the licenses granted in Gris- wold all in one locality, for the reason that better police protection could be given. He stated that eight i censes for Griswold was the limit &C., cording to the law and there were that number of applicants for licenses on Railroad avenue.
 He said it would be a bad thing to put a saloon in this Factory Hill neiehborhood, where there were so many women and children, and this but residential district. He argued that the people in this neighborhood were the best judges as to whether a license should be. granted. and they were against the application.
 This closed the hearing on the Jack son application.
 The application of Napoleon Mar cot was brought up next, and postpon- ed till Thursday at 10 a. m. on the re- quest of one remonstrant present
 The Henry Ritchie application was continued also to Thursday, at 10.30 a.. m. The applicant said Attorney John H. Barnes, who was in the room,wOuld represent him, but the attorney said he had only just heard of it. He asked for the continuance. Attorney Murray was on hand for the remonstrants.
 Grenier Application.
 The application of William Grenier was called up. Mr. Grenier was not present and was not represented. There was a remonstrance against this ap plication signed by Alex Shaw and II others The location is in the Emma -Wiilett building on Moth Main street.
 Attorney Murray for the remon- strants described the location of the building. setting in 75 feet from the street where it would be impossible to get an unrestricted sight of the bar in closed hours. in compliance with the law, he said This was also residential district, he claimed, and the house would probably be occupied as dwelling and the remonstrants thought the place unsuitable for a saloon.
 After the attorneys argument this hearing was declared closed by Com missioner Smith.
 Hearings on the following applica- tions were then called in order and de- ciared closed. no remonstrances ap- bearing: J. MOriartY George Green berger & Co. John Shea. Edward Min ard & CO. Michael L. O'Connel1, Jo- seph A. Brown, Joseph P. Farrell.
 The hearing Was finally adjourned al 11.1O o'clock.